2019 Stanford
Comments
-
Penn St. had a guy name Saquon Barkley on their team and McSorely could move as well. They beat us every way you can be beaten but the threat of the run was ever present and essentially, talent and execution wise, operating at the highest level.dnc said:
tOSU and Penn State absolutely beat us with the pass.Kingdome_Urinals said:
Every team UW has lost to the last 5 years were all strong running teams. Even look at Oregon last year, Cristobal just kept handing it off when Herbert was trying to throw the game away.dnc said:Yes I think Lake is making the classic mistake of "what is hardest for me to defend against = what kind of offense we need" when what he doesn't realize is that he's not building an offense to beat his defense, he's building an offense to beat Pac12 defenses and Pac12 defenses aren't near as good as defending the pass as his defense.
TL;DR: *Gurgle*
Bama, tOSU, Penn St., Stanford, Oregon...They all could run power when they wanted to and play keep away if need be.
The others I agree.
And again this isn't coincidence and it isn't because running is a superior strategy. It's because our defense is designed to stop the pass. 2 down lineman and 5 DB's in base is highly unusual, and it's been highly effective overall. Jimmy understands innately that the passing game is the most valuable part of the game, that's why he (and K) attempt to take it away (and basically outside of the Penn State and tOSU games, succeed) from other team's offenses first.
It's just fascinating that he doesn't carry that same mindset to the offensive side of the ball.
Ohio St. Had Mike Weber and JK Dobbins to roll out. But it is true that Haskins beat us more than anything.
Either way, those were teams that could do what they wanted on the ground. -
Game #1 for head coach, QB, OC, OL, etc, etc, etc. LIPO.dnc said:
You might be right.Bread said:Jimmy is a little smarter then you idiots. They aren't rolling out a power run scheme every week. He hates offenses that target his defenses weakness. The offense is going to attack each teams weakness.
Complete opposite of Petersen's "who cares who we play, we are just going to do what we do best."
If all we can score is 27 points by attacking OSU's weaknesses I have a lot of questions. -
I still think we need a white WR to really take the next step.RoadDawg55 said:
Osbourne and Spiker are the two best WR’s on the West. Ty Jones will be incredible. You’re gonna miss some when all you really have is a 5 min Hudl of these kids, but their WR evals were terrible.RaceBannon said:
ThisBread said:Jimmy is a little smarter then you idiots. They aren't rolling out a power run scheme every week. He hates offenses that target his defenses weakness. The offense is going to attack each teams weakness.
Complete opposite of Petersen's "who cares who we play, we are just going to do what we do best."
While it is possible to be worse than Peterson I don't see it happening
By the time Pete let I was so over him it wasn't funny
And by the way the TSIO guys have some explaining to do as well. Blue chips my ass
Get me football players who make football plays. Not 7 on 7 all stars -
I think they were trying to prove a point to themselves, i.e. we are tough and can run the ball(!), which, considering the opponent, seemed like the strategic and teaching moment they were looking for.dnc said:
We ran 51 times and threw 24 (and those numbers aren't skewed by sacks as there weren't any). And it's not like we had a huge lead and were sitting on the ball to kill clock half the game either. The game plan was to run twice as much as we passed.Kingdome_Urinals said:
Consider that three different passes were dropped in the endzone. It's not like Jimmy handed off every play, Ty Jones, and Odunze botched it. So did Bynum on third down, etc..dnc said:
You might be right.Bread said:Jimmy is a little smarter then you idiots. They aren't rolling out a power run scheme every week. He hates offenses that target his defenses weakness. The offense is going to attack each teams weakness.
Complete opposite of Petersen's "who cares who we play, we are just going to do what we do best."
If all we can score is 27 points by attacking OSU's weaknesses I have a lot of questions.
Those miscues do not owe to a "running philosophy." They owe to 4 star WR's fucking up at their jobs.
We won, so it worked, I guess.
But running like you're 1990s Nebraska without the benefit of an option QB wasn't anything that should inspire confidence in anyone.
Imagine DylMo throwing a pick 6 or some stupid shit in the 4th quarter. Husky Twitter would all be dead.
They obviously thought Newton was going to start beasting people at some point, which never materialized, so hopefully he's 4th string now. -
In this shit conference, the pure virtue of coming in and being legitimately physical (e.g. what Cristobal did) immediately puts you in the top 4. Until I see other gameplans I do not understand the apprehension with the offense yet.
-
Gladstone said:
In this shit conference, the pure virtue of coming in and being legitimately physical (e.g. what Cristobal did) immediately puts you in the top 4. Until I see other gameplans I do not understand the apprehension with the offense yet.
I've died and gone to heaven.
-
Opening with a three game run of Beav, AZ, and WSU with a young QB...Yeah, you're going to do the easy thing and just try to physically dominate.Gladstone said:In this shit conference, the pure virtue of coming in and being legitimately physical (e.g. what Cristobal did) immediately puts you in the top 4. Until I see other gameplans I do not understand the apprehension with the offense yet.
There was literally no point during that game where I was wishing Dylan Morris was slinging it 40 times. -
Ask away ... what do you want explained Gramps?RaceBannon said:
ThisBread said:Jimmy is a little smarter then you idiots. They aren't rolling out a power run scheme every week. He hates offenses that target his defenses weakness. The offense is going to attack each teams weakness.
Complete opposite of Petersen's "who cares who we play, we are just going to do what we do best."
While it is possible to be worse than Peterson I don't see it happening
By the time Pete let I was so over him it wasn't funny
And by the way the TSIO guys have some explaining to do as well. Blue chips my ass
Get me football players who make football plays. Not 7 on 7 all stars -
I explained it alreadyTequilla said:
Ask away ... what do you want explained Gramps?RaceBannon said:
ThisBread said:Jimmy is a little smarter then you idiots. They aren't rolling out a power run scheme every week. He hates offenses that target his defenses weakness. The offense is going to attack each teams weakness.
Complete opposite of Petersen's "who cares who we play, we are just going to do what we do best."
While it is possible to be worse than Peterson I don't see it happening
By the time Pete let I was so over him it wasn't funny
And by the way the TSIO guys have some explaining to do as well. Blue chips my ass
Get me football players who make football plays. Not 7 on 7 all stars -
Clearly hate the attempt at humor ...RaceBannon said:
I explained it alreadyTequilla said:
Ask away ... what do you want explained Gramps?RaceBannon said:
ThisBread said:Jimmy is a little smarter then you idiots. They aren't rolling out a power run scheme every week. He hates offenses that target his defenses weakness. The offense is going to attack each teams weakness.
Complete opposite of Petersen's "who cares who we play, we are just going to do what we do best."
While it is possible to be worse than Peterson I don't see it happening
By the time Pete let I was so over him it wasn't funny
And by the way the TSIO guys have some explaining to do as well. Blue chips my ass
Get me football players who make football plays. Not 7 on 7 all stars
I agree with you that there was clearly something missing with Petersen last year ... he looked very burned out to me. I applaud him for stepping away when he realized he didn't have the hunger to do the job going forward.
My primary concern with Lake is that I see him as someone that thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. The soundbites sound wonderful. But when it comes to executing, to date I haven't seen the match to his words. For any person in leadership, I worry about someone who talks a better game than they play it.
I'm definitely not someone that is going to get bent out of shape over any single recruit as it really is about the depth of the talent versus any individual player.
When asking for the TSIO guys to explain and then referencing blue chips, there's a lot of ways for that discussion to go. When you bring in a lot of talent some will work out and some won't. I'll always advocate for getting competition into position groups and letting the players decide who plays.
What I will disagree with is a blind disputing of talent and rankings. They are definitely not absolutes but there's a reason that people follow the blue chip ratio as it does have some decent correlation. You're right that evaluating skills like toughness, can you actually make the plays when the pressure is on, etc. are important measurement tools vs looking at 7 on 7 underwear olympics (which have some but limitations to them). Off the top of my head I know that all of the members of TSIO were very bullish on 3-star Taylor Rapp and were proven right. I know that we also thought that ZTF looked much, much better than his ranking.
By and large TSIO has been fairly good at talking about players and what their strengths and weaknesses are.
