Spring Game - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Spring Game (/thread-23133.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Spring Game (/thread-23133.html)
Pages:
1
2
Spring Game - needle - 04-09-2022
Roush, the young TE, truly had a day with two TDs, one of which was a true highlight play in which he held on after a pretty hard hit.
Never judge a player by a single game, but he sure seems legit.
Otherwise, probably a reach to draw any conclusions.
McKee looked very, very good to my eyes, fwiw.
For everyone worried about the defense, the announcers relayed that Lance Anderson thinks walk-on DT Zephron Lester is playing with the right energy, so calm your fears.
RE: Spring Game - murky - 04-09-2022
Thanks for the report.
I assume that last line is meant with a winky face.
RE: Spring Game - old spanish trail - 04-09-2022
(04-09-2022, 02:21 PM)needle Wrote: Roush, the young TE, truly had a day with two TDs, one of which was a true highlight play in which he held on after a pretty hard hit.
Never judge a player by a single game, but he sure seems legit.
Otherwise, probably a reach to draw any conclusions.
McKee looked very, very good to my eyes, fwiw.
For everyone worried about the defense, the announcers relayed that Lance Anderson thinks walk-on DT Zephron Lester is playing with the right energy, so calm your fears.
Lol. The frosh wr, Medea Rubin, also hung on to the ball. One or two tds. EJ Smith looked pretty good as did the early entry frosh dl Bailey.
RE: Spring Game - BostonCard - 04-09-2022
Bear in mind that they are going up against our defense.
BC
RE: Spring Game - msqueri - 04-09-2022
Shaw is clear about this kind of setup that it's not a game and there is no scoring for the defense. The offense getting to the end zone doesn't really mean anything....the offense always has the ball.
I thought the first team front seven held up decently against the first team offense but whenever that happens you wonder whether something like that speaks well of one side of the ball or ill for another. Same with EJ Smith's touchdown run.....was that a good play by Smith or a bad play by Bailey and Miezan? There's no way to really know.
In any case, the "spring game" (not at all a game and in this case didn't even have WR/DB/RB rooms participating hardly at all) means nothing. No reason to draw anything from these data points anymore than a random practice anytime during the year. Still, it's always interesting to get eyeballs on the team since the program allows/encourages so little of that. From what I saw:
* Keneley seems like he offers something, although I wonder where he fits on the depth chart in this "tweaked" defense. I have a hard-to-explain hunch that Keneley may play less than I'd assume and DiCosmo may play more, but I have very low confidence in that hunch. I think we're still working out in our minds what the edge situation looks like, and I'm certainly not settled on any sort of expectation.
* Reuben made numerous plays but it wasn't a fair fight. The DB group was a ludicrous sight to have Kelly, Williamson, Fields, Bonner, Turner-Muhammad, Manley, Gilman, Porter, Jones all out. Just not much you can say when the WR/DB competition is the dregs of the depth chart playing each other.
* Nonetheless, I was eager to get at glimpse at Toomer, Leigber, and Ellis. I wasn't impressed. At this point one would have to think 2022 will rely on others and 2023 will likely see those guys over-recruited.
* McGill didn't look good either. He even dropped an interception, which is very unlike him. But one practice doesn't mean anything.
* I still can't believe how small Sinclair is. I don't count on him for anything.
* I don't really feel like judging McKee or Patu in a situation where there are no pass catchers available other than a couple of should-be high school seniors.
* As always, my favorite thing about Smith is his route running and pass catching ability. It remains to be seen how much that can be part of his game in 2022 since we need him as RB1 but I have always loved that part of his game. The receiving touchdown was nice, although it's unclear that would have been such a big play against Pac-12 starting DBs rather than against Leigber and Ellis.
* I didn't fixate on Bailey but it looked to me like he flashed at times and was stymied at times. In general, this whole setup is hard to evaluate because it's not live with the QBs, so there was pass rush by Bailey/Keneley/etc. that looked like it may have been effective but we're sort of just guessing in this format.
* Extremely loath to draw conclusions from this format but first time OL run blocking did not seem nasty or like it turned a new corner. The one explosive blocking play was actually by the second unit to spring the walk-on RB Robinson.
* Ok, the one and only high confidence observation from this farce of a spring game: SAM ROUSH! We now have a steadily accumulating pile of data points that this guy is next up after Yurosek in our run of all-conference/NFL tight ends. And while it wasn't a fair fight just like it wasn't a fair fight for Reuben to go against walk-ons and roster dregs, in Roush's case he even abused Wyrick. We know from last year Wyrick is a legitimate Pac-12 player. Roush was the takeaway from today.
RE: Spring Game - old spanish trail - 04-09-2022
(04-09-2022, 02:41 PM)msqueri Wrote: Shaw is clear about this kind of setup that it's not a game and there is no scoring for the defense. The offense getting to the end zone doesn't really mean anything....the offense always has the ball.
I thought the first team front seven held up decently against the first team offense but whenever that happens you wonder whether something like that speaks well of one side of the ball or ill for another. Same with EJ Smith's touchdown run.....was that a good play by Smith or a bad play by Bailey and Miezan? There's no way to really know.
In any case, the "spring game" (not at all a game and in this case didn't even have WR/DB/RB rooms participating hardly at all) means nothing. No reason to draw anything from these data points anymore than a random practice anytime during the year. Still, it's always interesting to get eyeballs on the team since the program allows/encourages so little of that. From what I saw:
* Keneley seems like he offers something, although I wonder where he fits on the depth chart in this "tweaked" defense. I have a hard-to-explain hunch that Keneley may play less than I'd assume and DiCosmo may play more, but I have very low confidence in that hunch. I think we're still working out in our minds what the edge situation looks like, and I'm certainly not settled on any sort of expectation.
* Reuben made numerous plays but it wasn't a fair fight. The DB group was a ludicrous sight to have Kelly, Williamson, Fields, Bonner, Turner-Muhammad, Manley, Gilman, Porter, Jones all out. Just not much you can say when the WR/DB competition is the dregs of the depth chart playing each other.
* Nonetheless, I was eager to get at glimpse at Toomer, Leigber, and Ellis. I wasn't impressed. At this point one would have to think 2022 will rely on others and 2023 will likely see those guys over-recruited.
* McGill didn't look good either. He even dropped an interception, which is very unlike him. But one practice doesn't mean anything.
* I still can't believe how small Sinclair is. I don't count on him for anything.
* I don't really feel like judging McKee or Patu in a situation where there are no pass catchers available other than a couple of should-be high school seniors.
* As always, my favorite thing about Smith is his route running and pass catching ability. It remains to be seen how much that can be part of his game in 2022 since we need him as RB1 but I have always loved that part of his game. The receiving touchdown was nice, although it's unclear that would have been such a big play against Pac-12 starting DBs rather than against Leigber and Ellis.
* I didn't fixate on Bailey but it looked to me like he flashed at times and was stymied at times. In general, this whole setup is hard to evaluate because it's not live with the QBs, so there was pass rush by Bailey/Keneley/etc. that looked like it may have been effective but we're sort of just guessing in this format.
* Extremely loath to draw conclusions from this format but first time OL run blocking did not seem nasty or like it turned a new corner. The one explosive blocking play was actually by the second unit to spring the walk-on RB Robinson.
* Ok, the one and only high confidence observation from this farce of a spring game: SAM ROUSH! We now have a steadily accumulating pile of data points that this guy is next up after Yurosek in our run of all-conference/NFL tight ends. And while it wasn't a fair fight just like it wasn't a fair fight for Reuben to go against walk-ons and roster dregs, in Roush's case he even abused Wyrick. We know from last year Wyrick is a legitimate Pac-12 player. Roush was the takeaway from today.
Totally agree re Roush and Smith. One or more of our brethren had denigrated Roush so I wasn't expecting much and was more than pleasantly surprised. Also didn't see any difference in the OL run game execution. So, what's the "tweak"? Anybody know?
RE: Spring Game - OutsiderFan - 04-10-2022
Based on my limited but still meaningfully informed knowledge of Stanford Football at this point in time (inability to run or stop run in 2021, paper thin DL and more talented by recruiting rankings OL), if the offense wasn't running for 5 YPC in Spring Scrimmage, it might not be out of the question for Stanford to go winless in 2022.
Any reason to disagree?
RE: Spring Game - lex24 - 04-10-2022
(04-10-2022, 08:29 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Based on my limited but still meaningfully informed knowledge of Stanford Football at this point in time (inability to run or stop run in 2021, paper thin DL and more talented by recruiting rankings OL), if the offense wasn't running for 5 YPC in Spring Scrimmage, it might not be out of the question for Stanford to go winless in 2022.
Any reason to disagree?
I agree your knowledge is limited….. :). As for winless - no.
RE: Spring Game - msqueri - 04-10-2022
Winless not a serious thing to say. Last year’s horrendous Stanford team would have been favored over Colgate by 43 points. There is no team in Stanford’s history that would have any danger of losing to Colgate.
RE: Spring Game - CowboyIndian - 04-10-2022
(04-10-2022, 09:33 AM)msqueri Wrote: There is no team in Stanford’s history that would have any danger of losing to Colgate.
Ahem...UC Davis, anyone?
RE: Spring Game - Phogge - 04-10-2022
The 1960 team 0-10. I don't know how many of those guys are alive but I think Dick Norman is but he must be about 82. he couldn't move very well back then so I think he might have a bit of trouble when the pocket collapses.
RE: Spring Game - SamuelMcF - 04-10-2022
(04-10-2022, 10:52 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(04-10-2022, 09:33 AM)msqueri Wrote: There is no team in Stanford’s history that would have any danger of losing to Colgate.
Ahem...UC Davis, anyone?
Colgate is significantly worse.
RE: Spring Game - msqueri - 04-10-2022
(04-10-2022, 10:52 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(04-10-2022, 09:33 AM)msqueri Wrote: There is no team in Stanford’s history that would have any danger of losing to Colgate.
Ahem...UC Davis, anyone?
Come on, not every FCS team is the same level of team. You understand intuitively that Alabama is a different team than Oregon which is a different team than Washington State which is a different team than Florida International. The same thing is true at the FCS level. Colgate last year was the #224 team in the nation. On a neutral site last year UC-Davis would have been favored over Colgate by 20 points. You don't understand what level of team Colgate is if you are comparing them to UC-Davis. It's literally the difference between last year's Stanford and Utah teams.
43 point upsets don't happen. When all-time great upsets happen it's because one team gets outrageously complacent. Just not going to happen playing in the season opener coming off a crappy season.
RE: Spring Game - cardcrimson - 04-10-2022
(04-10-2022, 09:33 AM)msqueri Wrote: Winless not a serious thing to say. Last year’s horrendous Stanford team would have been favored over Colgate by 43 points. There is no team in Stanford’s history that would have any danger of losing to Colgate.
Begs the question, why are we playing them? Crest not available?
RE: Spring Game - PalmTree - 04-10-2022
Quote:(04-10-2022, 09:33 AM)msqueri Wrote: Winless not a serious thing to say. Last year’s horrendous Stanford team would have been favored over Colgate by 43 points. There is no team in Stanford’s history that would have any danger of losing to Colgate.
Begs the question, why are we playing them? Crest not available?
I just hope we won't need Listerine to wash any bad taste from our mouths after playing the Toothpastes. That UC Davis stinger was not all that long ago.....
RE: Spring Game - Canalejas - 04-10-2022
The tiny hill that I will die on is that UC campuses do not need hyphenation in their names. It's UC Davis, not UC-Davis. UCLA, not UC-LA. UC East Bay, not UC-Berkeley.
RE: Spring Game - Mick - 04-10-2022
(04-10-2022, 09:33 AM)msqueri Wrote: Winless not a serious thing to say. Last year’s horrendous Stanford team would have been favored over Colgate by 43 points. There is no team in Stanford’s history that would have any danger of losing to Colgate.
Last year, Colgate was 5-6, losing to both Brown and Cornell. Both Cornell and Brown were 2-8 last year, losing to Harvard by 24-10 and 49-17 respectively. We'll probably squeak by Colgate, whose RPI rank last year was #228. Stanford was #121.
RE: Spring Game - Phogge - 04-10-2022
Mr. Squeri, CI is a noted leg puller. Relax.
And Father Hanley was much tougher than Brother Draper.
RE: Spring Game - OutsiderFan - 04-11-2022
Ask me if I consider Colgate a real game. Winless means against all teams not named Colgate, which is just a joke for Stanford to be playing. If you want to play an FCS team, play Portland State, UC Davis, Sac State, Montana, etc. Stanford even scheduled its bye week after its second game. Not real smart for a thin team.
But, I love how nobody addressed why I said Stanford would go winless; if it can't run the ball in dominant fashion in its Spring Scrimmage, and nobody argued Stanford did run the ball well in Spring scrimmage. Just fixate on arguing how winless is impossible because Colgate.
Tell me the difference in reaction if Stanford were to go 1-11 vs. 0-12. So it seems pretty silly to me to be harping on why gong winless is a crazy thing to say, rather than entertain what could make someone say going winless is a possibility, with no substantive objection against the assertion. Did ya'll notice how the only argument against going winless was fixated on freaking Colgate? Nobody is making an argument Stanford might beat USC, Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, ASU, Notre Dame, UCLA, WSU, Utah, Cal, or BYU, are they?
RE: Spring Game - BobK - 04-11-2022
No comments needed. We suck thank you