About That Stanford Victory
I think the reason USC defeated Stanford was pretty simple: The Cardinal did not have the depth or players to last a full game against the Trojans.
So it wasn't any brilliant decision to run the ball. Or that the defense figured out Stanford's offense.
It was plain physical superiority. That is fine in a run-of-the-mill conference. But too many USC games are won by this method. As one reader noted in an email today, ``It was Stanford, for crying out loud.''
Or, are most games in football won this way. Physical superiority...the most talented, deepest, strongest team wins. I think that is the name of the game. He who has the gold, makes the rules. This works 90% of the time. It's the other 10% that bites us in the butt.
SW,
You have to be more careful and not let people look up your skirt, man!
Don't you understand this is football, not nuclear physics?
The idea is to win the game. It's a competition. And you go to your strength.
BTW, this is what every team does. Should Florida not use their speed against South Carolina. Should great passing teams not pass?
As for the "brilliant decision," it was a brilliant decision. Stanford couldn't stop USC from running the ball. Simple does not equal stupid, stupid. And, you're arriving at the decision that it was plain physical superiority would certainly count as brilliant since it's coming from a dufus who evidently knows nothing about football.
On defense, USC put a safety up in the box in the 2nd half and Stanford couldn't account for the man difference in their blocking-game over.
And, USC can not win enough games by this method. That was how Stanford had run 5 games and there isn't one single football coach in college or the NFL that wouldn't want to have physical superiority on their side of the ball and use it...over and over and over again.
How do you arrive at this total lack of reasoning? Is it just a complete lack of understanding about the sport you are covering?
What a bunch of rediculous horseshit Scott!
85 and 15!
And if Stanford had lost to Georgia by a ton? Or Florida? You would rank them in the top 25?
You make no sense.
USC is a tremendous football team and Stanford played them well for one half. Stanford deserves the credit, but it does not take anything away from the victory that USC got.
Take a break from Sports for awhile SW.
I second what Goliathtrojan said.
Well put, and I suspect it refers to more than just this one "brilliant" thought by Scott.
Psst, Scott, the reason SC has beaten UCLA and Notre Dame for the last 10 years is because we have better talent. And, shh, don't tell anyone...the reason we clobbered Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl and Michigan in the Rose Bowl is because we have better talent.
See, bringing in better talent, evaluating talent better than anyone has ever done it before, is part of a thing called coaching.
Maybe you should consider that when you rip on our coaches - daily.
It WAS a brilliant decision. You want to know why? Because last year USC was dominating Stanford at home with the run game and struggled with the pass. The quest for balance cost USC points in the first half so it was close. Booty gets hurt and USC still doesn't run the ball. Here come all the picks and all the momentum switched. At every turn, PC had the opportunity to take over the game with the run, but didn't. It was an obvious one and would have yielded a sure multi-score victory and a shot at a National Championship. They chose to continue to throw the ball with a kid with a broken hand at QB. It cost him. That was a horrible decision.
Seeing that Sanchez was having some sort of stroke in installments and would not feel secure in the pocket (must have been the 3 drive ending sacks in the first half), the obvious decision was to run the ball and over power Stanford. He finally relinquished and they won going away, save for the temper tantrum each coach had at the end of the game.
Fight On!
Scott, the same exact statement could be made up last year's match-up, yet Stanford pulled off the upset. That is why the play the game on the field, and not on paper. The offense was sputtering when it attempted to pass, so they decided to run the ball more. It was a long time coming. Sark falls in love with the passing game, when pounding the damn ball is more effective in the long run (when you have the right personnel). It wears down the opponent's defense, keeps the clock moving, and keeps your own defense fresh.
Wow, Scott you must think that your insight shows brilliance? It is college football!