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
did you like it when Stanford ran smash mouth zone read?
even better
Loved the 9OL set. Oregon knew what was coming, and they could do nothing about it.
Walter White
Member
Stanford only scored 26 points. If Stanford's D wasn't so good people would be calling Stanford's smash mouth offense inept.
Walter White
Member
Washington State scored 38 on Oregon. Some in junk time, but still...
:nod: last night was a masterpiece of a gameplan (not to mention execution). Outside of a few players, Oregon had far more talent at most positions. And they got blasted.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
The difference between Stanford and Oregon is a commitment to physicality as a team. Smash mouth is an attitude as much as a style of play.
Walter White
Member
I think scoring a lot of points on offense tends to align nicely with not giving up many points on defense. ...complementary, if you will.
Yep. Anyone calling Stanford's offense inept for last night's performance needs to start watching games more closely. It goes the other way too. It is clear that Oregon's coaching staff really struggles to adapt in close games.
I bet you also think Gaffney had a poor game averaging less than four yards per carry.
Walter White
Member
I'll bet you think Stanford would have won this game with the same defense the Ducks put on the field.
Stanford has provided the blueprint for beating Oregon. Not that it's easy, mind you. But just like there was a blueprint for beating those Nub teams in the 80's and 90's, there is now a blueprint for beating Oregon. Having seen that game last night, I came away convinced Alabama would beat Oregon. BTW - I hate that F**king horn that they blow at the Stanford games. Annoying as Hell. Maybe it has to do with the fact that the last time I went to a game there, that damn thing went off about 20 times.
Me too. I was commenting last night to a buddy that you can have all the speed and flashiness, but it's nothing against being "outphysicaled", outcoached and outexecuted. I don't see Oregon winning a NC as long as types like Stanford and Alabama.
No. I think Stanford's offensive gameplan was sensational because it relied on ball control to keep Oregon's offense off the field. Nine more first downs and 21 more plays than the opponent is hardly inept. In fact, quite the opposite. It took a blocked FG return and an onside kick recovery for Oregon to even make a game out of it. You seem to believe Stanford's ground game had nothing to do with their defensive success. Strange argument to make.
Some things will never change in football. If you can kick people's ass up front on both sides of the ball, you can pretty much do what u want style wise. That's basically what happened last night.
At one point, I was wondering what would happen if Jabar got loose for more than 5 yards. I thought it was 50/50 on whether he would just go down once he got the first. Stanford's whole plan was to prevent Oregon from getting in rhythm on offense by playing keep away. Given enough time, Oregon almost always figures out what a defense is cheating on, then eats them up. Stanford didn't give them enough time or reps for them to do that. great stuff.
Skov was freaking everywhere, that folks is a linebacker. Stanford is a little nasty too, they are cocky and good.
you got it, keeping them off the field is only half the plan if the defense doesn't stop those less then a minute scoring drives. Masterful plan executed to a tee. Jam those receivers off the line so they can't get to speed then get on the QB and get in his face.
You're probably right. It is what I envisioned when Embree talked. Actions were different, although he may have just been getting what he could get.
Thank you...you saved me from having to say it. One guy in my office is a huge Oregon fan...I told him Oregon would never get a MNC until they could match the SEC up front. Well, looks like they have to match up with Stanford up front first.
Yep, FSU or Bama would have gone into the 4th quarter last night leading 40-0. That game ends as a blowout without the blocked FG.
SECOBuffsFan
Active Member
They did it for JOHN!!
Teams that win championships are usually leaders, not followers.
In the last few years the trend in college FB has been to go the direction that Oregon is in the forefront of. Focus on speed, spread the field, create one on one matchups that if won result in a fast player having the ball in the open field.
As this happens defenses adjust by going with smaller, faster defenders who can play in space, who have a better chance of neutralizing those one on one match-ups.
What Stanford has done is recruited well enough that they can hold up on the back end of the defense but focused on winning physically up front on defense. Don't let the ball get to open space to start with, don't let the OL get to where they can create gaps.
At the same time on offense they have gone counter to the wide open speed game and built a physical group that would rather run over defenses than try to run by them. Put a bunch of big, physical players out there against defenses that are built to handle speed instead of power and you get a missmatch.
This by the way is the same thing that Bama has done over the past few years on their way to rolling up NCs. It isn't that they lack speed, they don't. They would just much rather use power to beat teams up to create opportunities for that speed to show rather than focus on beating speed with more speed.
It is to bad that Stanford lost to Utah because a Cardinal-Tide NC game would have been a great game to see.
In the last few years the trend in college FB has been to go the direction that Oregon is in the forefront of. Focus on speed, spread the field, create one on one matchups that if won result in a fast player having the ball in the open field.
As this happens defenses adjust by going with smaller, faster defenders who can play in space, who have a better chance of neutralizing those one on one match-ups.
What Stanford has done is recruited well enough that they can hold up on the back end of the defense but focused on winning physically up front on defense. Don't let the ball get to open space to start with, don't let the OL get to where they can create gaps.
At the same time on offense they have gone counter to the wide open speed game and built a physical group that would rather run over defenses than try to run by them. Put a bunch of big, physical players out there against defenses that are built to handle speed instead of power and you get a missmatch.
This by the way is the same thing that Bama has done over the past few years on their way to rolling up NCs. It isn't that they lack speed, they don't. They would just much rather use power to beat teams up to create opportunities for that speed to show rather than focus on beating speed with more speed.
It is to bad that Stanford lost to Utah because a Cardinal-Tide NC game would have been a great game to see.