[Goose]

SC played a lot of man and blitzed. Stanford attacked it with a lot of downfield throws. And they won those one on one matchups a lot.  Sometimes getting behind (most of which ended in PIs). Sometimes using size.  Either works.  I was just glad to see them attack.  You don’t beat blitzes with dinks.  You beat it over the top. You have to make it hurt. 

Stanford’s o-line and backs did a relatively good job picking up the blitzes. Now if they can just start getting some push in run game, the offense just might be pretty darn good. Oh.  And more Peat, please.

I certainly agree with almost all you statement. I would amend the "Sometimes using size. Either works." to say "Getting separation always works, if you can get it. Using size sometimes works when you don't get separation. Against USC it mostly did.". Fortunately, we didn't have to totally rely on size (and skill and heart) working.

I pointed out yesterday that USC had 2 pass break ups in the entire game (on 23 pass attempts), while Stanford DBs recorded 7 PBUs plus one interception on 40-ish attempts.  The relatively few pass break ups by SC DBs suggests that either the DBs were not good at making plays on the ball or that our receivers were less well-covered than you might think.

The possibility that I think actually explains it best is that McKee was right on target which gave the SC DBs less opportunity to break up the pass, while Slovis clearly was not "sharp" on Saturday. He was often off target and did not always throw to the "right" receiver. Many of Stanford's PBUs were throws that were slightly (or more) off target. The pick-six was thrown behind the receiver who reached back to tip the ball in the air.

I think also the fact that we drew three pass interferences again suggests that the DBs were not in a position to make a play on the ball, and thus had to interfere with the receiver.  Obviously, I can't say if that is because our receivers were gaining physical separation from the DBs, or if they took advantage of their size and strength to shield the ball from the DBs, or if it was a question of the QB placing the ball where only the receiver had a chance to make a play.

I can say for sure that at least two of the PI were because the defender thought they were losing contain. They weren't even looking for the ball and the ball never actually got very close to the receiver. 

I also noted yesterday that while DBs were able to stay close to our outside receivers, we had several plays to the middle of the field where our receivers had plenty of space (Jones, yes, but also Higgins twice on two consecutive plays, the first of which he dropped).  I think the PIs made us more aware of the passes outside, but we had more plays to open receivers in the middle of the field than the discourse suggests.

BC

I agree and think having these inside receivers open and running free was a great design against the man defense. Not that this is rocket science, but actually seeing us recognize the possibility and exploiting it contrasts so much with USC's failure to realize they could run all night against us in the defense we were playing. The play to Jones was a big key to the game IMHO. It put SC in a "catch up" mode all out of proportion to the actual score.

[Goose]

SC played a lot of man and blitzed. Stanford attacked it with a lot of downfield throws. And they won those one on one matchups a lot.  Sometimes getting behind (most of which ended in PIs). Sometimes using size.  Either works.  I was just glad to see them attack.  You don’t beat blitzes with dinks.  You beat it over the top. You have to make it hurt. 

Stanford’s o-line and backs did a relatively good job picking up the blitzes. Now if they can just start getting some push in run game, the offense just might be pretty darn good. Oh.  And more Peat, please.

I certainly agree with almost all you statement. I would amend the "Sometimes using size. Either works." to say "Getting separation always works, if you can get it. Using size sometimes works when you don't get separation. Against USC it mostly did.". Fortunately, we didn't have to totally rely on size (and skill and heart) working.

I pointed out yesterday that USC had 2 pass break ups in the entire game (on 23 pass attempts), while Stanford DBs recorded 7 PBUs plus one interception on 40-ish attempts.  The relatively few pass break ups by SC DBs suggests that either the DBs were not good at making plays on the ball or that our receivers were less well-covered than you might think.

The possibility that I think actually explains it best is that McKee was right on target which gave the SC DBs less opportunity to break up the pass, while Slovis clearly was not "sharp" on Saturday. He was often off target and did not always throw to the "right" receiver. Many of Stanford's PBUs were throws that were slightly (or more) off target. The pick-six was thrown behind the receiver who reached back to tip the ball in the air.

I think also the fact that we drew three pass interferences again suggests that the DBs were not in a position to make a play on the ball, and thus had to interfere with the receiver.  Obviously, I can't say if that is because our receivers were gaining physical separation from the DBs, or if they took advantage of their size and strength to shield the ball from the DBs, or if it was a question of the QB placing the ball where only the receiver had a chance to make a play.

I can say for sure that at least two of the PI were because the defender thought they were losing contain. They weren't even looking for the ball and the ball never actually got very close to the receiver. 

I also noted yesterday that while DBs were able to stay close to our outside receivers, we had several plays to the middle of the field where our receivers had plenty of space (Jones, yes, but also Higgins twice on two consecutive plays, the first of which he dropped).  I think the PIs made us more aware of the passes outside, but we had more plays to open receivers in the middle of the field than the discourse suggests.

BC

I agree and think having these inside receivers open and running free was a great design against the man defense. Not that this is rocket science, but actually seeing us recognize the possibility and exploiting it contrasts so much with USC's failure to realize they could run all night against us in the defense we were playing. The play to Jones was a big key to the game IMHO. It put SC in a "catch up" mode all out of proportion to the actual score.

[Farm93]

I pointed out yesterday that USC had 2 pass break ups in the entire game (on 23 pass attempts), while Stanford DBs recorded 7 PBUs plus one interception on 40-ish attempts.  The relatively few pass break ups by SC DBs suggests that either the DBs were not good at making plays on the ball or that our receivers were less well-covered than you might think.  I think also the fact that we drew three pass interferences again suggests that the DBs were not in a position to make a play on the ball, and thus had to interfere with the receiver.  Obviously, I can't say if that is because our receivers were gaining physical separation from the DBs, or if they took advantage of their size and strength to shield the ball from the DBs, or if it was a question of the QB placing the ball where only the receiver had a chance to make a play.

I also noted yesterday that while DBs were able to stay close to our outside receivers, we had several plays to the middle of the field where our receivers had plenty of space (Jones, yes, but also Higgins twice on two consecutive plays, the first of which he dropped).  I think the PIs made us more aware of the passes outside, but we had more plays to open receivers in the middle of the field than the discourse suggests.

BC

The DBs from SC were bad.   I am not one to visit their board.  Based on prior experiences listening to post-game call-in shows, while stuck in area traffic trying to get out of there, my assumption is the SC fans are very worried about their level of play.

Stanford does not have the best WRs in the conference, or the most prolific passing attack in the conference.   Even if McKee is amazing, Luck and Hogan were rarely putting up crazy passing games against top 30 level teams.   So if USC's DBs struggled against Stanford's WRs, what will they do against Utah, Arizona State and UCLA.

I suspect the SC fans have started to realize that their team is not going to get them into a CFP Championship game against Alabama.

[Farm93]

I pointed out yesterday that USC had 2 pass break ups in the entire game (on 23 pass attempts), while Stanford DBs recorded 7 PBUs plus one interception on 40-ish attempts.  The relatively few pass break ups by SC DBs suggests that either the DBs were not good at making plays on the ball or that our receivers were less well-covered than you might think.  I think also the fact that we drew three pass interferences again suggests that the DBs were not in a position to make a play on the ball, and thus had to interfere with the receiver.  Obviously, I can't say if that is because our receivers were gaining physical separation from the DBs, or if they took advantage of their size and strength to shield the ball from the DBs, or if it was a question of the QB placing the ball where only the receiver had a chance to make a play.

I also noted yesterday that while DBs were able to stay close to our outside receivers, we had several plays to the middle of the field where our receivers had plenty of space (Jones, yes, but also Higgins twice on two consecutive plays, the first of which he dropped).  I think the PIs made us more aware of the passes outside, but we had more plays to open receivers in the middle of the field than the discourse suggests.

BC

The DBs from SC were bad.   I am not one to visit their board.  Based on prior experiences listening to post-game call-in shows, while stuck in area traffic trying to get out of there, my assumption is the SC fans are very worried about their level of play.

Stanford does not have the best WRs in the conference, or the most prolific passing attack in the conference.   Even if McKee is amazing, Luck and Hogan were rarely putting up crazy passing games against top 30 level teams.   So if USC's DBs struggled against Stanford's WRs, what will they do against Utah, Arizona State and UCLA.

I suspect the SC fans have started to realize that their team is not going to get them into a CFP Championship game against Alabama.

[BostonCard]

I certainly agree with almost all you statement. I would amend the "Sometimes using size. Either works." to say "Getting separation always works, if you can get it. Using size sometimes works when you don't get separation. Against USC it mostly did.". Fortunately, we didn't have to totally rely on size (and skill and heart) working.

Sure, getting separation always works, but fast receivers who get separation through sheer speed against slower DBs might struggle against faster (or smarter, in the case of a guy like Richard Sherman) DBs.  Likewise, scheming open players can work against an inferior defensive scheme, but might fail against a more well-designed or more disciplined scheme.  Likewise, while size works against small fast receivers, it will struggle against some schemes (sandwiching the receiver) or against larger, stronger defensive backs.

That being said, as they say in basketball, you can't teach height, and there are very few defensive backs who are going to be anywhere near the 6'6" receivers that we have.  It won't work 100% of the time, but we should have an advantage (possibly a substantial one)  against most teams.  The best coaches exploit the mismatches you have, instead of the ones you wished you had.

BC

[BostonCard]

I certainly agree with almost all you statement. I would amend the "Sometimes using size. Either works." to say "Getting separation always works, if you can get it. Using size sometimes works when you don't get separation. Against USC it mostly did.". Fortunately, we didn't have to totally rely on size (and skill and heart) working.

Sure, getting separation always works, but fast receivers who get separation through sheer speed against slower DBs might struggle against faster (or smarter, in the case of a guy like Richard Sherman) DBs.  Likewise, scheming open players can work against an inferior defensive scheme, but might fail against a more well-designed or more disciplined scheme.  Likewise, while size works against small fast receivers, it will struggle against some schemes (sandwiching the receiver) or against larger, stronger defensive backs.

That being said, as they say in basketball, you can't teach height, and there are very few defensive backs who are going to be anywhere near the 6'6" receivers that we have.  It won't work 100% of the time, but we should have an advantage (possibly a substantial one)  against most teams.  The best coaches exploit the mismatches you have, instead of the ones you wished you had.

BC

[teejers1]

I certainly agree with almost all you statement. I would amend the "Sometimes using size. Either works." to say "Getting separation always works, if you can get it. Using size sometimes works when you don't get separation. Against USC it mostly did.". Fortunately, we didn't have to totally rely on size (and skill and heart) working.

Sure, getting separation always works, but fast receivers who get separation through sheer speed against slower DBs might struggle against faster (or smarter, in the case of a guy like Richard Sherman) DBs.  Likewise, scheming open players can work against an inferior defensive scheme, but might fail against a more well-designed or more disciplined scheme.  Likewise, while size works against small fast receivers, it will struggle against some schemes (sandwiching the receiver) or against larger, stronger defensive backs.

That being said, as they say in basketball, you can't teach height, and there are very few defensive backs who are going to be anywhere near the 6'6" receivers that we have.  It won't work 100% of the time, but we should have an advantage (possibly a substantial one)  against most teams.  The best coaches exploit the mismatches you have, instead of the ones you wished you had.

BC

This is somewhat akin to the Bryce Love debate.  Was it a "good offense" to pitch the ball straight back to Love time and time and time again and hope he finds a hole for a house call?  That one year, many said "yes," look at his amazing results.  Some of us demurred, believing that is not a great offense; rather, it is an extraordinary player making ridiculous plays.  The next year, where numbers down and injury hit Love (not unexpected, given usage), the debate took on a different flavor, imo.  

It's also true, however, as BC noted, that the good coaches tailor the O to what they have.  Maybe toss-ups to big wide receivers is the best we have.  It worked well against SC.

In all events, this debate will get better informed with more games/data points.

In the meantime, I'm happy to let certain posters bask in the joy of being able to type sentiments such as "smart coaching staff," "great coaching," "best coaches," post-USC game.

[teejers1]

I certainly agree with almost all you statement. I would amend the "Sometimes using size. Either works." to say "Getting separation always works, if you can get it. Using size sometimes works when you don't get separation. Against USC it mostly did.". Fortunately, we didn't have to totally rely on size (and skill and heart) working.

Sure, getting separation always works, but fast receivers who get separation through sheer speed against slower DBs might struggle against faster (or smarter, in the case of a guy like Richard Sherman) DBs.  Likewise, scheming open players can work against an inferior defensive scheme, but might fail against a more well-designed or more disciplined scheme.  Likewise, while size works against small fast receivers, it will struggle against some schemes (sandwiching the receiver) or against larger, stronger defensive backs.

That being said, as they say in basketball, you can't teach height, and there are very few defensive backs who are going to be anywhere near the 6'6" receivers that we have.  It won't work 100% of the time, but we should have an advantage (possibly a substantial one)  against most teams.  The best coaches exploit the mismatches you have, instead of the ones you wished you had.

BC

This is somewhat akin to the Bryce Love debate.  Was it a "good offense" to pitch the ball straight back to Love time and time and time again and hope he finds a hole for a house call?  That one year, many said "yes," look at his amazing results.  Some of us demurred, believing that is not a great offense; rather, it is an extraordinary player making ridiculous plays.  The next year, where numbers down and injury hit Love (not unexpected, given usage), the debate took on a different flavor, imo.  

It's also true, however, as BC noted, that the good coaches tailor the O to what they have.  Maybe toss-ups to big wide receivers is the best we have.  It worked well against SC.

In all events, this debate will get better informed with more games/data points.

In the meantime, I'm happy to let certain posters bask in the joy of being able to type sentiments such as "smart coaching staff," "great coaching," "best coaches," post-USC game.

[Goose]

Sure, getting separation always works, but fast receivers who get separation through sheer speed against slower DBs might struggle against faster (or smarter, in the case of a guy like Richard Sherman) DBs.  Likewise, scheming open players can work against an inferior defensive scheme, but might fail against a more well-designed or more disciplined scheme.  Likewise, while size works against small fast receivers defensive backs, it will struggle against some schemes (sandwiching the receiver) or against larger, stronger defensive backs.

Totally with you there. Fortunately for us, USC didn't even attempt to change their scheme.

That being said, as they say in basketball, you can't teach height, and there are very few defensive backs who are going to be anywhere near the 6'6" receivers that we have.  It won't work 100% of the time, but we should have an advantage (possibly a substantial one)  against most teams.  The best coaches exploit the mismatches you have, instead of the ones you wished you had.



BC

I have to disagree with your first thesis. I do agree with your second, that you have to make the best use you can of all your players, exploit any particular abilities they have. However, while you can't teach height, you can certainly attack the "jump ball offense", as you point out in your initial paragraph. One way you do that is by disguising your defense as much as possible, so the QB and the receivers don't know what they are getting on any given play. You can cover one receiver over and under on one play, and another receiver on a different  one. You can have safety help on some plays but not others. You can drop linebackers into short zones sometimes and blitz sometimes. USC did essentially none of that. One reason you do these things is to confuse the QB and have him throw to the wrong guy. That is often effective against a young QB, which McKee is. You can teach experience, but it takes time.

I think that at least half of our future opponents are quite capable of doing a good job of mixing it up. I think they can and will cause us problems. It possibly will open up the running game, because doing all that pass defense takes bodies, but they can do it. So I don't at all agree we have a "substantial advantage" against most teams. We have a weapon in our size and height. We also have a weapon in our receivers ability to use their size and strength to protect the ball and make difficult catches. However, our other opponents don't have to play as stupidly as U$C did, and I strongly suspect they will not. That is why Shaw gets paid. I just don't want us to embrace the "size and strength" as a panacea, because it isn't.

It is obviously best to have many different skill sets on your team, but you have to use what you have in the best possible way. However, you for sure don't want to do what S$C did and just assume your superior physical abilities will prevail. Out passes to the middle of the field and the stop/slant patterns filled that bill on Saturday. We need to have equivalents against our future opponents, because just being taller and heavier won't be enough.

[Goose]

Sure, getting separation always works, but fast receivers who get separation through sheer speed against slower DBs might struggle against faster (or smarter, in the case of a guy like Richard Sherman) DBs.  Likewise, scheming open players can work against an inferior defensive scheme, but might fail against a more well-designed or more disciplined scheme.  Likewise, while size works against small fast receivers defensive backs, it will struggle against some schemes (sandwiching the receiver) or against larger, stronger defensive backs.

Totally with you there. Fortunately for us, USC didn't even attempt to change their scheme.

That being said, as they say in basketball, you can't teach height, and there are very few defensive backs who are going to be anywhere near the 6'6" receivers that we have.  It won't work 100% of the time, but we should have an advantage (possibly a substantial one)  against most teams.  The best coaches exploit the mismatches you have, instead of the ones you wished you had.



BC

I have to disagree with your first thesis. I do agree with your second, that you have to make the best use you can of all your players, exploit any particular abilities they have. However, while you can't teach height, you can certainly attack the "jump ball offense", as you point out in your initial paragraph. One way you do that is by disguising your defense as much as possible, so the QB and the receivers don't know what they are getting on any given play. You can cover one receiver over and under on one play, and another receiver on a different  one. You can have safety help on some plays but not others. You can drop linebackers into short zones sometimes and blitz sometimes. USC did essentially none of that. One reason you do these things is to confuse the QB and have him throw to the wrong guy. That is often effective against a young QB, which McKee is. You can teach experience, but it takes time.

I think that at least half of our future opponents are quite capable of doing a good job of mixing it up. I think they can and will cause us problems. It possibly will open up the running game, because doing all that pass defense takes bodies, but they can do it. So I don't at all agree we have a "substantial advantage" against most teams. We have a weapon in our size and height. We also have a weapon in our receivers ability to use their size and strength to protect the ball and make difficult catches. However, our other opponents don't have to play as stupidly as U$C did, and I strongly suspect they will not. That is why Shaw gets paid. I just don't want us to embrace the "size and strength" as a panacea, because it isn't.

It is obviously best to have many different skill sets on your team, but you have to use what you have in the best possible way. However, you for sure don't want to do what S$C did and just assume your superior physical abilities will prevail. Out passes to the middle of the field and the stop/slant patterns filled that bill on Saturday. We need to have equivalents against our future opponents, because just being taller and heavier won't be enough.

[gailtate]

What? no shaw complaints?

Neurogenic (or maybe psychological) shock.

[gailtate]

What? no shaw complaints?

Neurogenic (or maybe psychological) shock.

[BostonCard]

I have to disagree with your first thesis. I do agree with your second, that you have to make the best use you can of all your players, exploit any particular abilities they have. However, while you can't teach height, you can certainly attack the "jump ball offense", as you point out in your initial paragraph. One way you do that is by disguising your defense as much as possible, so the QB and the receivers don't know what they are getting on any given play. You can cover one receiver over and under on one play, and another receiver on a different  one. You can have safety help on some plays but not others. You can drop linebackers into short zones sometimes and blitz sometimes. USC did essentially none of that. One reason you do these things is to confuse the QB and have him throw to the wrong guy. That is often effective against a young QB, which McKee is. You can teach experience, but it takes time.


I think that at least half of our future opponents are quite capable of doing a good job of mixing it up. I think they can and will cause us problems. It possibly will open up the running game, because doing all that pass defense takes bodies, but they can do it. So I don't at all agree we have a "substantial advantage" against most teams. We have a weapon in our size and height. We also have a weapon in our receivers ability to use their size and strength to protect the ball and make difficult catches. However, our other opponents don't have to play as stupidly as U$C did, and I strongly suspect they will not. That is why Shaw gets paid. I just don't want us to embrace the "size and strength" as a panacea, because it isn't.



It is obviously best to have many different skill sets on your team, but you have to use what you have in the best possible way. However, you for sure don't want to do what S$C did and just assume your superior physical abilities will prevail. Out passes to the middle of the field and the stop/slant patterns filled that bill on Saturday. We need to have equivalents against our future opponents, because just being taller and heavier won't be enough.

I think that is easier said than done.  How many opponents successfully defended the "jump ball" to JJ Arcega Whiteside, even though it was no secret that we were going to run it?  And that was back when JJAW was our only truly tall receiver (6'2").  We now feature three receivers taller than he was (Humphreys is 6'5", Higgins is 6'3", and Tremayne is 6'4", plus Yarusek is 6'5", and that's not including Wilson 6'2" and a few guys we don't feature much who are well over 6 foot tall).

I don't think future teams will be as futile as USC was, but saying that you can defend that height is like saying you can defend elite speed by playing your defensive backs 10 yards off the receiver; you can do that, and it will prevent you from being beaten over the top, but you will give up plays underneath, provided that the coaching staff is inclined to call them.

BC

[BostonCard]

I have to disagree with your first thesis. I do agree with your second, that you have to make the best use you can of all your players, exploit any particular abilities they have. However, while you can't teach height, you can certainly attack the "jump ball offense", as you point out in your initial paragraph. One way you do that is by disguising your defense as much as possible, so the QB and the receivers don't know what they are getting on any given play. You can cover one receiver over and under on one play, and another receiver on a different  one. You can have safety help on some plays but not others. You can drop linebackers into short zones sometimes and blitz sometimes. USC did essentially none of that. One reason you do these things is to confuse the QB and have him throw to the wrong guy. That is often effective against a young QB, which McKee is. You can teach experience, but it takes time.


I think that at least half of our future opponents are quite capable of doing a good job of mixing it up. I think they can and will cause us problems. It possibly will open up the running game, because doing all that pass defense takes bodies, but they can do it. So I don't at all agree we have a "substantial advantage" against most teams. We have a weapon in our size and height. We also have a weapon in our receivers ability to use their size and strength to protect the ball and make difficult catches. However, our other opponents don't have to play as stupidly as U$C did, and I strongly suspect they will not. That is why Shaw gets paid. I just don't want us to embrace the "size and strength" as a panacea, because it isn't.



It is obviously best to have many different skill sets on your team, but you have to use what you have in the best possible way. However, you for sure don't want to do what S$C did and just assume your superior physical abilities will prevail. Out passes to the middle of the field and the stop/slant patterns filled that bill on Saturday. We need to have equivalents against our future opponents, because just being taller and heavier won't be enough.

I think that is easier said than done.  How many opponents successfully defended the "jump ball" to JJ Arcega Whiteside, even though it was no secret that we were going to run it?  And that was back when JJAW was our only truly tall receiver (6'2").  We now feature three receivers taller than he was (Humphreys is 6'5", Higgins is 6'3", and Tremayne is 6'4", plus Yarusek is 6'5", and that's not including Wilson 6'2" and a few guys we don't feature much who are well over 6 foot tall).

I don't think future teams will be as futile as USC was, but saying that you can defend that height is like saying you can defend elite speed by playing your defensive backs 10 yards off the receiver; you can do that, and it will prevent you from being beaten over the top, but you will give up plays underneath, provided that the coaching staff is inclined to call them.

BC

[Nan3cy]

I was at the game and it may be a while before the smile leaves my face. As I celebrated each big play, the Trojan fan next to me was riled enough to ask me to tone down my cheering for Stanford. God, it felt good. Amazing how much David Shaw learned in a week.

I love what Tavita said after the 2007 game: It’s one thing to hear 90,000 people screaming; it’s another to hear 90,000 people STOP screaming. (Not verbatim, but I think it’s close.)

---

I was at the game and it may be a while before the smile leaves my face. As I celebrated each big play, the Trojan fan next to me was riled enough to ask me to tone down my cheering for Stanford. God, it felt good. Amazing how much David Shaw learned in a week.

I love what Tavita said after the 2007 game: It’s one thing to hear 90,000 people screaming; it’s another to hear 90,000 people STOP screaming. (Not verbatim, but I think it’s close.)

---

Didn’t mean to say that twice…

[Nan3cy]

I was at the game and it may be a while before the smile leaves my face. As I celebrated each big play, the Trojan fan next to me was riled enough to ask me to tone down my cheering for Stanford. God, it felt good. Amazing how much David Shaw learned in a week.

I love what Tavita said after the 2007 game: It’s one thing to hear 90,000 people screaming; it’s another to hear 90,000 people STOP screaming. (Not verbatim, but I think it’s close.)

---

I was at the game and it may be a while before the smile leaves my face. As I celebrated each big play, the Trojan fan next to me was riled enough to ask me to tone down my cheering for Stanford. God, it felt good. Amazing how much David Shaw learned in a week.

I love what Tavita said after the 2007 game: It’s one thing to hear 90,000 people screaming; it’s another to hear 90,000 people STOP screaming. (Not verbatim, but I think it’s close.)

---

Didn’t mean to say that twice…

[Eucalyptus72]

Best surprise of the night was our secondary. We were down to 4th and 5th option after yet another late scratch at CB, I hadn’t even heard of Wyrick before and I thought he had an awesome game.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GoMightyCard/status/1437534820330979330[/tweet]
This is great to learn. Did Wyrick play safety and corner, or just what is his natural position?

[Eucalyptus72]

Best surprise of the night was our secondary. We were down to 4th and 5th option after yet another late scratch at CB, I hadn’t even heard of Wyrick before and I thought he had an awesome game.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GoMightyCard/status/1437534820330979330[/tweet]
This is great to learn. Did Wyrick play safety and corner, or just what is his natural position?

[SamuelMcF]

Best surprise of the night was our secondary. We were down to 4th and 5th option after yet another late scratch at CB, I hadn’t even heard of Wyrick before and I thought he had an awesome game.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GoMightyCard/status/1437534820330979330[/tweet]
This is great to learn. Did Wyrick play safety and corner, or just what is his natural position?

I think PFF counts nickels as safeties. Wyrick was mostly at nickel - occasionally at CB when Drake London was in the slot (Kelly was on him all night).

YET ANOTHER NFL son.

[SamuelMcF]

Best surprise of the night was our secondary. We were down to 4th and 5th option after yet another late scratch at CB, I hadn’t even heard of Wyrick before and I thought he had an awesome game.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GoMightyCard/status/1437534820330979330[/tweet]
This is great to learn. Did Wyrick play safety and corner, or just what is his natural position?

I think PFF counts nickels as safeties. Wyrick was mostly at nickel - occasionally at CB when Drake London was in the slot (Kelly was on him all night).

YET ANOTHER NFL son.

[terry]

I thought Jimmy Wyrick looked good. It was an unexpected surprise that he played so well . . .  unexpected by me, anyway.

[terry]

I thought Jimmy Wyrick looked good. It was an unexpected surprise that he played so well . . .  unexpected by me, anyway.

[ADPinWDC]

I watched a bit more of this game than KSU.  And I went to bed at midnight ET, so saw most of it  and the whole 2nd half on dvr this morning.

That might have been the best Shaw-coached game I've ever seen. I was shocked that he took the FG off the board to go for TD on 4th and Goal from 4. Never imagined I'd ever seen that. So glad it paid off, and gave him believe taking calculated risks can pay off, and maybe even inspire your team!

The game plan worked to perfection and there was a nice mix that wasn't predictable, outside of the Filkins reverse that absurdly wasn't flagged flagged for tripping. 

Stanford was clearly hell bent on not allowing USC to beat them with deep passes like KSU did. And Slovis never really challenged Stanford's deep coverage. I couldn't see very well from TV how the teams were playing their safeties (2 deep or single), but clearly it was single for USC on the Homerun Peat TD. 

But let's be honest, Stanford's game plan was only possible with a QB as proficient as McKee.  How the hell was he not the starter against KSU? Just based on his pedigree, he should have been named the starter in training camp. He was impressively poised in pocket and his accuracy was off the charts.  So many of his passes were delivered like handoffs to the receivers, or only where his guys could get them.

Still, a very weird game. Tim Brando claimed Stanford had "manhandled" USC when it was 42-13, but I thought USC pretty well dominated the trenches. In any case, did Stanford's OL have even one penalty, after its flag-fest against KSU?

K-B Kelly is the best CB I've ever seen play for Stanford. Yes, there have been some good ones, but man is he damn impressive. Just a brilliant athlete.

If McKee is as good as he showed in the Coliseum, Stanford is going to win more games than most people have assumed. If the OL can start opening some holes, an 8+ win season could be possible.

BOWL PROJECTIONS ON ESPN
YES -- and on ESPN today, Stanford (1-1) all of a sudden showed up in the Hawaii Bowl (Dec. 24) vs Nevada 
OR -- Holiday Bowl in San Diego Dec. 28 vs NC State. 
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

[ADPinWDC]

I watched a bit more of this game than KSU.  And I went to bed at midnight ET, so saw most of it  and the whole 2nd half on dvr this morning.

That might have been the best Shaw-coached game I've ever seen. I was shocked that he took the FG off the board to go for TD on 4th and Goal from 4. Never imagined I'd ever seen that. So glad it paid off, and gave him believe taking calculated risks can pay off, and maybe even inspire your team!

The game plan worked to perfection and there was a nice mix that wasn't predictable, outside of the Filkins reverse that absurdly wasn't flagged flagged for tripping. 

Stanford was clearly hell bent on not allowing USC to beat them with deep passes like KSU did. And Slovis never really challenged Stanford's deep coverage. I couldn't see very well from TV how the teams were playing their safeties (2 deep or single), but clearly it was single for USC on the Homerun Peat TD. 

But let's be honest, Stanford's game plan was only possible with a QB as proficient as McKee.  How the hell was he not the starter against KSU? Just based on his pedigree, he should have been named the starter in training camp. He was impressively poised in pocket and his accuracy was off the charts.  So many of his passes were delivered like handoffs to the receivers, or only where his guys could get them.

Still, a very weird game. Tim Brando claimed Stanford had "manhandled" USC when it was 42-13, but I thought USC pretty well dominated the trenches. In any case, did Stanford's OL have even one penalty, after its flag-fest against KSU?

K-B Kelly is the best CB I've ever seen play for Stanford. Yes, there have been some good ones, but man is he damn impressive. Just a brilliant athlete.

If McKee is as good as he showed in the Coliseum, Stanford is going to win more games than most people have assumed. If the OL can start opening some holes, an 8+ win season could be possible.

BOWL PROJECTIONS ON ESPN
YES -- and on ESPN today, Stanford (1-1) all of a sudden showed up in the Hawaii Bowl (Dec. 24) vs Nevada 
OR -- Holiday Bowl in San Diego Dec. 28 vs NC State. 
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

[Goose]

I think that is easier said than done.  How many opponents successfully defended the "jump ball" to JJ Arcega Whiteside, even though it was no secret that we were going to run it?  And that was back when JJAW was our only truly tall receiver (6'2").  We now feature three receivers taller than he was (Humphreys is 6'5", Higgins is 6'3", and Tremayne is 6'4", plus Yarusek is 6'5", and that's not including Wilson 6'2" and a few guys we don't feature much who are well over 6 foot tall).


I don't think future teams will be as futile as USC was, but saying that you can defend that height is like saying you can defend elite speed by playing your defensive backs 10 yards off the receiver; you can do that, and it will prevent you from being beaten over the top, but you will give up plays underneath, provided that the coaching staff is inclined to call them.



BC

Actually BC, the fade in the end zone was quite efficient, but similar plays in the field were often defended, quite catastrophically for Stanford a few times with the ball coming away at high speed in the DB's hands. If it was basically unstoppable, we would have been undefeated every year. It is eminently stoppable. Sometimes we stopped ourselves by just missing the throw. However, as you correctly point out the defense has to leave other vulnerabilities to do that.  Obviously the more weapons the offense has, the harder it is to defend them. What good defenses can do is change up the defense from play to play in ways that cause the offense to make  mistakes. The "elite speed" example you gave above is a good one for that. You make them think you are playing soft and then press. The receiver is running a stop because he expected a cushion, but the defense is right there. Obviously it is a chess game, but both sides can play it.
I simply don't believe that we are going to win 6+ games relying on our receivers size and ability to compete for the ball. We are going to need more than that. Yes, it is a factor, but if that is all we have it will not go well.

[Goose]

I think that is easier said than done.  How many opponents successfully defended the "jump ball" to JJ Arcega Whiteside, even though it was no secret that we were going to run it?  And that was back when JJAW was our only truly tall receiver (6'2").  We now feature three receivers taller than he was (Humphreys is 6'5", Higgins is 6'3", and Tremayne is 6'4", plus Yarusek is 6'5", and that's not including Wilson 6'2" and a few guys we don't feature much who are well over 6 foot tall).


I don't think future teams will be as futile as USC was, but saying that you can defend that height is like saying you can defend elite speed by playing your defensive backs 10 yards off the receiver; you can do that, and it will prevent you from being beaten over the top, but you will give up plays underneath, provided that the coaching staff is inclined to call them.



BC

Actually BC, the fade in the end zone was quite efficient, but similar plays in the field were often defended, quite catastrophically for Stanford a few times with the ball coming away at high speed in the DB's hands. If it was basically unstoppable, we would have been undefeated every year. It is eminently stoppable. Sometimes we stopped ourselves by just missing the throw. However, as you correctly point out the defense has to leave other vulnerabilities to do that.  Obviously the more weapons the offense has, the harder it is to defend them. What good defenses can do is change up the defense from play to play in ways that cause the offense to make  mistakes. The "elite speed" example you gave above is a good one for that. You make them think you are playing soft and then press. The receiver is running a stop because he expected a cushion, but the defense is right there. Obviously it is a chess game, but both sides can play it.
I simply don't believe that we are going to win 6+ games relying on our receivers size and ability to compete for the ball. We are going to need more than that. Yes, it is a factor, but if that is all we have it will not go well.

[Mick]

BOWL PROJECTIONS ON ESPN
YES -- and on ESPN today, Stanford (1-1) all of a sudden showed up in the Hawaii Bowl (Dec. 24) vs Nevada 
OR -- Holiday Bowl in San Diego Dec. 28 vs NC State. 
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

I'm going...anyone coming with?

[Mick]

BOWL PROJECTIONS ON ESPN
YES -- and on ESPN today, Stanford (1-1) all of a sudden showed up in the Hawaii Bowl (Dec. 24) vs Nevada 
OR -- Holiday Bowl in San Diego Dec. 28 vs NC State. 
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

I'm going...anyone coming with?

[cardcrimson]

What? no shaw complaints?

Indeed, awfully quiet on the board after Big Game. . . .

[cardcrimson]

What? no shaw complaints?

Indeed, awfully quiet on the board after Big Game. . . .

[Phogge]

,

BOWL PROJECTIONS ON ESPN
YES -- and on ESPN today, Stanford (1-1) all of a sudden showed up in the Hawaii Bowl (Dec. 24) vs Nevada 
OR -- Holiday Bowl in San Diego Dec. 28 vs NC State. 
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

I'm going...anyone coming with?

Who’s playing? Maybe Cal after beating SC and UCLA.

[Phogge]

,

BOWL PROJECTIONS ON ESPN
YES -- and on ESPN today, Stanford (1-1) all of a sudden showed up in the Hawaii Bowl (Dec. 24) vs Nevada 
OR -- Holiday Bowl in San Diego Dec. 28 vs NC State. 
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

I'm going...anyone coming with?

Who’s playing? Maybe Cal after beating SC and UCLA.

[ADPinWDC]

,

BOWL PROJECTIONS ON ESPN
YES -- and on ESPN today, Stanford (1-1) all of a sudden showed up in the Hawaii Bowl (Dec. 24) vs Nevada 
OR -- Holiday Bowl in San Diego Dec. 28 vs NC State. 
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

I'm going...anyone coming with?

Who’s playing? Maybe Cal after beating SC and UCLA.

Hawaii Bowl looks like:  Nevada vs UCF
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Bo...75804637_2

---

L̲a̲t̲e̲s̲t̲ ̲o̲n̲ ̲B̲O̲W̲L̲S̲:̲
Rose:  UTAH vs MICH
Alamo:  Oregon State vs Baylor
Las Vegas:  AZST vs PNST
Holiday:  Oregon vs Miami
Sun: UCLA vs NCST
LA Bowl:  WAST vs SD State
Cheezy:  CAL, if 6-6 by beating both UCLA, USC
[or First Responder Bowl in Dallas, TX]

Suck-it on the Couch Bowl:  USC, UW, Stanford, ZONA
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Bo...75804637_2

[ADPinWDC]

,

BOWL PROJECTIONS ON ESPN
YES -- and on ESPN today, Stanford (1-1) all of a sudden showed up in the Hawaii Bowl (Dec. 24) vs Nevada 
OR -- Holiday Bowl in San Diego Dec. 28 vs NC State. 
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

I'm going...anyone coming with?

Who’s playing? Maybe Cal after beating SC and UCLA.

Hawaii Bowl looks like:  Nevada vs UCF
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Bo...75804637_2

---

L̲a̲t̲e̲s̲t̲ ̲o̲n̲ ̲B̲O̲W̲L̲S̲:̲
Rose:  UTAH vs MICH
Alamo:  Oregon State vs Baylor
Las Vegas:  AZST vs PNST
Holiday:  Oregon vs Miami
Sun: UCLA vs NCST
LA Bowl:  WAST vs SD State
Cheezy:  CAL, if 6-6 by beating both UCLA, USC
[or First Responder Bowl in Dallas, TX]

Suck-it on the Couch Bowl:  USC, UW, Stanford, ZONA
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Bo...75804637_2

[teejers1]

What? no shaw complaints?

Indeed, awfully quiet on the board after Big Game. . . .

Thanks for dusting off this old thread, CardCrimson (TJM: made correction from "Mick").  Very enlightening.  And I look forward to the comments from norcard, JohnR, d4cohn, and all the others telling us how great a coach Shaw was after SC game.  

Honestly, the program has never been in worse shape.  Never.  And there is one - and only one - person to blame.  The head coach.  
He has banked tens of millions from Stanford over the last decade . . . he is owed nothing more.  By anyone.

[teejers1]

What? no shaw complaints?

Indeed, awfully quiet on the board after Big Game. . . .

Thanks for dusting off this old thread, CardCrimson (TJM: made correction from "Mick").  Very enlightening.  And I look forward to the comments from norcard, JohnR, d4cohn, and all the others telling us how great a coach Shaw was after SC game.  

Honestly, the program has never been in worse shape.  Never.  And there is one - and only one - person to blame.  The head coach.  
He has banked tens of millions from Stanford over the last decade . . . he is owed nothing more.  By anyone.

[JustAnotherFan]

,

BOWL PROJECTIONS ON ESPN
YES -- and on ESPN today, Stanford (1-1) all of a sudden showed up in the Hawaii Bowl (Dec. 24) vs Nevada 
OR -- Holiday Bowl in San Diego Dec. 28 vs NC State. 
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

I'm going...anyone coming with?

Who’s playing? Maybe Cal after beating SC and UCLA.

Hawaii Bowl looks like:  Nevada vs UCF
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Bo...75804637_2

---

L̲a̲t̲e̲s̲t̲ ̲o̲n̲ ̲B̲O̲W̲L̲S̲:̲
Rose:  UTAH vs MICH
Alamo:  Oregon State vs Baylor
Las Vegas:  AZST vs PNST
Holiday:  Oregon vs Miami
Sun: UCLA vs NCST
LA Bowl:  WAST vs SD State
Cheezy:  CAL, if 6-6 by beating both UCLA, USC
[or First Responder Bowl in Dallas, TX]

Suck-it on the Couch Bowl:  USC, UW, Stanford, ZONA
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Bo...75804637_2

0-7 in bowls would be awful, but very possible.

[JustAnotherFan]

,

BOWL PROJECTIONS ON ESPN
YES -- and on ESPN today, Stanford (1-1) all of a sudden showed up in the Hawaii Bowl (Dec. 24) vs Nevada 
OR -- Holiday Bowl in San Diego Dec. 28 vs NC State. 
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

I'm going...anyone coming with?

Who’s playing? Maybe Cal after beating SC and UCLA.

Hawaii Bowl looks like:  Nevada vs UCF
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Bo...75804637_2

---

L̲a̲t̲e̲s̲t̲ ̲o̲n̲ ̲B̲O̲W̲L̲S̲:̲
Rose:  UTAH vs MICH
Alamo:  Oregon State vs Baylor
Las Vegas:  AZST vs PNST
Holiday:  Oregon vs Miami
Sun: UCLA vs NCST
LA Bowl:  WAST vs SD State
Cheezy:  CAL, if 6-6 by beating both UCLA, USC
[or First Responder Bowl in Dallas, TX]

Suck-it on the Couch Bowl:  USC, UW, Stanford, ZONA
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Bo...75804637_2

0-7 in bowls would be awful, but very possible.

[cardcrimson]

Not Mick, ‘‘twas I. Remember reading the post way back when, and chuckled at the sanctimonious post and subsequent replies. 

Alas, those that were ridiculed turned out to be correct, Stanford football is in the toilet, and our coach is doesn’t appear to have the fortitude to do the dirty work to fix it.

What? no shaw complaints?

Indeed, awfully quiet on the board after Big Game. . . .

Thanks for dusting off this old thread, Mick.  Very enlightening.  And I look forward to the comments from norcard, JohnR, d4cohn, and all the others telling us how great a coach Shaw was after SC game.  

Honestly, the program has never been in worse shape.  Never.  And there is one - and only one - person to blame.  The head coach.  
He has banked tens of millions from Stanford over the last decade . . . he is owed nothing more.  By anyone.

[cardcrimson]

Not Mick, ‘‘twas I. Remember reading the post way back when, and chuckled at the sanctimonious post and subsequent replies. 

Alas, those that were ridiculed turned out to be correct, Stanford football is in the toilet, and our coach is doesn’t appear to have the fortitude to do the dirty work to fix it.

What? no shaw complaints?

Indeed, awfully quiet on the board after Big Game. . . .

Thanks for dusting off this old thread, Mick.  Very enlightening.  And I look forward to the comments from norcard, JohnR, d4cohn, and all the others telling us how great a coach Shaw was after SC game.  

Honestly, the program has never been in worse shape.  Never.  And there is one - and only one - person to blame.  The head coach.  
He has banked tens of millions from Stanford over the last decade . . . he is owed nothing more.  By anyone.