The CardBoard
Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - 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: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread (/thread-16882.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - PVTree - 11-24-2018

Game 2!

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - d4cohn - 11-24-2018

Brent Musberger: "Cardinals win it! The win streak continues!" :) This time, for real.

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - BostonCard - 11-24-2018

What sucks is we lose Holder for the first half of big game.

BC
I’m spent.  I much preferred the day when we could get the ball back with five minutes to go and the opponent would not get the ball back.

BC

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - ADPinWDC - 11-24-2018

Over 1,000 yards total offense by both teams. 
Not a lot of D.  Shooting gallery marks for KJ, 23 of 37 for 344 yards and 5 TDs.

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - JPR36 - 11-24-2018

(11-24-2018, 05:10 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:  Over 1,000 yards total offense by both teams. 
Not a lot of D.  Shooting gallery marks for KJ, 23 of 37 for 344 yards and 5 TDs.

Well, our defense was tough when they had to be. I'll give them credit for that.

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - qwerty49 - 11-24-2018

(11-24-2018, 05:08 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
I’m spent.  I much preferred the day when we could get the ball back with five minutes to go and the opponent would not get the ball back.

BC

Gawd, not one but TWO chances to put the game away with a single first down.  It's great to score 49 points but jeez we can't run against a middle school team.

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - JPR36 - 11-24-2018

(11-24-2018, 05:28 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:  
(11-24-2018, 05:08 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
I’m spent.  I much preferred the day when we could get the ball back with five minutes to go and the opponent would not get the ball back.

BC

Gawd, not one but TWO chances to put the game away with a single first down.  It's great to score 49 points but jeez we can't run against a middle school team.

It sucks, no question about that. But it's reality and we might as well deal with it.

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - Phogge - 11-24-2018

How many times has a QB thrown for 480 or whatever and not thrown a TD pass?

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - SamuelMcF - 11-24-2018

(11-24-2018, 06:00 PM)Phogge Wrote:  How many times has a QB thrown for 480 or whatever and not thrown a TD pass?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=game&year_max=2018&c1stat=pass_yds&c1comp=gt&c1val=400&c2stat=pass_td&c2comp=eq&c2val=0&order_by=date_game

Since 2000, there have been 7 games where a QB threw for 400+ yards with no TDs. That's insane.

RE: lex24 - Spiny_Norman - 11-24-2018

(11-24-2018, 03:22 PM)lex24 Wrote:  It’s going to take 48 to win this game.

That was a pretty prescient observation, though actually 43 would have done it.

I am just back from Pasadena and what I think is the longest non-overtime game I have ever attended. The players worked hard for this victory but the fans did too.

Reading through the thread, I am surprised there is no mention of the defensive personnel. Kendall Williamson got a lot of playing time after what I assume was an injury to Alameen Murphy. He had 7 tackles and 2 TFLs. Before the targeting call, Holder seemed hobbled. Obi Eboh was on the field at the end and made 2 important pass break ups. Andrew Pryts played a lot for Sean Barton (who was not injured) until Pryts suffered a lower leg injury (foot or ankle) and went straight to the locker room. Buncom got shaken up but returned to the game. Stanford needed contributions from all of them to win this one.

Good news is that Cal's offense is not UCLA's. Stanford unlikely to have to defend 84 plays next Saturday as they did today. I hope there are enough capable bodies to field a defense.

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - Griffins78 - 11-24-2018

I really question the targeting reversal of the fumble. First, it looked like Holder was pushed in the back (clipping) by a UCLA player towards the receiver which affected his movement into the tackle. Second, the ball was out of his grasp when he was hit by Holder.

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - Goose - 11-24-2018

(11-24-2018, 07:47 PM)Griffins78 Wrote:  I really question the targeting reversal of the fumble. First, it looked like Holder was pushed in the back (clipping) by a UCLA player towards the receiver which affected his movement into the tackle. Second, the ball was out of his grasp when he was hit by Holder.
And third, the offensive player initiated the contact.  He ran into Holder. The call was totally wrong. What is amazing, it was the replay guys who got it wrong. Shaw has to say/do something. Possibly not in public, but this was nonsense.

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - yvonne - 11-24-2018

Coach said it was a good call.

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - BostonCard - 11-25-2018

(11-24-2018, 09:37 PM)yvonne Wrote:  Coach said it was a good call.

I think that it’s a good call, but I don’t think it’s the correct call.  I think if your goal is to protect the safety of players, then you are going to have to make some calls that aren’t targeting per se, but could plausibly be.  Others will disagree, and I’ve seen telecasters bemoan how the defender can no longer be allowed to do anything, but if you start from the position of player safety being paramount, then the logical conclusion is that you will have to make some incorrect calls.

Shaw has been a leader in the player safety realm, and I’m glad he is.  It would look pretty hypocritical if he put himself on a pedestal about player safety and concussions, but then complained about targeting calls against us.

BC

PS, on our go-ahead touchdown to St. brown, we got away with a hold, and while two Wrong calls don’t make a right, it all came out fine in the end.

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - winflop - 11-25-2018

(11-24-2018, 05:28 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:  
(11-24-2018, 05:08 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
I’m spent.  I much preferred the day when we could get the ball back with five minutes to go and the opponent would not get the ball back.

BC

Gawd, not one but TWO chances to put the game away with a single first down.  It's great to score 49 points but jeez we can't run against a middle school team.

The fact that we were running in the first place is the problem. KJ had been lighting them up all day long and the running game was, once again, awful. ShawVitaBerry gave UCLA every opportunity to tie or win this with unbelievably stupid playcalling and they are damn lucky for the second time this year (ASU).

This offensive brain trust needs to be blown up in the offseason.

RE: Stanford-UCLA Game Thread - d4cohn - 11-25-2018

(11-25-2018, 06:59 AM)winflop Wrote:  The fact that we were running in the first place is the problem. KJ had been lighting them up all day long and the running game was, once again, awful. ShawVitaBerry gave UCLA every opportunity to tie or win this with unbelievably stupid playcalling and they are damn lucky for the second time this year (ASU).

This offensive brain trust needs to be blown up in the offseason.

We have had essentially three games this year where the game was not a blowout in either direction, and as such, Stanford was put in position to ice away a 1-2 touchdown lead (USC, ASU, UCLA). For these three instances in which Coach Shaw leaned on his defense, SC managed 0 points in the entire second half, UCLA managed 0 points on their last three drives with a missed FG, and ASU managed one TD, while also throwing an INT and punting twice). All three games ended in wins. 

As I indicated on the game thread yesterday, I thought Coach Shaw's only two major mistakes were the playcall after the INT (leading to the safety and special teams TD, a 9 point swing in a 14 point game that we had in complete control; if anything, these are the types of swings Coach Shaw tries to avoid when he tries to grind out the clock and lean on the defense, as the safety was essentially a TO), and his playcall on 3rd and 25 to have Costello scramble, rather than try to throw 10-15 yards in plus territory to set up a FG attempt, and an opportunity at an 8 point game.