Strategy: In order to best understand the fundamental differences between Iowa’s and Stanford’s strategy during the game, all three components of Grant’s view of strategy will be considered.
The first component of strategy is to have “simple, consistent, long-term goals.” This is the only point of overlap between the teams in regard to their strategy—they both had the ultimate goal of playing their best to capture the Rose Bowl title. The second component of Grant’s view of strategy is having a “profound understanding of the competitive environment.” In this realm, the teams greatly differed: simply put, Iowa’s strategy was static in the environment and Stanford’s strategy was dynamic. Iowa’s strategy was static because it was rooted in what …show more content…
After Stanford scored on their first drive with a 75 yard run by McCaffrey, Iowa’s defensive mentality became overly reactive—loosing the poise of a well established zone defense. Either Kevin Hogan, Stanford’s quarterback, or Stanford’s offensive play coordinator was able to read Iowa’s defense and prescribe a play that best leveraged Stanford’s players and Iowa’s relative perception of individual players as threats in such a way that it lead to a touchdown. Leading up to the specific play, McCaffrey had run a series of successful plays enabling Stanford to have position within Iowa’s red zone. Although the game was only six minutes in, McCaffrey had already ran for 140 yards; he had established himself as a threat to Iowa’s defense that couldn’t be taken lightly. Knowing Iowa’s zone defense was over reactive to McCaffrey’s moves, Stanford’s play callers decided to have Hogan offer a fake handoff to McCaffrey. As McCaffrey cut to the right corner of the end zone, all but one of Iowa’s defensive players committed to stopping him without hesitation. As Hogan peeled out from the fake handoff towards the left corner of the end zone he was left in a one on one open field situation with Iowa’s safety. Seemingly with ease, Hogan ran into the end zone. In addition to it being a brilliant tactical move, Stanford executed the play flawlessly—it was both tactics and their execution that led to the play’s
The first component of strategy is to have “simple, consistent, long-term goals.” This is the only point of overlap between the teams in regard to their strategy—they both had the ultimate goal of playing their best to capture the Rose Bowl title. The second component of Grant’s view of strategy is having a “profound understanding of the competitive environment.” In this realm, the teams greatly differed: simply put, Iowa’s strategy was static in the environment and Stanford’s strategy was dynamic. Iowa’s strategy was static because it was rooted in what …show more content…
After Stanford scored on their first drive with a 75 yard run by McCaffrey, Iowa’s defensive mentality became overly reactive—loosing the poise of a well established zone defense. Either Kevin Hogan, Stanford’s quarterback, or Stanford’s offensive play coordinator was able to read Iowa’s defense and prescribe a play that best leveraged Stanford’s players and Iowa’s relative perception of individual players as threats in such a way that it lead to a touchdown. Leading up to the specific play, McCaffrey had run a series of successful plays enabling Stanford to have position within Iowa’s red zone. Although the game was only six minutes in, McCaffrey had already ran for 140 yards; he had established himself as a threat to Iowa’s defense that couldn’t be taken lightly. Knowing Iowa’s zone defense was over reactive to McCaffrey’s moves, Stanford’s play callers decided to have Hogan offer a fake handoff to McCaffrey. As McCaffrey cut to the right corner of the end zone, all but one of Iowa’s defensive players committed to stopping him without hesitation. As Hogan peeled out from the fake handoff towards the left corner of the end zone he was left in a one on one open field situation with Iowa’s safety. Seemingly with ease, Hogan ran into the end zone. In addition to it being a brilliant tactical move, Stanford executed the play flawlessly—it was both tactics and their execution that led to the play’s