AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Zone read vs Smash Mouth
- Thread starter BuffUp
- Start date
Coaching matters, too. Helfy got smashed.
Yep and they were probably missing their best dlineman. They blitzed the A gap quite a bit. Biggest thing is they didn't try and defend Oregon, they attacked their ass.
you and me both. I have been toot'n Oregons horn all season. Oh well, next.
Walter White
Member
I think that is an outdated notion with respect to ball control.
If Stanford didn't have a gret defense, Oregon would have put up a ton of points like they always do. Oregon does not typically need much time. They can be way ahead on the score boarad and way behind on the TOP. You are lumping two different things together. Stanford's offense is good enough to get by because they have a great defense. If Stanford did not have a great defense and lost 50-26 (scorign exactly the same amout with the same TOP) not one person here would talking about the attributes of Stanford's offense.
That said, not many teams put together fantastic offenses and defenses at the same time. I think both the USC and Texas teams in 2005 did that, but the stars don't align very often.
Lastly, I like what Stanford does very much. They have an identity on both sides of the ball and they stick to it. Lots of paths to success, but you need to be good at whatever it is you choose to do....10k hours of practice/repitition to mastery and all of that....recruit to that style, teach that style, and stay consistent over the years so that when it's your time to start you've been in the system for several years....plug and play
Hey DAT...not only did you not hang 40+ on them, you barely had 40 yards rushing.
Walter White
Member
The big assumption is that you have to be really good at nasty old school football. Just because you play that style does not mean you will be effective. Oregon beats the crap out of teams that play old school if they're not good. It's stating the obvious, but maybe not based on your comment. It's not about style, it's about execution.
...hence the phrase good OL and DL...
class01
Well-Known Member
I was at the game last night and it was awesome to see Stanford dominate the Ducks. Their fans are the most obnoxious out of all that have made their way to PA since I've been here. Apparently they all own a #6 jersey and were screaming and picking fights with quiet, middle-aged Stanford fans all the way into the stadium. Their demeanor on the way out was quite a bit different.
Also, it was awesome to see "the Duke" get his jersey retired. Right after he screamed to the crowd: "Let's kick some ass in the 2nd half!!". I guess he wasn't worried about the little girls sitting right behind me...haha
I think the biggest key to Stanford's success (other than some pretty darn good luck) is that they always stay in their gaps, are fast enough to do so and can make the one-on-one tackle when it comes to them. Oregon's whole schtick is to run sideline to sideline looking for a crease then explode through it.
Also, it was awesome to see "the Duke" get his jersey retired. Right after he screamed to the crowd: "Let's kick some ass in the 2nd half!!". I guess he wasn't worried about the little girls sitting right behind me...haha
I think the biggest key to Stanford's success (other than some pretty darn good luck) is that they always stay in their gaps, are fast enough to do so and can make the one-on-one tackle when it comes to them. Oregon's whole schtick is to run sideline to sideline looking for a crease then explode through it.
Last edited:
Outdated notion? Did you actually watch the game? Stanford ran 79 plays and only attempted 13 passes. Ball control was clearly the gameplan from the start. Again, Stanford had nine more first downs and ran 21 more plays. The Cardinal clearly wanted to keep Oregon's offense off the field and it worked. Oregon rarely needs much time to score, but they care about complementary football too. If their defense cannot get off the field, it is really hard for their offense to exert pressure on the opposing team. It was pretty clear last night one team set the tone on both sides of the ball. If you think that one has no effect on the other, I can't help you.
Plus they tried to implement a hurry-up spread in the 1st game last year and had planned to move to that for year 3 (Oklahoma State style). So while I think they didn't give up on valuing the run game in the least, they were philosophically departed from old school TE & FB sets.
Walter White
Member
Stanford won because of the defense. TOP is not a major factor. For example, Oregon beat UCLA but had a lower time of possession by almost 5 minutes. It really doesn't mean much. Scoring 26 points is very average and won't be good enough to win many of yoru games unless you have a very solid defense.
I figured after three pages somebody would have said the obvious, but Mariotta's injury was the difference in the game. You can't effectively run a read option if your QB is hesitant to keep and run. The offense becomes one dimensional without the QB as a viable threat. Stanford was able to close the middle because they no longer had to respect the threat of the backside keep.
NYbuffDIEHARD
Active Member
It is like the siren here in Seattle when the Huskies score. Sadly I expect to be hearing it early and often tomorrow afternoon.
This. Absolutely agree. Good post.
yea, he was a shadow of himself. But he got worse as the game went on. So rattled.
You will notice I have not mentioned TOP, but rather first downs and plays run. You seem to keep ignoring those two stats. TOP is usually an overrated stat, but in conjunction with first downs and plays run, it can become pretty meaningful. Good luck winning many games in which you are dominated in all three stats. You keep wanting to separate how Stanford approached the game on offense and defense, but it is impossible to do so. The gameplan was to keep offensive drives alive by grinding the clock. It kept Oregon's offense off the field and it kept Stanford's defense fresh. So calling Stanford's offense inept and arguing that the defense was the sole reason for winning the game is bizarre. Can most teams play like Stanford did last night and win against Oregon? Of course not. But Stanford can, so whether 26 points is enough to beat Oregon in most games is irrelevant.
What you also didn't mention that goes along with this is that a team that dominates in first downs and plays run also is most often going to dominate the field position game. Teams like Oregon thrive off having short fields, while Stanford was building their lead the Ducks were not getting the ball at or close to mid-field or closer. Stanford put themselves into a position where even if Oregon got a 20-30 yard play they still weren't in scoring position.
It sure helps when you have blue chippers that are able to redshirt on the OL and DL. Remember when Stanford DL's dominated USC's OL last year? The guys they have in the trenches are MNC worthy and they have pure studs at LB and very smart safeties. Smart, physical, fundamental football combined with talent.
There's a reason why the SEC has won 7 MNCs. Teams in the SEC are built to defend first and goal. Teams like Oregon have a hard time in the Red Zone. I read something like 70% of CFB plays have a blown assignment. Teams like Oregon are designed to exploit that. When you play a team like Stanford they aren't going to do that. They may not have the athleticism at the skill positions to match up against Oregon, but they aren't doing more than asked. The good Boise St teams were like that as well.
Blocking and tackling. Knowing your assignments. When does a team like Stanford suffer from stupid penalties? They are disciplined. That's why I think UCLA is never going to get to the elite status under Mora. They have all of the talent they need, but they play like a Hawk team in terms of discipline.
There's a reason why the SEC has won 7 MNCs. Teams in the SEC are built to defend first and goal. Teams like Oregon have a hard time in the Red Zone. I read something like 70% of CFB plays have a blown assignment. Teams like Oregon are designed to exploit that. When you play a team like Stanford they aren't going to do that. They may not have the athleticism at the skill positions to match up against Oregon, but they aren't doing more than asked. The good Boise St teams were like that as well.
Blocking and tackling. Knowing your assignments. When does a team like Stanford suffer from stupid penalties? They are disciplined. That's why I think UCLA is never going to get to the elite status under Mora. They have all of the talent they need, but they play like a Hawk team in terms of discipline.
Every time u looked up, it seemed to be 3rd and 3 or 4. They converted when they had to. It looked pretty damn good from my vantage point. Duff is right but you have to have guys up front to play that style of ball. They executed their ass off and just looked physically stronger than Oregon. They finished plays period.
Helfrich is not a top shelf name coach. This loss wasn't good for him. I am not saying hot-seat at all, but the way they lost (including star receivers crying one minute into the fourth and other star receivers openenly laughing) will result in his coaching pedigree being questioned.
EddieCrowder
Well-Known Member
Zone read or smash mouth, it doesn't really matter at this point because there are only about 5 or 6 kids on either side of the ball that are actual players for any of these teams that are being discussed. By players I don't even mean starters, Obviously PRich is a starter on any team, at Stanford for example Powell would be a FB, not a tailback. On defense Gillam probably redshirts on these teams, and Uzo-diribe is a situational player. Facts are facts whatever Mac wants to do he needs better players to do it, and a helluva lot of them. The next 2 recruiting classes will tell us if this staff will succeed, or fail. Mac won't tell anyone point blank but his actions show us with all the freshman playing, there is no upper class talent at all, especially in the trenches. If we are going to win in any conference we need speed, and line players. Baylor lost 29 straight Big XII games, changed coaches multiple times incomes Art Briles, first it was RGIII that put them on the map, now they are loaded with the best players in the conference and its conceivable they could play for the NC. PLAYERS, WE NEED REAL PAC XII PLAYERS, then we can play any scheme we want.