FB -- TCU Game Thread - Printable Version

FB -- TCU 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: FB -- TCU Game Thread (/thread-25061.html)

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

RE: FB -- TCU Game Thread - lex24 - 08-31-2024

(08-30-2024, 11:36 PM)needle Wrote: On the plus side, TCU's top back only averaged 4.1 yards per carry. Of course, everyone knows that a Sonny Dykes team is going to be much better at passing than running. Overall, I am encouraged by the defensive showing tonight. We knew going in that the Stanford secondary was relatively better than the front seven, but I think we learned tonight that the Stanford secondary will compete and not get manhandled against good receivers/good QB, even if they are going to give up some big plays.

I just don't know if the relative success against the run tonight is more about Stanford's defensive improvement or the opponent's shortcomings...

As far as the offense, the playcalling was hyperbolically aggressive, with Stanford attempting *five* fourth-down conversion attempts and several misdirection/unconventional play calls. The results weren't great, and even when things worked--the 3rd-and-11 running play in the first half that gained a first down--the choices were very questionable to us fans given down, distance and scoreboard.

OTOH, overall I like having an aggressive mindset as a big underdog going into the first game (recall the first play was a deep shot to Ayomanor). I've been as big a critic of TT as anyone, but coaches need some time to learn the hard truths about their team's limitations and how to play to a team's strengths. It is only game one, so I am hopeful that TT will get a better handle on what the team's true strengths are. But, yes, the "win rate" for offensive plays tonight was very disappointing, and TT has to shoulder more of the blame for that in his second season.

ONE MORE THING: Checked the stat sheet, TCU had 10 TFLs tonight. That's the key stat if you really want to worry that TT is in over his head.

10 TFL’s is also a big stat if you want to worry about the o-line being overmatched. Which, imo, is the bigger issue. Daniels was running for his life all game. No holes in run game. Certainly play calling matters. But if you get slaughtered up front - and they did - it’s a major problem no matter who is calling the plays.

Are we moving from Shawbashing to TTbashing?

If so, what is the benchmark for this team to be considered successful? Given the very much below average talent? A circumstance certain to continue unless Stanford joins the new world order…..

Quibble all we want on play calls etc. But seriously what can you do when you are overmatched talent wise in most games.

Truth be told, Stanford should have lost be at least 17. TCU gave them the first TD, had several dumb penalties that helped Stanford significantly and dropped a bunch of passes.

When they needed the TD late 4th, they went through the defense like sh-t through a goose. It was stunningly easy.

It’s hard to criticize the kids. They played hard. But it’s tough when your administration decides that you are going to ignore reality. Unless and until Stanford opens up more to transfers and shells out big money NIL, they are not going to be able to compete.

Mudhead - Mudhead - 08-31-2024

lex24 dateline='[url=tel:1725117978' Wrote: 1725117978[/url]']

needle dateline='[url=tel:1725086180' Wrote: 1725086180[/url]']
On the plus side, TCU's top back only averaged 4.1 yards per carry. Of course, everyone knows that a Sonny Dykes team is going to be much better at passing than running. Overall, I am encouraged by the defensive showing tonight. We knew going in that the Stanford secondary was relatively better than the front seven, but I think we learned tonight that the Stanford secondary will compete and not get manhandled against good receivers/good QB, even if they are going to give up some big plays.

I just don't know if the relative success against the run tonight is more about Stanford's defensive improvement or the opponent's shortcomings...

As far as the offense, the playcalling was hyperbolically aggressive, with Stanford attempting *five* fourth-down conversion attempts and several misdirection/unconventional play calls. The results weren't great, and even when things worked--the 3rd-and-11 running play in the first half that gained a first down--the choices were very questionable to us fans given down, distance and scoreboard.

OTOH, overall I like having an aggressive mindset as a big underdog going into the first game (recall the first play was a deep shot to Ayomanor). I've been as big a critic of TT as anyone, but coaches need some time to learn the hard truths about their team's limitations and how to play to a team's strengths. It is only game one, so I am hopeful that TT will get a better handle on what the team's true strengths are. But, yes, the "win rate" for offensive plays tonight was very disappointing, and TT has to shoulder more of the blame for that in his second season.

ONE MORE THING: Checked the stat sheet, TCU had 10 TFLs tonight. That's the key stat if you really want to worry that TT is in over his head.

10 TFL’s is also a big stat if you want to worry about the o-line being overmatched. Which, imo, is the bigger issue. Daniels was running for his life all game. No holes in run game. Certainly play calling matters. But if you get slaughtered up front - and they did - it’s a major problem no matter who is calling the plays.

Are we moving from Shawbashing to TTbashing?

If so, what is the benchmark for this team to be considered successful? Given the very much below average talent? A circumstance certain to continue unless Stanford joins the new world order…..

Quibble all we want on play calls etc. But seriously what can you do when you are overmatched talent wise in most games.

Truth be told, Stanford should have lost be at least 17. TCU gave them the first TD, had several dumb penalties that helped Stanford significantly and dropped a bunch of passes.

When they needed the TD late 4th, they went through the defense like sh-t through a goose. It was stunningly easy.

It’s hard to criticize the kids. They played hard. But it’s tough when your administration decides that you are going to ignore reality. Unless and until Stanford opens up more to transfers and shells out big money NIL, they are not going to be able to compete.

And the people said “Amen”. It looks like a serious (for Stanford ) NIL is finally underway. Transfers, not so much. I don’t think we will be successsfull until and unless the basic rules shift. I think they will but whether it’s two years or 10 is not clear. TIL then we probably get to be the Vanderbilt of the ACC

RE: FB -- TCU Game Thread - Row80Critic - 08-31-2024

Yeah, just the first game I know, but hard to see any meaningful improvement. The score stayed close, but that seemed to be more a function of TCU's unrelenting effort to lose the game despite their opponent. 100 yards in penalties, countless dropped balls, turnovers, etc., etc., yet they still couldn't pull off the big road loss they were gunning for. TCU looked poorly coached, but fortunately for them, Stanford returned the favor. I'm just not seeing any signs of hope with TT -- that game was only close because TCU couldn't get out of its own way. Lame 4th down decisions, lame personnel choices, no college level scheme on either side of the ball, the debut of the all-hail-mary offense, no blocking, no adapting, just yuck. A very poorly coached game by both teams. Maybe it's first game slop, I dunno, but TT is going to need some major adjustments to avoid yet another 3-9 season. I'm just not convinced his Sac St. success translates well to power conference football.

RE: FB -- TCU Game Thread - MV72018 - 08-31-2024

(08-31-2024, 10:55 AM)Row80Critic Wrote: Yeah, just the first game I know, but hard to see any meaningful improvement. The score stayed close, but that seemed to be more a function of TCU's unrelenting effort to lose the game despite their opponent. 100 yards in penalties, countless dropped balls, turnovers, etc., etc., yet they still couldn't pull off the big road loss they were gunning for. TCU looked poorly coached, but fortunately for them, Stanford returned the favor. I'm just not seeing any signs of hope with TT -- that game was only close because TCU couldn't get out of its own way. Lame 4th down decisions, lame personnel choices, no college level scheme on either side of the ball, the debut of the all-hail-mary offense, no blocking, no adapting, just yuck. A very poorly coached game by both teams. Maybe it's first game slop, I dunno, but TT is going to need some major adjustments to avoid yet another 3-9 season. I'm just not convinced his Sac St. success translates well to power conference football.

Hard to disagree with you on any claim you made. Good analysis. The playcalling on that last Stanford drive was positively BRUTAL! There was plenty of time on the clock to gradually move down the field with the short passing game (7-10 yards at a clip). But those two long balls thrown on first and second downs were bizarre calls that (IMO) wound up undermining our chances. Re the fourth-down call, the ball Daniels threw to Ayomanor seemed quite high. I'm not convinced that Daniels should be the starter. (Isn't Brown a more accurate passer?) In short, what an exasperating "drive"!

RE: FB -- TCU Game Thread - gailtate - 08-31-2024

Once TT develops a real defense, and an offensive line, I suspect he'll field a team worth watching. Until then...uh...he's got something else. TCU, a respectable outfit, is an eminently beatable team. And it was ripe for the pickings last night (sigh). We need HORSES. We ain't got 'em.

RE: FB -- TCU Game Thread - Bampa - 08-31-2024

(08-31-2024, 11:30 AM)gailtate Wrote: Once TT develops a real defense, and an offensive line, I suspect he'll field a team worth watching. Until then...uh...he's got something else. TCU, a respectable outfit, is an eminently beatable team. And it was ripe for the pickings last night (sigh). We need HORSES. We ain't got 'em.

We've got a few goats...will that work?

PS...actually, I do think the team will be better this year, but some things need to be fixed ASAP.

RE: FB -- TCU Game Thread - ljw63 - 08-31-2024

(08-31-2024, 11:30 AM)gailtate Wrote: Once TT develops a real defense, and an offensive line, I suspect he'll field a team worth watching. Until then...uh...he's got something else. TCU, a respectable outfit, is an eminently beatable team. And it was ripe for the pickings last night (sigh). We need HORSES. We ain't got 'em.

My observations:
(1)   We should have lost by more than we did
(2)   If we continue to play 3 down linemen on defense instead of 4 we may never win again
(3)   TCU ran quick routes all evening with success; we ran 2 or 3. Most of ours were drawn out pass plays
(4)   Our receivers have good hands but did not get much separation
(5)   When you are outcoached by Sonny Dykes you have a big problem. Our play calling was abysmal. Our defense was not much better, although the very few times we got pressure on the QB we looked fairly good.

RE: FB -- TCU Game Thread - Farm93 - 08-31-2024

I thought our scrimmage like stadium environment really helped TCU treat the Stanford crew like some form of preseason scrimmage. Sadly, late in the fourth quarter the coaches must have reminded the Frogs that it actually was an official game. The TCU penalties, drops and the miscommunication on routes were gifts I am not sure Stanford will see in future games.

I left trying to convince myself that perhaps TCU is better than many ACC teams. Maybe a weak ACC could allow Stanford to get to 4 wins this season?

For recruiting and player retention the new world order is brutal. I know TCU was wearing white so that tends to make players look bigger, but late in the game I realized just how much taller and bigger the TCU players were at almost every position.

The NIL and transfer portal are great things that allow players to finally get some compensation for risking their bodies, but they are both net negatives for the approach Stanford had utilized to survive in the FBS.

RE: FB -- TCU Game Thread - martyup - 08-31-2024

One positive stat last night was that Stanford only had 4 penalties for a total of 25 yards. That's improvement.

RE: FB -- TCU Game Thread - chrisk - 08-31-2024

(08-31-2024, 12:14 PM)Farm93 Wrote: I thought our scrimmage like stadium environment really helped TCU treat the Stanford crew like some form of preseason scrimmage. Sadly, late in the fourth quarter the coaches must have reminded the Frogs that it actually was an official game. The TCU penalties, drops and the miscommunication on routes were gifts I am not sure Stanford will see in future games.

I left trying to convince myself that perhaps TCU is better than many ACC teams. Maybe a weak ACC could allow Stanford to get to 4 wins this season?

For recruiting and player retention the new world order is brutal. I know TCU was wearing white so that tends to make players look bigger, but late in the game I realized just how much taller and bigger the TCU players were at almost every position.

The NIL and transfer portal are great things that allow players to finally get some compensation for risking their bodies, but they are both net negatives for the approach Stanford had utilized to survive in the FBS.

Wins - Cal Poly, Wake Forest, SJSU, and one of Syracuse / VA Tech???