The CardBoard
Final at Duke - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Final at Duke (/thread-1936.html)


Final at Duke - washingtonismoney - 09-10-2011

So I had the very good fortune to be at Duke. The game revealed two very different ways of assessing a team:
1) Do you value how much better the winning team was than the losing team? If so, you were basically fine with the result.
2) Or do you value how close each team got to its peak performance? If so, you were most pleased with the flurry Stanford unleashed in the first half as it landed multiple combinations on Duke and demolished it both on defense and offense.

ON OFFENSE--it appears to be mostly a problem of precision. On many passing plays Luck was just a bit off on his throws--slightly behind, ahead, etc. Comparing Luck of right now to Luck of Orange Bowl is a bit unfair; comparing Luck of right now to Luck of UCLA is much more even--people forget that the offense looked similarly lackluster at this time last year. If you don't believe me, I believe I can dig up the complaining posts I made last year.

ON DEFENSE--I was really pleased how well the defensive line played. The secondary was overall OK on average, but that was brought down by Johnson Bademosi, who was (to my eyes) very poor. He was certainly a liability at times last year. It seemed to me that the coaches had much more confidence in the second half with Wayne Lyons at corner, and it's not hard to see why--he is instinctive, tough, and athletic. An awesome player already, as a freshman. In fact, there were meaningful snaps in which three true freshmen were playing at once--Lyons at corner, Richards at safety, and Vaughters at end/linebacker. All of them looked good. (For Lyons: he was brought in at safety--but given that we have a decent pipeline at that position, and he looks so good at corner, why not just keep him there forever?)

SPECIAL TEAMS--Poor, except for Drew Terrell's only return.

OVERALL--the people in Duke were really nice, and on a personal note I was really happy to see my brother, who just started at Duke a few weeks ago, settling in well. We spend a long time talking about the offense, but I think the defense could mature into a really dominating unit.

Re: Final at Duke - fullmetal - 09-11-2011

There's a third method of assessment, and that's judging a team by its absolute poorest performance during the game.  For a sport like football, which is so situational, that's a little unfair.  In rowing, there are a few variants of the saying "You train hard so that you can win on a bad day."  This wasn't really a bad day for the team (see scoreboard), but there were some series of plays where I was wondering what had gotten into the team's lunch menu.

I can't remember the adjustments made by the OL that allowed them to solidify and stop the QB pressure, but those sorts of adjustments will be critical to maintaining offensive viability.  I can't believe Luck took as many hits as he did--I'm sure the OL will take it personally, as they're charged with protecting a Voldemort-worthy QB.  I don't know how many of Luck's misses were because of anticipated pressure, but I hope those jitters are gone.  I'm sure it's been a while since he's taken a beating, so maybe it was just a matter of getting his legs underneath himself again.  That interception was painful, mainly because the score was so close at that point.

Were we playing some kind of Teevens-esque prevent defense?  There was a lot of Duke passing yardage gained on underneath routes.  Credit the Duke receivers and backs for earning yards after contact and making Stanford tackling look slightly inadequate at times.  But that same Stanford defense separated Sean Renfree's shoulder (non-throwing?  can't remember), racked up six sacks, and came up with those critical plays at the end of the first half to give Luck the ball and get that last touchdown.  Also, I'm sure a lot of the groaner defensive plays came in the second half when the subs started rotating in, and that's fine--those lessons have to be learned.

Fake punt and onside kick...really?  Calling Stanford's special teams coach...you're on notice.  Good job by the Duke coaching staff.

Re: Final at Duke - estephan500 - 09-11-2011

Great info in this thread.

Re: Final at Duke - JohnR34231 - 09-11-2011

As far as the defense is concerned, it's possible that we were playing a bend-not-break defense that is willing to give up yards between the twenties to prevent the big play, but gets tough when the opponents get in the red zone.

Given how many points the defense gave up (especially outside of garbage time), I can't say I'm disappointed with it.

Re: Final at Duke - oman - 09-11-2011

I like what you guys are saying.  I initially made the more simplistic observation that they really should have scored more against us than they did against Richmond if they had a decent kicking game. 

Re: Final at Duke - CowboyIndian - 09-11-2011

(09-11-2011, 01:01 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:  But that same Stanford defense separated Sean Renfree's shoulder (non-throwing?  can't remember)

I believe it was their second-string, run-first QB....named Gallett or Gatlin or something like that...who got his shoulder separated. They did knock Renfree out a little earlier, but the announcers said he was ready to come back, although he didn't. It was their 3rd-stringer, Moon, who led the touchdown drive at the end....the only offensive TD we've given up this year, by the way.

And that guy Boone not a bad QB either - Redrum - 09-11-2011

Connette was the guy carrying his arm in his other, good arm when leaving he field.

Renfree was interested in Stanford but reports differ on whether he was offered.  Stanford was more interested in this kid named Luck.    Renfree committed to Ga. Tech early,  but when GT fired Chan Gailey and brought in the option-oriented coach from Navy,  Renfree opened up his recruitment.  His final list of offers included  Boise, Duke, OSU and Arizona St.

Re: Final at Duke - fullmetal - 09-11-2011

Good for him, choosing Duke, the best degree option of the final list.  Brave man to stand in the pocket and take all those hits.

Re: Final at Duke - washingtonismoney - 09-12-2011

One last note that I saw upon watching the replay: the secondary performed worse than I thought, overall, though I'll stand by my poor review of Bademosi, particularly relative to Lyons. Bademosi frequently lined up as the deepest corner, and often as deep as the safeties on plays. Lyons, on the other hand, frequently played press coverage. In the running game, Bademosi would get blocked and stay blocked. Lyons had tenaciousness, and had an excellent tackle at the line of scrimmage. I think Lyons replaces Bademosi by the middle of the season, if he hasn't already (I would guess Lyons played more snaps than Bademosi, though the garbage time effect throws that off).

Also, I thought a Bill Simmons column from a while back provided a nice way to think about the game:
Quote:Here's the point: In all five of these games, the winning team was ready to use everything but the kitchen sink to come out on top. For instance, the Steelers scored a TD on a delayed QB sneak with Roethlisberger from 14 yards out, the kind of play you run once a year (because it will only work once). That's a kitchen-sink play -- you don't use it until you absolutely need it. On Monday, the Steelers needed it.

And:
Quote: There's a flip side to this theory: The Anti-Sink Game. I don't know who invented it, but it's been a Bill Belichick specialty during any regular-season game against an inferior opponent -- you can always count on the Pats to keep everything close to the vest, avoid any gimmick plays or defenses, stick to basic formations and try to win doing the bare minimum (like against the Raiders in Week 1). They're almost like a con artist who keeps passing up small poker pots and playing possum until someone is dumb enough to raise the stakes.

Pretty good description of the respective teams' approaches. Duke busted out everything it had; Stanford went from vanilla schemes early to what we'll call strawberry ice cream in the middle to end when things became a bit dicey (without progressing to full-on sundae--does this make sense to anyone else?). So, you know, another thing to keep in mind.

Re: Final at Duke - Nan3cy - 09-12-2011

Okay WIM, the good news is that I understand you. The bad news is, you're making me hungry.

Re: Final at Duke - fullmetal - 09-12-2011

WIM, yeah, I hear that.  And I wonder if I can hope that Stanford has yet to show the more effective plays in their book in anticipation of Pac-12 competition later.  I mean, who needs trump cards when you're playing SJSU and Duke? 

Conversely, the new Texas offensive coordinator seems to have made an offensive philosophy out of 'misdirection'...