Max Browne analysis of 'SC offense v. Stanford

Really interesting. Max is attributing the offensive explosion to a lack of discipline on Stanford's part.

He's calling the plays run that beat and confused the Trees "Day 1 install." Max is excellent at this type of video eval, so very much worth a look.

https://twitter.com/MaxBrowne4/status/1171964116170358791

 

Interesting analysis. Perhaps he didn't have too much success because he was too analytical while on the field?

 

As usual, Max does a good breakdown. I think Harrell’s entire offense is a “Day 1 install”, and is designed to make it difficult for a defense to cover everyone.

But I agree, Stanford’s defense probably wasn’t what it has been in recent years.

 

If that's "Day 1 install" what's gonna be the other installs lol

But I also agree, Stanford was not ready for Kedon nor this offense it seems. Even more so in the 2nd half, when it got going.

 

What would he have said had SC lost? Come on man!

 

lol true

 

So.... he's saying that Helton had his team more prepared than Shaw did?

Fair enough.

 

Thanks for sharing Annenberg.

 

Watched all 6 videos--nice analysis by Max. My only criticism is that he needs a tripod so it doesn't look like The Blair Witch.

 

haha. He could use a producer, but that would take some of the living room appeal away from it.

 

First people complained because he wasn't mobile enough, and now ....

 

I saw that too, but he also mentioned how Harrell’s offense put Slovis in a good position. This wasn’t as played up in his analysis as much as Standford’s mistakes. If you take a second look at the pre-snap picture you can see Harrell’s offense created mismatch nightmares for Stanford; they looked like they were playing with 10 men on the field which is the purpose of the offense. Still it’s always good to be cautious when reviewing those types of games, and it seems Helton has been getting in their ear all week that they need to keep their intensity.

 

The key to Kedon is to keep things simple and stick to the things that work, rather than listen to all the analysis and move away from what was working. Very simply:

1. He had no balls knocked down at LOS, this means he wasn't telegraphing passes or staring-down WR's. That's a great start by itself and an improvement over all last season.
2. When the play broke down, he moved in the pocket and alternated between taking off for 3-4 yds or pulling-up to complete a pass. That's light-years improvement over JT.
3. His "touch" on passes were spot-on, air where it needed to be, pace where it was required.
4. Calm, poised, didn't panic. Game seemed to slow down for him (rather than speed-up and throw "fade-away" passes off your back foot like the previous).

These alone are enough to keep us in the game by themselves. Sprinkle in some more looks at TE, some RB screen passes, wheel routes and that should be plenty (at least for BYU).

Looking forward to strategic trick-plays in the future with reverses, double-passes and the like.

Not to mention, what ever happended to Baxter's trick plays on ST's (punt return, where all the blockers run to the wrong side and the lone-receiver fields it and runs untouched)? Can that no longer be used?

 

Well said.

I get what Max Browne is saying about not seeing some open receivers farther downfield, but I don’t want Kedon concerning himself with that. If he sees it, he sees it. I want him playing his game, sticking with what worked, and not trying to do too much. And when he doesn’t “do too much”, he ends up doing a great deal.

 

Interesting analysis.

I'll grant that Max Browne knows way more football than I do, but I'd make a couple of notes.

First, it seems like the theme was that Stanford made mistakes, but it looks like the offense put Stanford in a position where whatever they did was wrong, or at least it was very easy to be wrong. Max may be blaming the defense too much and not giving enough credit to the offense. If the offensive scheme has Stanford's Mike linebacker trying to cover Amon Ra St. Brown that's a win for the offense. I don't think there's any way the linebacker can keep up.

Second, maybe I don't understand progressions. I thought that if option #1 is open you throw option #1. You don't scan the field for options 2, 3, 4, and 5 to see if one of them is even more open. Is that not right? Maybe option #3 would be an even bigger play, but holding on to the ball creates way more problems than it solves. Also, a receiver can be open, but not visible to the quarterback because he's behind a pile of linemen. Point is, open receivers get missed for a lot of reasons. It's not necessarily a mistake.

 

So I ask my dumb question. Is there any defense that can cover all receivers without one receiver being one on one? That is the core of the AR as I read it. The O will have one receiver that is one on one unless they pull out some help from the box.
Also, saying "this is not the Stanford I knew" was a bit pompous. Or course it isn't because the Stanford you knew never faced an AR of Porche's.

 

The Stanford D only had 1 quality dB. He was on Pittman in the first half. In the second half he was moved to St. Brown. This meant guys needed help, double teams, and no blitzing. Not sure our previous offense forced the other team to think, which causes mistakes and slow reactions.

As I said in a post Sunday, it was fun for a change for USZc to be the team with wide open receivers. We never had that with Tee. And not frequently with Kiff or Sark.

And this passing game can set up the run.

 

I believe this is why they came up with the term, Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

The key is, (Max mentioned it), consistently Slovis went though all his progressions. He did this the entire game and time after time found the right guy to get the ball to. The difference wasn't Furd's mistakes, it was Slovis.

Beat the Cougs! ✌

 

So what to you base progressions on? First look covered? Then sure he looks somewhere else or runs. I think "progressions" is burned into the minds of fans and is not as big a thing in the AR