10-16-2011, 10:43 AM
On the pregame show, Shaw said Stanford hadn't won any tosses, and when it did, it liked to receive. He said that once or twice, the team winning the toss has deferred. Immediately afterward, we won the toss.
Some random thoughts on the WSU game
10-16-2011, 12:32 PM
When Owusu was healthy in 2009, I seem to recall Stanford elected to receive fairly often.
Against Colorado Stanford was in line to receive the ball at the start of the game too. I think Mr. Willingham liked to defer, but JH and Shaw have been willing to receive if the returners are healthy.
Against Colorado Stanford was in line to receive the ball at the start of the game too. I think Mr. Willingham liked to defer, but JH and Shaw have been willing to receive if the returners are healthy.
When Owusu was healthy in 2009, I seem to recall Stanford elected to receive fairly often.
Against Colorado Stanford was in line to receive the ball at the start of the game too. I think Mr. Willingham liked to defer, but JH and Shaw have been willing to receive if the returners are healthy.
Against Colorado Stanford was in line to receive the ball at the start of the game too. I think Mr. Willingham liked to defer, but JH and Shaw have been willing to receive if the returners are healthy.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
10-16-2011, 01:32 PM
1. I don't think Patterson gets out of jail quite yet. Yes that pass was underthrown. But the test of a receiver is: contributing by making catches. So not making that one isn't dispositive. But having a good excuse on any given play isn't either. The more he plays, the statistical validity mounts. We know a good QB (with a good OL ) is throwing to the receivers. The good ones eventually have catches to their name. JRP has few. The criticism du jour is he doesn't adjust his routes once the ball is in the air and doesn't fight for the ball. Pretty soon, if he keeps playing, there'd better be catches: easy ones, ones he had to fight the DB or, catches he came back or altered course for. Then we'll know.
2. The magic escaping QB was of note, too. That might be an artifact of our positions at the snap. A lot of the time we had five or six rushers on the line when the play started. Obviously bringing pressure but whether by our rush scheme or their blocking scheme the ends collapsed fast as rushers moved/were moved to the outside. Nobody stayed home to keep them honest. Guess that's what they mean by a risky DL scheme. Also, Tuel is a very mobile QB, which helped tremendously. If I were an opposing Off. Coord. or OL coach I'd be dissecting those plays to see if they can be replicated.
3. The Gaffney Wildcat just seems like a gimmick. Hard to see it working much in the future.
4. I agree we were trying to force the issue with wide receivers in the first half. I guess the argument could be made that we were hoping to catch them in a defense overly sensitive to the TE's in the first half, and then overly sensitive to the WRs in the second. Also, they wouldn't have in-game reactions already used the TE offense. Part II of that might be what happened. Or, not.
2. The magic escaping QB was of note, too. That might be an artifact of our positions at the snap. A lot of the time we had five or six rushers on the line when the play started. Obviously bringing pressure but whether by our rush scheme or their blocking scheme the ends collapsed fast as rushers moved/were moved to the outside. Nobody stayed home to keep them honest. Guess that's what they mean by a risky DL scheme. Also, Tuel is a very mobile QB, which helped tremendously. If I were an opposing Off. Coord. or OL coach I'd be dissecting those plays to see if they can be replicated.
3. The Gaffney Wildcat just seems like a gimmick. Hard to see it working much in the future.
4. I agree we were trying to force the issue with wide receivers in the first half. I guess the argument could be made that we were hoping to catch them in a defense overly sensitive to the TE's in the first half, and then overly sensitive to the WRs in the second. Also, they wouldn't have in-game reactions already used the TE offense. Part II of that might be what happened. Or, not.
1. I don't think Patterson gets out of jail quite yet. Yes that pass was underthrown. But the test of a receiver is: contributing by making catches. So not making that one isn't dispositive. But having a good excuse on any given play isn't either. The more he plays, the statistical validity mounts. We know a good QB (with a good OL ) is throwing to the receivers. The good ones eventually have catches to their name. JRP has few. The criticism du jour is he doesn't adjust his routes once the ball is in the air and doesn't fight for the ball. Pretty soon, if he keeps playing, there'd better be catches: easy ones, ones he had to fight the DB or, catches he came back or altered course for. Then we'll know.
2. The magic escaping QB was of note, too. That might be an artifact of our positions at the snap. A lot of the time we had five or six rushers on the line when the play started. Obviously bringing pressure but whether by our rush scheme or their blocking scheme the ends collapsed fast as rushers moved/were moved to the outside. Nobody stayed home to keep them honest. Guess that's what they mean by a risky DL scheme. Also, Tuel is a very mobile QB, which helped tremendously. If I were an opposing Off. Coord. or OL coach I'd be dissecting those plays to see if they can be replicated.
3. The Gaffney Wildcat just seems like a gimmick. Hard to see it working much in the future.
4. I agree we were trying to force the issue with wide receivers in the first half. I guess the argument could be made that we were hoping to catch them in a defense overly sensitive to the TE's in the first half, and then overly sensitive to the WRs in the second. Also, they wouldn't have in-game reactions already used the TE offense. Part II of that might be what happened. Or, not.
2. The magic escaping QB was of note, too. That might be an artifact of our positions at the snap. A lot of the time we had five or six rushers on the line when the play started. Obviously bringing pressure but whether by our rush scheme or their blocking scheme the ends collapsed fast as rushers moved/were moved to the outside. Nobody stayed home to keep them honest. Guess that's what they mean by a risky DL scheme. Also, Tuel is a very mobile QB, which helped tremendously. If I were an opposing Off. Coord. or OL coach I'd be dissecting those plays to see if they can be replicated.
3. The Gaffney Wildcat just seems like a gimmick. Hard to see it working much in the future.
4. I agree we were trying to force the issue with wide receivers in the first half. I guess the argument could be made that we were hoping to catch them in a defense overly sensitive to the TE's in the first half, and then overly sensitive to the WRs in the second. Also, they wouldn't have in-game reactions already used the TE offense. Part II of that might be what happened. Or, not.
10-16-2011, 02:02 PM
I agree on Patterson. If the ball was underthrown, the receivers job, if he can't adjust to the ball and catch it, is to turn himself into a defensive back and make sure the defender can't intercept. He let the defender get position on him easily and didn't fight for the ball, even to try to deflect it. Andrew is responsible for losing the opportunity for a completion, but the receiver was responsible in large part for it becoming an interception rather than an incomplete pass.
I also think we were trying to force the ball to receivers, especially in the first half, but I also think we have been doing that for some time. Let's face it, our TEs are better than our receivers, especially relative to who is covering them.
I also think we were trying to force the ball to receivers, especially in the first half, but I also think we have been doing that for some time. Let's face it, our TEs are better than our receivers, especially relative to who is covering them.
I agree on Patterson. If the ball was underthrown, the receivers job, if he can't adjust to the ball and catch it, is to turn himself into a defensive back and make sure the defender can't intercept. He let the defender get position on him easily and didn't fight for the ball, even to try to deflect it. Andrew is responsible for losing the opportunity for a completion, but the receiver was responsible in large part for it becoming an interception rather than an incomplete pass.
I also think we were trying to force the ball to receivers, especially in the first half, but I also think we have been doing that for some time. Let's face it, our TEs are better than our receivers, especially relative to who is covering them.
I also think we were trying to force the ball to receivers, especially in the first half, but I also think we have been doing that for some time. Let's face it, our TEs are better than our receivers, especially relative to who is covering them.
10-16-2011, 10:28 PM
Regarding Gaffney's injury ... Check out the notes section of the ESPN Stanford blog. He was stepped on per coach Shaw. Doesn't sound serious.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
Regarding Gaffney's injury ... Check out the notes section of the ESPN Stanford blog. He was stepped on per coach Shaw. Doesn't sound serious.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
10-16-2011, 11:15 PM
I was hoping the Gaffney Wildcat would have been more effective. If it's not, then we should junk it. No sense wasting time preparing an offensive scheme that isn't working and can be defended well by a properly coached defense (see Texas's failed trick plays against OU).
I kept seeing three-man DL fronts and only three men rushing at times and had PTSD flashbacks of Buddy Teevens's failed prevent defense. I don't believe in not rushing four or more defensive players...also saw a play were two of our edge rushers (a DE and a blitzing OLB?) were taken out by one offensive player. Doh. Fortunately, the play was well away from that oopsie.
I kept seeing three-man DL fronts and only three men rushing at times and had PTSD flashbacks of Buddy Teevens's failed prevent defense. I don't believe in not rushing four or more defensive players...also saw a play were two of our edge rushers (a DE and a blitzing OLB?) were taken out by one offensive player. Doh. Fortunately, the play was well away from that oopsie.
I was hoping the Gaffney Wildcat would have been more effective. If it's not, then we should junk it. No sense wasting time preparing an offensive scheme that isn't working and can be defended well by a properly coached defense (see Texas's failed trick plays against OU).
I kept seeing three-man DL fronts and only three men rushing at times and had PTSD flashbacks of Buddy Teevens's failed prevent defense. I don't believe in not rushing four or more defensive players...also saw a play were two of our edge rushers (a DE and a blitzing OLB?) were taken out by one offensive player. Doh. Fortunately, the play was well away from that oopsie.
I kept seeing three-man DL fronts and only three men rushing at times and had PTSD flashbacks of Buddy Teevens's failed prevent defense. I don't believe in not rushing four or more defensive players...also saw a play were two of our edge rushers (a DE and a blitzing OLB?) were taken out by one offensive player. Doh. Fortunately, the play was well away from that oopsie.
10-17-2011, 07:55 AM
(10-16-2011, 11:15 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:I kept seeing three-man DL fronts and only three men rushing at times and had PTSD flashbacks of Ted's Buddy's failed prevent defense. I don't believe in not rushing four or more defensive players...also saw a play were two of our edge rushers (a DE and a blitzing OLB?) were taken out by one offensive player. Doh. Fortunately, the play was well away from that oopsie.
In general, I'm not a brobdingnagian fan either. But in this game, it was pretty appropriate: there was no way Wazzu was getting behind our defense, and with the way our defensive backs were closing down on receivers, the best-case scenario was a tackle for a short gain. I don't think our DBs have played quite so well from this perspective in ages--we even had a couple of TFLs on bubble screens, which is pretty hard. (Loved one play where Michael Thomas abused his blocker to drop the receiver behind the LOS. That kind of stuff you can't scheme for.)
In particular, thought Terrence Brown was really good. After an iffy game against UCLA, he's had two strong games in a row. And Barry Browning was rarely targeted at all, which is probably good, since he was defending WSU's top receiver all game.
I imagine this three-man-rush is not a permanent feature of our defense.
(10-16-2011, 11:15 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:I kept seeing three-man DL fronts and only three men rushing at times and had PTSD flashbacks of Ted's Buddy's failed prevent defense. I don't believe in not rushing four or more defensive players...also saw a play were two of our edge rushers (a DE and a blitzing OLB?) were taken out by one offensive player. Doh. Fortunately, the play was well away from that oopsie.
In general, I'm not a brobdingnagian fan either. But in this game, it was pretty appropriate: there was no way Wazzu was getting behind our defense, and with the way our defensive backs were closing down on receivers, the best-case scenario was a tackle for a short gain. I don't think our DBs have played quite so well from this perspective in ages--we even had a couple of TFLs on bubble screens, which is pretty hard. (Loved one play where Michael Thomas abused his blocker to drop the receiver behind the LOS. That kind of stuff you can't scheme for.)
In particular, thought Terrence Brown was really good. After an iffy game against UCLA, he's had two strong games in a row. And Barry Browning was rarely targeted at all, which is probably good, since he was defending WSU's top receiver all game.
I imagine this three-man-rush is not a permanent feature of our defense.
10-17-2011, 08:29 AM
The Gaffney wildcat is probably an attempt to try to get Tyler to feel good about his contribution to the team, since he doesn't get many carries at running back.
Worked pretty well against Colorado (of course, just about everything did). One try against WSU is probably not enough to pass judgment on it in that game.
Worked pretty well against Colorado (of course, just about everything did). One try against WSU is probably not enough to pass judgment on it in that game.
The Gaffney wildcat is probably an attempt to try to get Tyler to feel good about his contribution to the team, since he doesn't get many carries at running back.
Worked pretty well against Colorado (of course, just about everything did). One try against WSU is probably not enough to pass judgment on it in that game.
Worked pretty well against Colorado (of course, just about everything did). One try against WSU is probably not enough to pass judgment on it in that game.
10-17-2011, 08:44 AM
I pretty much agree on JRP. The ball was underthrown badly, and you would expect the WR to try to make a play on the ball even if underthrown. But I think it is fair to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here. It is possible that given how accurate Luck usually is, JRP never even conceived the ball would be thrown so short.
As for WRs in general, it's really odd how little they produce. But if the TEs are going to be so effective, then just go with it.Â
I can't believe nobody has pointed out the most impressive unit on the field on Saturday, and that was the secondary, or should I say "much maligned secondary?" Thomas, Bernard, and Howell all made big plays, and the coverage and tackling was superb. Browning and Brown were particularly impressive to me. They are practically clones of each other. Bademosi was of course screwed on the first PI call at minimum, but he was very good as well. Carrington seems to be the weak link as he isn't very fast, but he is definitely physical.
Another guy that played well on offense was Kevin Danser at LG when he got a chance to play. Might he be better than Yankey?
As for WRs in general, it's really odd how little they produce. But if the TEs are going to be so effective, then just go with it.Â
I can't believe nobody has pointed out the most impressive unit on the field on Saturday, and that was the secondary, or should I say "much maligned secondary?" Thomas, Bernard, and Howell all made big plays, and the coverage and tackling was superb. Browning and Brown were particularly impressive to me. They are practically clones of each other. Bademosi was of course screwed on the first PI call at minimum, but he was very good as well. Carrington seems to be the weak link as he isn't very fast, but he is definitely physical.
Another guy that played well on offense was Kevin Danser at LG when he got a chance to play. Might he be better than Yankey?
I pretty much agree on JRP. The ball was underthrown badly, and you would expect the WR to try to make a play on the ball even if underthrown. But I think it is fair to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here. It is possible that given how accurate Luck usually is, JRP never even conceived the ball would be thrown so short.
As for WRs in general, it's really odd how little they produce. But if the TEs are going to be so effective, then just go with it.Â
I can't believe nobody has pointed out the most impressive unit on the field on Saturday, and that was the secondary, or should I say "much maligned secondary?" Thomas, Bernard, and Howell all made big plays, and the coverage and tackling was superb. Browning and Brown were particularly impressive to me. They are practically clones of each other. Bademosi was of course screwed on the first PI call at minimum, but he was very good as well. Carrington seems to be the weak link as he isn't very fast, but he is definitely physical.
Another guy that played well on offense was Kevin Danser at LG when he got a chance to play. Might he be better than Yankey?
As for WRs in general, it's really odd how little they produce. But if the TEs are going to be so effective, then just go with it.Â
I can't believe nobody has pointed out the most impressive unit on the field on Saturday, and that was the secondary, or should I say "much maligned secondary?" Thomas, Bernard, and Howell all made big plays, and the coverage and tackling was superb. Browning and Brown were particularly impressive to me. They are practically clones of each other. Bademosi was of course screwed on the first PI call at minimum, but he was very good as well. Carrington seems to be the weak link as he isn't very fast, but he is definitely physical.
Another guy that played well on offense was Kevin Danser at LG when he got a chance to play. Might he be better than Yankey?
10-17-2011, 08:52 AM
(10-17-2011, 08:29 AM)JPRI link Wrote:The Gaffney wildcat is probably an attempt to try to get Tyler to feel good about his contribution to the team, since he doesn't get many carries at running back.
I like the Wildcat (I saw the nickname "Wildcard" suggested, which I like quite a bit) for a few reasons:
1) If defenses are going to stack the box against the run, and we nevertheless want to run, we have an issue. Unless Toby Gerhart is coming back, we don't have the running back to gash a stacked box. The Wildcard spreads the defense out and makes it easier to run. In addition, because there's no quarterback in the Wildcard, it becomes a one-on-one matchup instead of the offense being down one player.
2) It adds to personnel confusion. Right now if a defensive coordinator looks at our huddle and sees offensive linemen plus Luck, Gaffney, Hewitt, Ertz, Fleener and Owusu (we'll say), the opposing defensive coordinator has no idea what formation it'll be. Wildcard? Could be that. Could be a spread formation with four wideouts. Could be a ton of different things. How do you match up with that?
(10-17-2011, 08:29 AM)JPRI link Wrote:The Gaffney wildcat is probably an attempt to try to get Tyler to feel good about his contribution to the team, since he doesn't get many carries at running back.
I like the Wildcat (I saw the nickname "Wildcard" suggested, which I like quite a bit) for a few reasons:
1) If defenses are going to stack the box against the run, and we nevertheless want to run, we have an issue. Unless Toby Gerhart is coming back, we don't have the running back to gash a stacked box. The Wildcard spreads the defense out and makes it easier to run. In addition, because there's no quarterback in the Wildcard, it becomes a one-on-one matchup instead of the offense being down one player.
2) It adds to personnel confusion. Right now if a defensive coordinator looks at our huddle and sees offensive linemen plus Luck, Gaffney, Hewitt, Ertz, Fleener and Owusu (we'll say), the opposing defensive coordinator has no idea what formation it'll be. Wildcard? Could be that. Could be a spread formation with four wideouts. Could be a ton of different things. How do you match up with that?
10-17-2011, 09:08 AM
I read that Gaffney got stepped on and sustained a bad bruise...therefore no more wildcat, card or Indian.
I read that Gaffney got stepped on and sustained a bad bruise...therefore no more wildcat, card or Indian.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
10-17-2011, 09:54 AM
Most of the wildcat formations in the entire world of football involved a running back taking the snap and actually running. What that play is up to just isn't a mystery to defensive coordinators anymore. Furthermore, running it with Gaffney allows a quick game prep instruction to the defensive leader on the field: If 12 splits out and 25 lines up in his place, keep stacked against the run. Now, maybe most opponents aren't mentally agile enough to adapt in realtime, or it all happens so fast that opponents can't adjust, but I'd think Luck split out is a near zero threat if he's covered and a part time running back is the guy who'd have to pass.Â
Most of the wildcat formations in the entire world of football involved a running back taking the snap and actually running. What that play is up to just isn't a mystery to defensive coordinators anymore. Furthermore, running it with Gaffney allows a quick game prep instruction to the defensive leader on the field: If 12 splits out and 25 lines up in his place, keep stacked against the run. Now, maybe most opponents aren't mentally agile enough to adapt in realtime, or it all happens so fast that opponents can't adjust, but I'd think Luck split out is a near zero threat if he's covered and a part time running back is the guy who'd have to pass.Â
10-17-2011, 10:07 AM
(10-17-2011, 09:54 AM)Redrum link Wrote:Most of the wildcat formations in the entire world of football involved a running back taking the snap and actually running. What that play is up to just isn't a mystery to defensive coordinators anymore. Furthermore, running it with Gaffney allows a quick game prep instruction to the defensive leader on the field: If 12 splits out and 25 lines up in his place, keep stacked against the run. Now, maybe most opponents aren't mentally agile enough to adapt in realtime, or it all happens so fast that opponents can't adjust, but I'd think Luck split out is a near zero threat if he's covered and a part time running back is the guy who'd have to pass.
The reason you--theoretically--can't stack the box against the wildcard isn't because of the pass, it's because of the jet sweep option. Theoretically Owusu should be perfect for this, but we haven't seen him do it recently.
At any rate, the mystery isn't in the formation itself, it's the threat it presents in the huddle: a defensive coordinator has to account for the possibility when sending in substitutes. If he sends in the wrong ones, he's caught in a mismatch. The threat is more important than the execution.
(10-17-2011, 09:54 AM)Redrum link Wrote:Most of the wildcat formations in the entire world of football involved a running back taking the snap and actually running. What that play is up to just isn't a mystery to defensive coordinators anymore. Furthermore, running it with Gaffney allows a quick game prep instruction to the defensive leader on the field: If 12 splits out and 25 lines up in his place, keep stacked against the run. Now, maybe most opponents aren't mentally agile enough to adapt in realtime, or it all happens so fast that opponents can't adjust, but I'd think Luck split out is a near zero threat if he's covered and a part time running back is the guy who'd have to pass.
The reason you--theoretically--can't stack the box against the wildcard isn't because of the pass, it's because of the jet sweep option. Theoretically Owusu should be perfect for this, but we haven't seen him do it recently.
At any rate, the mystery isn't in the formation itself, it's the threat it presents in the huddle: a defensive coordinator has to account for the possibility when sending in substitutes. If he sends in the wrong ones, he's caught in a mismatch. The threat is more important than the execution.
10-17-2011, 10:20 AM
(10-17-2011, 09:54 AM)Redrum link Wrote:Most of the wildcat formations in the entire world of football involved a running back taking the snap and actually running. What that play is up to just isn't a mystery to defensive coordinators anymore. Furthermore, running it with Gaffney allows a quick game prep instruction to the defensive leader on the field: If 12 splits out and 25 lines up in his place, keep stacked against the run. Now, maybe most opponents aren't mentally agile enough to adapt in realtime, or it all happens so fast that opponents can't adjust, but I'd think Luck split out is a near zero threat if he's covered and a part time running back is the guy who'd have to pass.
If we line up in the "I" or another pass/run formation and then shift to wildcard, how does the D respond? It gives them something else to have to think about, react to....and practise.
(10-17-2011, 09:54 AM)Redrum link Wrote:Most of the wildcat formations in the entire world of football involved a running back taking the snap and actually running. What that play is up to just isn't a mystery to defensive coordinators anymore. Furthermore, running it with Gaffney allows a quick game prep instruction to the defensive leader on the field: If 12 splits out and 25 lines up in his place, keep stacked against the run. Now, maybe most opponents aren't mentally agile enough to adapt in realtime, or it all happens so fast that opponents can't adjust, but I'd think Luck split out is a near zero threat if he's covered and a part time running back is the guy who'd have to pass.
If we line up in the "I" or another pass/run formation and then shift to wildcard, how does the D respond? It gives them something else to have to think about, react to....and practise.
10-17-2011, 10:42 AM
(10-17-2011, 09:54 AM)Redrum link Wrote:If 12 splits out and 25 lines up in his place, keep stacked against the run. Now, maybe most opponents aren't mentally agile enough to adapt in realtime, or it all happens so fast that opponents can't adjust, but I'd think Luck split out is a near zero threat if he's covered and a part time running back is the guy who'd have to pass.
I think it would be extremely unlikely that Luck will ever be the target of a pass again, due to the risk involved. But would it really be a shock, if in fact DCs begin to just "stack against the run," that Gaffney might throw to a 6-6, 260 lb. tight end? I know Shaw has joked about Gaffney's terrible passing, but why would you brag about it if the attempt is to deceive?
(10-17-2011, 09:54 AM)Redrum link Wrote:If 12 splits out and 25 lines up in his place, keep stacked against the run. Now, maybe most opponents aren't mentally agile enough to adapt in realtime, or it all happens so fast that opponents can't adjust, but I'd think Luck split out is a near zero threat if he's covered and a part time running back is the guy who'd have to pass.
I think it would be extremely unlikely that Luck will ever be the target of a pass again, due to the risk involved. But would it really be a shock, if in fact DCs begin to just "stack against the run," that Gaffney might throw to a 6-6, 260 lb. tight end? I know Shaw has joked about Gaffney's terrible passing, but why would you brag about it if the attempt is to deceive?
10-17-2011, 11:05 AM
Have you seen Luck on those Wildcard plays? He never crosses the line of scrimmage. He just kind of stands there and watches the play. Siiiiigh. Not what I had in mind when I thought about protecting our star QB this season. I guess the opposing DB brings popcorn now.
Have you seen Luck on those Wildcard plays? He never crosses the line of scrimmage. He just kind of stands there and watches the play. Siiiiigh. Not what I had in mind when I thought about protecting our star QB this season. I guess the opposing DB brings popcorn now.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »