HansGruber
New member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2012
- Messages
- 2,740
- Reaction score
- 0
pehawk":2dez1lex said:
Say whatever you want. I'm saying Stanford was not a "physical" team, they were not a physical offense, and you have yet to show how they would fall into that category.
Gerhart was tall and put up a lot of rushing yards. Ok. And TCU put up more. So did Navy and Air Force. And a handful of other teams that were anything but "power running" teams. I'm telling you the "power rush" thing was nonsense, and hype.
Go back and look at Stanford's 2010 schedule and results. They were putting up 40 points a game. They could run because people were scared of Luck. Luck could scramble and throw on the run, or he could kill you from within the pocket. It's a whole lot easier to run when everyone is expecting you to throw for 400-500 yards a game.
Take Stanford out of the butter-soft Pac-10 and they weren't so "physical". You want to explain what happened against Oklahoma in 2009? That was their only "physical" opponent from 09-10, and they got whooped. How do you explain those losses to TCU in 2007 and 2008? Those were another of their very few non-PAC10 games, and they got owned and that "power rush" was nowhere to be found. Or how about Notre Dame in 2007? They couldn't put up more than 14 there, either.
Physical teams don't put up 40 every week, face one strong run team, and suddenly collapse. Just because the press called Harbaugh's run offense a "power rush" that doesn't suddenly make them physical. You prove your physicality by winning those non-conference games, by running even when you face a great defense.
Let's go back to the Oregon-Stanford matchup. Stanford put up 170 yards rushing to Oregon's 380. LaMichael James, who you just said was not a physical back, ran for 257 yards against Stanford by himself. How is that physical? Just a few weeks after that, Auburn totally shutdown Oregon's offense, and specifically their run game. How do you correlate that?
