[Farm93]

I think Stanford?? But his transitions between SC, Stanford, and college football were hard to identify.

"The secondary looks like they've got a bunch of non-scholarship guys is a reference to Stanford."  That must be Stanford bashing.  It is an odd and stereotypical reference, as Stanford's DBs look more NFL ready than most in the conference.  In any event, the soft zone strategy has prevented the deep receiver plays.  So I am not quite sure how to reconcile observation #1 about the soft zone with the last observation.  Has any Stanford opponent caught a ball in stride and continued to the end-zone for a TD in the last 10+ games?  (The SJSU player should have been tackled, so that play does not count)

What Robinson seemed to ignore is that few team's O-Lines have given their QB and WRs any time to exploit this deep ball weakness.  If it was so easy, you'd think some of these teams that are down by 20+ points might throw a few deep passes to get back into the game.  That deep ball stuff is how Stanford lost games back in the day, so I suspect Robinson is just using his historic understanding of Stanford and applying that to his much better understanding of the SC team.

If Woods scores three big TDs, then that might be enough.  Or to put it a different way, I don't see SC winning without Woods getting three or four big plays.

Robinson's thoughts were all over the map, but I think I get it.

[Farm93]

I think Stanford?? But his transitions between SC, Stanford, and college football were hard to identify.

"The secondary looks like they've got a bunch of non-scholarship guys is a reference to Stanford."  That must be Stanford bashing.  It is an odd and stereotypical reference, as Stanford's DBs look more NFL ready than most in the conference.  In any event, the soft zone strategy has prevented the deep receiver plays.  So I am not quite sure how to reconcile observation #1 about the soft zone with the last observation.  Has any Stanford opponent caught a ball in stride and continued to the end-zone for a TD in the last 10+ games?  (The SJSU player should have been tackled, so that play does not count)

What Robinson seemed to ignore is that few team's O-Lines have given their QB and WRs any time to exploit this deep ball weakness.  If it was so easy, you'd think some of these teams that are down by 20+ points might throw a few deep passes to get back into the game.  That deep ball stuff is how Stanford lost games back in the day, so I suspect Robinson is just using his historic understanding of Stanford and applying that to his much better understanding of the SC team.

If Woods scores three big TDs, then that might be enough.  Or to put it a different way, I don't see SC winning without Woods getting three or four big plays.

Robinson's thoughts were all over the map, but I think I get it.