[Cbocgo1]

From hearing wt the luncheon that we always counter 3 WR sets with nickel, to seeing 1st hand in the Rose Bowl v Michigan State, at Utah at the goal line to win in 2013 I believe, & Sat nite at the Coliseum getting smacked riding with a base 2-5-4 (understand deploying depth/strength with LBs versus our lack of depth/experience at DL) with no creativity (how about run-blitz with a backer or 2, move DL into different gaps or head-on, or even change-up with 3 DLs (they can't get experience if they don't play)
Also, who thought that a S (#5) blitz would work - never got there & burned each time
 
Versus Hulk & Hank who I respect, here I can't agree - Shaw's "stubbornness" lost us the opportunity to win another Rose Bowl & to beat Utah; Sat nite, at least he score may have been closer

[Cbocgo1]

From hearing wt the luncheon that we always counter 3 WR sets with nickel, to seeing 1st hand in the Rose Bowl v Michigan State, at Utah at the goal line to win in 2013 I believe, & Sat nite at the Coliseum getting smacked riding with a base 2-5-4 (understand deploying depth/strength with LBs versus our lack of depth/experience at DL) with no creativity (how about run-blitz with a backer or 2, move DL into different gaps or head-on, or even change-up with 3 DLs (they can't get experience if they don't play)
Also, who thought that a S (#5) blitz would work - never got there & burned each time
 
Versus Hulk & Hank who I respect, here I can't agree - Shaw's "stubbornness" lost us the opportunity to win another Rose Bowl & to beat Utah; Sat nite, at least he score may have been closer

[Hulk01]

I'm reluctant to question head coaches of successful football teams.  I am, relative to them, an idiot.

[Hulk01]

I'm reluctant to question head coaches of successful football teams.  I am, relative to them, an idiot.

[JohnR34231]

I'm reluctant to question head coaches of successful football teams.  I am, relative to them, an idiot.

You're right, of course, but for some people questioning head coaches is half the fun of being a fan.

[JohnR34231]

I'm reluctant to question head coaches of successful football teams.  I am, relative to them, an idiot.

You're right, of course, but for some people questioning head coaches is half the fun of being a fan.

[stupac2]

...Because if you leave a standard 3-4 against a 3-WR set someone's going to get open, and probably pretty quickly. Would you rather give up a 4-6 yard run or a 15+ yard pass? There's a reason people are saying that Nickel is increasing common at every level, even in the NFL teams are running sub defenses more often than base now.

If you want to question Shaw's decision-making as it pertains to the outcome of the USC game, the only reasonable question is why our recruiting has left us in the position where we couldn't defend the run at all in Nickel. Of course, the answer might just be "USC is really good this year" and/or "This game was kind of fluky". It's football, sometimes shit happens.

[stupac2]

...Because if you leave a standard 3-4 against a 3-WR set someone's going to get open, and probably pretty quickly. Would you rather give up a 4-6 yard run or a 15+ yard pass? There's a reason people are saying that Nickel is increasing common at every level, even in the NFL teams are running sub defenses more often than base now.

If you want to question Shaw's decision-making as it pertains to the outcome of the USC game, the only reasonable question is why our recruiting has left us in the position where we couldn't defend the run at all in Nickel. Of course, the answer might just be "USC is really good this year" and/or "This game was kind of fluky". It's football, sometimes shit happens.

[JohnR34231]

My take is:
1. U$C is really good this year.
2. We got their A game- they were pointing towards us, much like Washington last year.

We could conceivably see them again, but we'll have to get by the Huskies, and we better hope they don't bring their A game.

[JohnR34231]

My take is:
1. U$C is really good this year.
2. We got their A game- they were pointing towards us, much like Washington last year.

We could conceivably see them again, but we'll have to get by the Huskies, and we better hope they don't bring their A game.

[Hulk01]

That was a remarkable QB behind a very good OL throwing to excellent receivers having career days, or handing the ball to an exceptional pair of running backs.  I'm not sure our 2013 or 2014 defenses could have held them under 30 points. 

We didn't play our best, but hot teams often bring out the worst in good teams.  It just happens. 

And I think we're a good team.  How good, not sure.

[Hulk01]

That was a remarkable QB behind a very good OL throwing to excellent receivers having career days, or handing the ball to an exceptional pair of running backs.  I'm not sure our 2013 or 2014 defenses could have held them under 30 points. 

We didn't play our best, but hot teams often bring out the worst in good teams.  It just happens. 

And I think we're a good team.  How good, not sure.

[JohnR34231]

That was a remarkable QB behind a very good OL throwing to excellent receivers having career days, or handing the ball to an exceptional pair of running backs.  I'm not sure our 2013 or 2014 defenses could have held them under 30 points. 

We didn't play our best, but hot teams often bring out the worst in good teams.  It just happens. 

And I think we're a good team.  How good, not sure.

That's the way I saw it. A good team losing to a great team.
Hopefully we will close the gap as the season goes along.

[JohnR34231]

That was a remarkable QB behind a very good OL throwing to excellent receivers having career days, or handing the ball to an exceptional pair of running backs.  I'm not sure our 2013 or 2014 defenses could have held them under 30 points. 

We didn't play our best, but hot teams often bring out the worst in good teams.  It just happens. 

And I think we're a good team.  How good, not sure.

That's the way I saw it. A good team losing to a great team.
Hopefully we will close the gap as the season goes along.

[martyup]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=17394.msg200538#msg200538 date=1505407258]
That was a remarkable QB behind a very good OL throwing to excellent receivers having career days, or handing the ball to an exceptional pair of running backs.  I'm not sure our 2013 or 2014 defenses could have held them under 30 points. 

We didn't play our best, but hot teams often bring out the worst in good teams.  It just happens. 

And I think we're a good team.  How good, not sure.

That's the way I saw it. A good team losing to a great team.
Hopefully we will close the gap as the season goes along.
[/quote]

Agree.  And add that we didn't make a bunch of stupid mistakes like we did in the NW travesty.  We played a clean game and got beat. 

[martyup]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=17394.msg200538#msg200538 date=1505407258]
That was a remarkable QB behind a very good OL throwing to excellent receivers having career days, or handing the ball to an exceptional pair of running backs.  I'm not sure our 2013 or 2014 defenses could have held them under 30 points. 

We didn't play our best, but hot teams often bring out the worst in good teams.  It just happens. 

And I think we're a good team.  How good, not sure.

That's the way I saw it. A good team losing to a great team.
Hopefully we will close the gap as the season goes along.
[/quote]

Agree.  And add that we didn't make a bunch of stupid mistakes like we did in the NW travesty.  We played a clean game and got beat. 

[OutsiderFan]

That was a remarkable QB behind a very good OL throwing to excellent receivers having career days, or handing the ball to an exceptional pair of running backs.  I'm not sure our 2013 or 2014 defenses could have held them under 30 points. 

We didn't play our best, but hot teams often bring out the worst in good teams.  It just happens. 

And I think we're a good team.  How good, not sure.

I think the likelihood is those Stanford defenses would have held them under 30.  It's not appropriate to look at how many yards Stanford gave up in 2017, conclude SC is unstoppable, and then say the 2014 defense wouldn't have stood a chance either.  The 2014 defense was one of the best in the country that year.  And, Stanford simply doesn't allow that many possessions in games.

[OutsiderFan]

That was a remarkable QB behind a very good OL throwing to excellent receivers having career days, or handing the ball to an exceptional pair of running backs.  I'm not sure our 2013 or 2014 defenses could have held them under 30 points. 

We didn't play our best, but hot teams often bring out the worst in good teams.  It just happens. 

And I think we're a good team.  How good, not sure.

I think the likelihood is those Stanford defenses would have held them under 30.  It's not appropriate to look at how many yards Stanford gave up in 2017, conclude SC is unstoppable, and then say the 2014 defense wouldn't have stood a chance either.  The 2014 defense was one of the best in the country that year.  And, Stanford simply doesn't allow that many possessions in games.

[lex24]

You ever consider that Shaw's "stubbornness" put thenm in that Rose Bowl (and two others) and gave them the chance to flirt with the NC series ?  He's the most successful Stanford coach in our lifetime. And no one else is close.

From hearing wt the luncheon that we always counter 3 WR sets with nickel, to seeing 1st hand in the Rose Bowl v Michigan State, at Utah at the goal line to win in 2013 I believe, & Sat nite at the Coliseum getting smacked riding with a base 2-5-4 (understand deploying depth/strength with LBs versus our lack of depth/experience at DL) with no creativity (how about run-blitz with a backer or 2, move DL into different gaps or head-on, or even change-up with 3 DLs (they can't get experience if they don't play)
Also, who thought that a S (#5) blitz would work - never got there & burned each time
 
Versus Hulk & Hank who I respect, here I can't agree - Shaw's "stubbornness" lost us the opportunity to win another Rose Bowl & to beat Utah; Sat nite, at least he score may have been closer

[lex24]

You ever consider that Shaw's "stubbornness" put thenm in that Rose Bowl (and two others) and gave them the chance to flirt with the NC series ?  He's the most successful Stanford coach in our lifetime. And no one else is close.

From hearing wt the luncheon that we always counter 3 WR sets with nickel, to seeing 1st hand in the Rose Bowl v Michigan State, at Utah at the goal line to win in 2013 I believe, & Sat nite at the Coliseum getting smacked riding with a base 2-5-4 (understand deploying depth/strength with LBs versus our lack of depth/experience at DL) with no creativity (how about run-blitz with a backer or 2, move DL into different gaps or head-on, or even change-up with 3 DLs (they can't get experience if they don't play)
Also, who thought that a S (#5) blitz would work - never got there & burned each time
 
Versus Hulk & Hank who I respect, here I can't agree - Shaw's "stubbornness" lost us the opportunity to win another Rose Bowl & to beat Utah; Sat nite, at least he score may have been closer

[ADPATERSON]

Sam Darnold will be in NYC in Dec with Baker Mayfield.
They each had Voldemort days against good teams. 
Darnold has 5star WRs to throw to, and a solid OLine.
Both Ron Jones and Steven Carr are elite talents at RB. 
The game showed 5star talent on our 4star talent. 

I also think their DefCo Pendergast out duelled Shaw on that side.  Mixing up blitzes and lineups.

[ADPATERSON]

Sam Darnold will be in NYC in Dec with Baker Mayfield.
They each had Voldemort days against good teams. 
Darnold has 5star WRs to throw to, and a solid OLine.
Both Ron Jones and Steven Carr are elite talents at RB. 
The game showed 5star talent on our 4star talent. 

I also think their DefCo Pendergast out duelled Shaw on that side.  Mixing up blitzes and lineups.

[BostonCard]

Sam Darnold will be in NYC in Dec with Baker Mayfield.
They each had    days against good teams. 
Darnold has 5star WRs to throw to, and a solid OLine.
Both Ron Jones and Steven Carr are elite talents at RB. 
The game showed 5star talent on our 4star talent. 

I also think their DefCo Pendergast out duelled Shaw on that side.  Mixing up blitzes and lineups.

Did USC blitz all that much?  I got the sense they were successful in their base defense, but I could be wrong.

BC

[BostonCard]

Sam Darnold will be in NYC in Dec with Baker Mayfield.
They each had    days against good teams. 
Darnold has 5star WRs to throw to, and a solid OLine.
Both Ron Jones and Steven Carr are elite talents at RB. 
The game showed 5star talent on our 4star talent. 

I also think their DefCo Pendergast out duelled Shaw on that side.  Mixing up blitzes and lineups.

Did USC blitz all that much?  I got the sense they were successful in their base defense, but I could be wrong.

BC

[CompSci87]

Not sure how many were strictly blitzes, but there were stunts and shifts of defensive alignment before the snap.

[CompSci87]

Not sure how many were strictly blitzes, but there were stunts and shifts of defensive alignment before the snap.

[Goose]

Not sure how many were strictly blitzes, but there were stunts and shifts of defensive alignment before the snap.

Some have said that the drop-off in offense in the 2nd half was due to U$C starting to stunt more. The OL had trouble identifying their assignments. I don't know if that is true, but it seems plausible. Any thoughts on this?

[Goose]

Not sure how many were strictly blitzes, but there were stunts and shifts of defensive alignment before the snap.

Some have said that the drop-off in offense in the 2nd half was due to U$C starting to stunt more. The OL had trouble identifying their assignments. I don't know if that is true, but it seems plausible. Any thoughts on this?

[BostonCard]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=17394.msg200625#msg200625 date=1505529964]
Not sure how many were strictly blitzes, but there were stunts and shifts of defensive alignment before the snap.

Some have said that the drop-off in offense in the 2nd half was due to U$C starting to stunt more. The OL had trouble identifying their assignments. I don't know if that is true, but it seems plausible. Any thoughts on this?
[/quote]

I don't know either but it would seem to be an argument against starting true freshmen at tackle.  Or maybe if our veteran players are having trouble maybe just go with the athleticism.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=17394.msg200625#msg200625 date=1505529964]
Not sure how many were strictly blitzes, but there were stunts and shifts of defensive alignment before the snap.

Some have said that the drop-off in offense in the 2nd half was due to U$C starting to stunt more. The OL had trouble identifying their assignments. I don't know if that is true, but it seems plausible. Any thoughts on this?
[/quote]

I don't know either but it would seem to be an argument against starting true freshmen at tackle.  Or maybe if our veteran players are having trouble maybe just go with the athleticism.

BC

[Mick]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=17394.msg200625#msg200625 date=1505529964]
Not sure how many were strictly blitzes, but there were stunts and shifts of defensive alignment before the snap.

Some have said that the drop-off in offense in the 2nd half was due to U$C starting to stunt more. The OL had trouble identifying their assignments. I don't know if that is true, but it seems plausible. Any thoughts on this?
[/quote]

I don't know if that was the specific problem, but when I was rewinding the game and focusing on the OL, many of them seemed to be looking in a different direction than the direction the rusher was coming from.

[Mick]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=17394.msg200625#msg200625 date=1505529964]
Not sure how many were strictly blitzes, but there were stunts and shifts of defensive alignment before the snap.

Some have said that the drop-off in offense in the 2nd half was due to U$C starting to stunt more. The OL had trouble identifying their assignments. I don't know if that is true, but it seems plausible. Any thoughts on this?
[/quote]

I don't know if that was the specific problem, but when I was rewinding the game and focusing on the OL, many of them seemed to be looking in a different direction than the direction the rusher was coming from.

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17394.msg200628#msg200628 date=1505531671]
[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=17394.msg200625#msg200625 date=1505529964]
Not sure how many were strictly blitzes, but there were stunts and shifts of defensive alignment before the snap.

Some have said that the drop-off in offense in the 2nd half was due to U$C starting to stunt more. The OL had trouble identifying their assignments. I don't know if that is true, but it seems plausible. Any thoughts on this?
[/quote]

I don't know if that was the specific problem, but when I was rewinding the game and focusing on the OL, many of them seemed to be looking in a different direction than the direction the rusher was coming from.
[/quote]
Good to hear you say so. I thought I saw that too, but wasn't sure. There seemed to be confusion. This also happened on running plays, where sometimes the linemen seemed slow to engage, like they weren't sure this was their guy or not. Hard to read, at least as a total amateur, what was going on with this. I am blaming our drop-off in rushing on this factor. In the first quarter, we had some beautifully blocked plays. In the second half, we seemed to lose the ability to do so.

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17394.msg200628#msg200628 date=1505531671]
[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=17394.msg200625#msg200625 date=1505529964]
Not sure how many were strictly blitzes, but there were stunts and shifts of defensive alignment before the snap.

Some have said that the drop-off in offense in the 2nd half was due to U$C starting to stunt more. The OL had trouble identifying their assignments. I don't know if that is true, but it seems plausible. Any thoughts on this?
[/quote]

I don't know if that was the specific problem, but when I was rewinding the game and focusing on the OL, many of them seemed to be looking in a different direction than the direction the rusher was coming from.
[/quote]
Good to hear you say so. I thought I saw that too, but wasn't sure. There seemed to be confusion. This also happened on running plays, where sometimes the linemen seemed slow to engage, like they weren't sure this was their guy or not. Hard to read, at least as a total amateur, what was going on with this. I am blaming our drop-off in rushing on this factor. In the first quarter, we had some beautifully blocked plays. In the second half, we seemed to lose the ability to do so.