09-24-2015, 03:35 PM
Some interesting stats in this "advanced" box score
09-24-2015, 03:52 PM
(09-24-2015, 03:39 PM)garvin link Wrote:Good point:
Quote:The first eight carries by U$ running backs gained 77 yards; the next 17 gained 68.
Hmmm. Adjustment? :)
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(09-24-2015, 03:39 PM)garvin link Wrote:Good point:
Quote:The first eight carries by U$ running backs gained 77 yards; the next 17 gained 68.
Hmmm. Adjustment? :)
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
09-24-2015, 03:57 PM
I was most struck by the relative success of 'edge' versus up-the-middle rushes for Stanford. Perhaps our OL is not all the way there yet.
I was most struck by the relative success of 'edge' versus up-the-middle rushes for Stanford. Perhaps our OL is not all the way there yet.
09-24-2015, 04:38 PM
Good stuff. The narrative I've seen from USC fans (including in the schadenfreude thread) was that a) Wilcox blew it by not blitzing enough and b) Sarkisian blew it by not running enough in the second half. (also, I think it was OutsiderFan who suggested that especially in the second half, USC was hurting itself).
The reality of the situation looks a little bit more favorable to Stanford. First, we made apparently made an adjustment to slow down the run, cutting down on the ypc for SC running backs from 9.6 ypc to 4 ypc. Nice job defensive brain trust and front 7. This suggests that USC may have been running it less in reaction to our defensive adjustments (also, probably, because they were playing from behind).
Second, there may be something to the idea that USC should have blitzed more. Hogan got 12.6 yards per attempt and only had 2 incompletions and 1 sack when USC rushed 4 (on 16 dropbacks), but he had 5 ypa lower, gave up 2 sacks, and had 3 incompletions when SC blitzed (10 times, by my count). USC blitzed almost 40% of the time, so it is hard to argue that they should have blitzed more, but maybe they should have. [By comparison, we only blitzed on 5 Kessler dropbacks, got no sacks out of it and Kessler's ypa were higher when we blitzed than when we didn't; though we only blitzed 15% of the time].
Third, it really does look like the Stanford defense buckled down once USC had gotten a lead. 159 yards over 18 plays is an 8.8 ypp average to start the game, and 14 points for 18 plays is 0.78 points per play. After that, (and presumably this excludes penalties), USC got 268 yards in 42 plays, under 6.4 yards per play. That's still not great, but it was enough. And 17 points in 42 plays is 0.4 points per play.
A couple other things that stand out from the stats.
We ran at least 11 different formations, though the most common were the 1 back/3 wide receiver, 1 back/4 wr, 2 backs/1 wr, and to a lesser extent 2 backs/2wr, 2 backs/3 wr. The most successful in terms of ypp was 1 back/4 WR.
We ran about 10% of our plays out of the no huddle (7 plays out of 73). I believe those were the 7 plays where we scored to end the first half (excluding Hogan's spike to kill the clock). Obviously for much of the second half, we were trying to consume clock, so huddling was a deliberate strategy, but we did gain 10.7 yards per play on no huddle plays. There is anecdotal evidence that our offense has worked better without a huddle, so it is something we might want to consider doing more of.
By the way, there is nothing that says no huddle must equate with not killing the clock. We can go up to the line of scrimmage without a huddle, do a bunch of motions, and still run the play with a mere couple seconds on the play clock.
BC
The reality of the situation looks a little bit more favorable to Stanford. First, we made apparently made an adjustment to slow down the run, cutting down on the ypc for SC running backs from 9.6 ypc to 4 ypc. Nice job defensive brain trust and front 7. This suggests that USC may have been running it less in reaction to our defensive adjustments (also, probably, because they were playing from behind).
Second, there may be something to the idea that USC should have blitzed more. Hogan got 12.6 yards per attempt and only had 2 incompletions and 1 sack when USC rushed 4 (on 16 dropbacks), but he had 5 ypa lower, gave up 2 sacks, and had 3 incompletions when SC blitzed (10 times, by my count). USC blitzed almost 40% of the time, so it is hard to argue that they should have blitzed more, but maybe they should have. [By comparison, we only blitzed on 5 Kessler dropbacks, got no sacks out of it and Kessler's ypa were higher when we blitzed than when we didn't; though we only blitzed 15% of the time].
Third, it really does look like the Stanford defense buckled down once USC had gotten a lead. 159 yards over 18 plays is an 8.8 ypp average to start the game, and 14 points for 18 plays is 0.78 points per play. After that, (and presumably this excludes penalties), USC got 268 yards in 42 plays, under 6.4 yards per play. That's still not great, but it was enough. And 17 points in 42 plays is 0.4 points per play.
A couple other things that stand out from the stats.
We ran at least 11 different formations, though the most common were the 1 back/3 wide receiver, 1 back/4 wr, 2 backs/1 wr, and to a lesser extent 2 backs/2wr, 2 backs/3 wr. The most successful in terms of ypp was 1 back/4 WR.
We ran about 10% of our plays out of the no huddle (7 plays out of 73). I believe those were the 7 plays where we scored to end the first half (excluding Hogan's spike to kill the clock). Obviously for much of the second half, we were trying to consume clock, so huddling was a deliberate strategy, but we did gain 10.7 yards per play on no huddle plays. There is anecdotal evidence that our offense has worked better without a huddle, so it is something we might want to consider doing more of.
By the way, there is nothing that says no huddle must equate with not killing the clock. We can go up to the line of scrimmage without a huddle, do a bunch of motions, and still run the play with a mere couple seconds on the play clock.
BC
Good stuff. The narrative I've seen from USC fans (including in the schadenfreude thread) was that a) Wilcox blew it by not blitzing enough and b) Sarkisian blew it by not running enough in the second half. (also, I think it was OutsiderFan who suggested that especially in the second half, USC was hurting itself).
The reality of the situation looks a little bit more favorable to Stanford. First, we made apparently made an adjustment to slow down the run, cutting down on the ypc for SC running backs from 9.6 ypc to 4 ypc. Nice job defensive brain trust and front 7. This suggests that USC may have been running it less in reaction to our defensive adjustments (also, probably, because they were playing from behind).
Second, there may be something to the idea that USC should have blitzed more. Hogan got 12.6 yards per attempt and only had 2 incompletions and 1 sack when USC rushed 4 (on 16 dropbacks), but he had 5 ypa lower, gave up 2 sacks, and had 3 incompletions when SC blitzed (10 times, by my count). USC blitzed almost 40% of the time, so it is hard to argue that they should have blitzed more, but maybe they should have. [By comparison, we only blitzed on 5 Kessler dropbacks, got no sacks out of it and Kessler's ypa were higher when we blitzed than when we didn't; though we only blitzed 15% of the time].
Third, it really does look like the Stanford defense buckled down once USC had gotten a lead. 159 yards over 18 plays is an 8.8 ypp average to start the game, and 14 points for 18 plays is 0.78 points per play. After that, (and presumably this excludes penalties), USC got 268 yards in 42 plays, under 6.4 yards per play. That's still not great, but it was enough. And 17 points in 42 plays is 0.4 points per play.
A couple other things that stand out from the stats.
We ran at least 11 different formations, though the most common were the 1 back/3 wide receiver, 1 back/4 wr, 2 backs/1 wr, and to a lesser extent 2 backs/2wr, 2 backs/3 wr. The most successful in terms of ypp was 1 back/4 WR.
We ran about 10% of our plays out of the no huddle (7 plays out of 73). I believe those were the 7 plays where we scored to end the first half (excluding Hogan's spike to kill the clock). Obviously for much of the second half, we were trying to consume clock, so huddling was a deliberate strategy, but we did gain 10.7 yards per play on no huddle plays. There is anecdotal evidence that our offense has worked better without a huddle, so it is something we might want to consider doing more of.
By the way, there is nothing that says no huddle must equate with not killing the clock. We can go up to the line of scrimmage without a huddle, do a bunch of motions, and still run the play with a mere couple seconds on the play clock.
BC
The reality of the situation looks a little bit more favorable to Stanford. First, we made apparently made an adjustment to slow down the run, cutting down on the ypc for SC running backs from 9.6 ypc to 4 ypc. Nice job defensive brain trust and front 7. This suggests that USC may have been running it less in reaction to our defensive adjustments (also, probably, because they were playing from behind).
Second, there may be something to the idea that USC should have blitzed more. Hogan got 12.6 yards per attempt and only had 2 incompletions and 1 sack when USC rushed 4 (on 16 dropbacks), but he had 5 ypa lower, gave up 2 sacks, and had 3 incompletions when SC blitzed (10 times, by my count). USC blitzed almost 40% of the time, so it is hard to argue that they should have blitzed more, but maybe they should have. [By comparison, we only blitzed on 5 Kessler dropbacks, got no sacks out of it and Kessler's ypa were higher when we blitzed than when we didn't; though we only blitzed 15% of the time].
Third, it really does look like the Stanford defense buckled down once USC had gotten a lead. 159 yards over 18 plays is an 8.8 ypp average to start the game, and 14 points for 18 plays is 0.78 points per play. After that, (and presumably this excludes penalties), USC got 268 yards in 42 plays, under 6.4 yards per play. That's still not great, but it was enough. And 17 points in 42 plays is 0.4 points per play.
A couple other things that stand out from the stats.
We ran at least 11 different formations, though the most common were the 1 back/3 wide receiver, 1 back/4 wr, 2 backs/1 wr, and to a lesser extent 2 backs/2wr, 2 backs/3 wr. The most successful in terms of ypp was 1 back/4 WR.
We ran about 10% of our plays out of the no huddle (7 plays out of 73). I believe those were the 7 plays where we scored to end the first half (excluding Hogan's spike to kill the clock). Obviously for much of the second half, we were trying to consume clock, so huddling was a deliberate strategy, but we did gain 10.7 yards per play on no huddle plays. There is anecdotal evidence that our offense has worked better without a huddle, so it is something we might want to consider doing more of.
By the way, there is nothing that says no huddle must equate with not killing the clock. We can go up to the line of scrimmage without a huddle, do a bunch of motions, and still run the play with a mere couple seconds on the play clock.
BC
09-24-2015, 04:45 PM
(09-24-2015, 03:57 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I was most struck by the relative success of 'edge' versus up-the-middle rushes for Stanford. Perhaps our OL is not all the way there yet.
Might also have to do with USC's defense, though their outside linebackers are Cravens and Sarao, who are all-Pac12 caliber LB's. It's surprising that our guys could beat them to the edge, though maybe our tight ends were effective blocking.Â
BC
(09-24-2015, 03:57 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I was most struck by the relative success of 'edge' versus up-the-middle rushes for Stanford. Perhaps our OL is not all the way there yet.
Might also have to do with USC's defense, though their outside linebackers are Cravens and Sarao, who are all-Pac12 caliber LB's. It's surprising that our guys could beat them to the edge, though maybe our tight ends were effective blocking.Â
BC
09-24-2015, 09:22 PM
Somewhere or another, before the game I read that Shaw said that the young defense needed to survive the first quarter and a half to get its bearings and learn how to apply its training to the speed and strength of the opponent. I shrugged it off since conventional wisdom is often that defenses are at their best when they are fresh and that they lose effectiveness as they tire later in the game.
Well, this time, with this defense, Shaw was exactly right. It did take our defense 3/8 of the game to become solid.Â
I imagine that is something more common with young defenses than with veteran defenses. It will almost certainly be even more true against Oregon and spread offenses. SC gave us just a taste of the problem of pace. We have to avoid being too far in the hole by the time the defense "catches on" to what our opponent is doing.
Well, this time, with this defense, Shaw was exactly right. It did take our defense 3/8 of the game to become solid.Â
I imagine that is something more common with young defenses than with veteran defenses. It will almost certainly be even more true against Oregon and spread offenses. SC gave us just a taste of the problem of pace. We have to avoid being too far in the hole by the time the defense "catches on" to what our opponent is doing.
Somewhere or another, before the game I read that Shaw said that the young defense needed to survive the first quarter and a half to get its bearings and learn how to apply its training to the speed and strength of the opponent. I shrugged it off since conventional wisdom is often that defenses are at their best when they are fresh and that they lose effectiveness as they tire later in the game.
Well, this time, with this defense, Shaw was exactly right. It did take our defense 3/8 of the game to become solid.Â
I imagine that is something more common with young defenses than with veteran defenses. It will almost certainly be even more true against Oregon and spread offenses. SC gave us just a taste of the problem of pace. We have to avoid being too far in the hole by the time the defense "catches on" to what our opponent is doing.
Well, this time, with this defense, Shaw was exactly right. It did take our defense 3/8 of the game to become solid.Â
I imagine that is something more common with young defenses than with veteran defenses. It will almost certainly be even more true against Oregon and spread offenses. SC gave us just a taste of the problem of pace. We have to avoid being too far in the hole by the time the defense "catches on" to what our opponent is doing.
09-24-2015, 10:11 PM
One other interesting stat... We had 5 incompletions (excepting the spike to kill the clock). All of them were self-inflicted (4 misses by Hogan and 1 drop). On the other hand, of the 7 Kessler incompletions, 4 were due to "good defense" (though the stats only show one pass defended, it might also reflect him throwing it away). That's a credit to our young defensive backs.
BC
BC
One other interesting stat... We had 5 incompletions (excepting the spike to kill the clock). All of them were self-inflicted (4 misses by Hogan and 1 drop). On the other hand, of the 7 Kessler incompletions, 4 were due to "good defense" (though the stats only show one pass defended, it might also reflect him throwing it away). That's a credit to our young defensive backs.
BC
BC
09-25-2015, 01:04 PM
If I had time to rewatch the game, I'd try to figure out the adjustments. Or maybe the front seven woke up and realized they had to play faster/stronger to hang with U$C. And no disrespect, sometimes you blink and elevate your game when you realize what you're up against.
If I had time to rewatch the game, I'd try to figure out the adjustments. Or maybe the front seven woke up and realized they had to play faster/stronger to hang with U$C. And no disrespect, sometimes you blink and elevate your game when you realize what you're up against.
09-25-2015, 02:49 PM
An SC guy delves into more statistics: https://trojanfootballstatistics.wordpre...-is-a-lie/
09-25-2015, 05:16 PM
(09-25-2015, 05:15 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Thumbs up to RBs who can block in pass protection.
"Told you all so," David Shaw (somewhere)
(09-25-2015, 05:15 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Thumbs up to RBs who can block in pass protection.
"Told you all so," David Shaw (somewhere)
09-25-2015, 06:16 PM
I wonder if Sanders Jr. was done a disservice by having to deal with pass protection instead of developing his running ability. In the NFL, there are situational players who are RBs but only come in for pass protection on obvious passing downs. Sure, you lose part of the element of surprise, but still...
I wonder if Sanders Jr. was done a disservice by having to deal with pass protection instead of developing his running ability. In the NFL, there are situational players who are RBs but only come in for pass protection on obvious passing downs. Sure, you lose part of the element of surprise, but still...
09-25-2015, 06:30 PM
(09-24-2015, 04:38 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:We ran about 10% of our plays out of the no huddle (7 plays out of 73). I believe those were the 7 plays where we scored to end the first half (excluding Hogan's spike to kill the clock). Obviously for much of the second half, we were trying to consume clock, so huddling was a deliberate strategy, but we did gain 10.7 yards per play on no huddle plays. There is anecdotal evidence that our offense has worked better without a huddle, so it is something we might want to consider doing more of.
By the way, there is nothing that says no huddle must equate with not killing the clock. We can go up to the line of scrimmage without a huddle, do a bunch of motions, and still run the play with a mere couple seconds on the play clock.
BC
The high yards per play average in the situation you described (end of the half) might also be partly attributable to a prevent defense.
Not saying we shouldn't run the no-huddle more often, but the last minute or so of half or game are notorious for defenses dropping deep and giving up the first chunk of yards.
(09-24-2015, 04:38 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:We ran about 10% of our plays out of the no huddle (7 plays out of 73). I believe those were the 7 plays where we scored to end the first half (excluding Hogan's spike to kill the clock). Obviously for much of the second half, we were trying to consume clock, so huddling was a deliberate strategy, but we did gain 10.7 yards per play on no huddle plays. There is anecdotal evidence that our offense has worked better without a huddle, so it is something we might want to consider doing more of.
By the way, there is nothing that says no huddle must equate with not killing the clock. We can go up to the line of scrimmage without a huddle, do a bunch of motions, and still run the play with a mere couple seconds on the play clock.
BC
The high yards per play average in the situation you described (end of the half) might also be partly attributable to a prevent defense.
Not saying we shouldn't run the no-huddle more often, but the last minute or so of half or game are notorious for defenses dropping deep and giving up the first chunk of yards.
09-25-2015, 06:59 PM
(09-25-2015, 06:22 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Who is Sanders Jr?
Think he meant J Sanders
(09-25-2015, 06:22 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Who is Sanders Jr?
Think he meant J Sanders
10-01-2015, 12:33 PM
(09-25-2015, 06:22 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Who is Sanders Jr?
Barry J's unborn child?
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »