The CardBoard
ND-Stanford - 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: ND-Stanford (/thread-7900.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Re: ND-Stanford - NDIrish - 10-02-2014

back to the game, do you guys really feel like there is home field advantage here?  I mean ND has never (in my opinion) been a hard place to play, ESPECIALLY in afternoon games.  Fans inside the stadium are terrible, i literally get yelled at for standing up.  Night games are a little better.  But things have slowly been getting better.  But between the travel and the weather (rain and 49 degrees) do you feel like it really benefits us?  I kinda think at this point in the year the weather is a wash because neither team is really use to it.  Golson throws the ball fine in the rain (based off of previous games).  But you guys run it so well.  Im just not sure what to really think of that...  starting to feel like i had too many total points score in my prediction.

Re: ND-Stanford - FarmBoy - 10-02-2014

Quote:Now i don't know if winston deserves his grades or not, i struggle with the idea that someone who makes his choices and speaks the way he does, that he is going to have the discipline to actually earn a 4.0 in high school and 3.4 in college, but maybe im wrong.

Smart people can do dumb things too. I have no doubt there are athletes at Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, etc. who have sexually assaulted women (or men...), cheated on tests (actually I know of a prominant WWP player at Stanford who asked my wife to write her paper) and commited crimes. Heck We have a very sad story of a former player who got into shenanigans with recruits, which I won't go into detail. Being smart doesn't make you a better person.

I am sure being played in South Bend is an advantage for ND. Stanford plays better in front of the home crowd. Staying on campus, eating home cooking and not have crowd noises is clearly an advantage for ND.

Re: ND-Stanford - Bruce Wang - 10-02-2014

(10-02-2014, 07:47 AM)NDIrish link Wrote:better.  But between the travel and the weather (rain and 49 degrees) do you feel like it really benefits us? 

Some info for you re: impact of rain.  You would think that bad weather is a big disadvantage for a California team.  Hogan's a mudder.  He's known to play very well in the rain dating back to high school.  We got a receiver (Rector) and an offensive lineman (Garnett) that are from Washington so presumably they know how to run around under wet conditions.

In the recent past, when we had a dominant running game, bad weather was probably a net advantage for us.  This year, it's likely a net disadvantage.

Re: ND-Stanford - NDIrish - 10-02-2014

(10-02-2014, 08:46 AM)Publius link Wrote:[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=10754.msg100251#msg100251 date=1412261220]
better.  But between the travel and the weather (rain and 49 degrees) do you feel like it really benefits us? 

Some info for you re: impact of rain.  You would think that bad weather is a big disadvantage for a California team.  Hogan's a mudder.  He's known to play very well in the rain dating back to high school.  We got a receiver (Rector) and an offensive lineman (Garnett) that are from Washington so presumably they know how to run around under wet conditions.

In the recent past, when we had a dominant running game, bad weather was probably a net advantage for us.  This year, it's likely a net disadvantage.
[/quote]

good to know.. thanks for the update

Re: ND-Stanford - Hulk01 - 10-02-2014

Interesting regarding rain and cold.  It could have an influence, depending.

First, it could shrink ND's clear advantage on field goal attempts.  A cold ball doesn't travel as fair, and a damp field can make for a shakier left foot plant and weaker push off, reducing a kicker's range even more.  And it will make it a bit harder for either team to force a touchback on a kickoff, although there aren't likely to be many kickoffs in the game.

Cold and damp also makes it tougher for a QB to grip a ball, particularly if the QB has small fans.  We Bronco fans know this from painful experience and at least one too many analyses of Peyton Manning's struggles in those conditions.  This might hanper Golston, and hamper him more than Hogan, who has big hands.

And we all know that a wet field favors, even more, the teams with the stronger lines and the team that favors an inside running game.  But it also appears that field maintenance has improved since that axiom first took hold, and we've Stanford fans have seen fields that were supposed to favor us do us no favors at all.  (Not dredging this up further.)

Does ND have a home field advantage?  Maybe a tiny one, but it's an exhilirating place to play for a visiting player, and silencing that stadium is even more encouraging to a defensive player.  It could favor a quick huddling and quick striking offense like Oregon's  in past seasons, but that's not the ND style and your fans are--for better or worse, depending--more like ours than like Oregon's,  (Hat's off to you, but it deprives your guys of a little boost now and then.

It's near certain to be a field position and punting game.  Stanford has made teams play long fields and grind their way up and down a field.  Neither team has made a lot of big offensive plays, and neither has allowed many teams into its red zones.  Unless there are some bad turnovers in bad places, there could be only five offensive scores in the game. 

But Stanford has one added weapon here, and a possible major mismatch: its virtual three tight end blocking game, both on running and passing plays.  Cajuste and Montgomery are unusually big, strong, and fast; they can take out linebackers and dominate smaller defensive backs.  Mongomery hammering on a defensive back evokes Stanford fan memories of Andrew Luck nearly KOing Shareece Wright and, almost as famously, a Cal safety.  If Stanford is able to get another guys with the ball in space, Devon and Ty could turn it into a very big play.

More than you asked for, perhaps.  I can't hide that I hope we overwhelm you. If we don't underwhelm ourselves, it is a possibllity, but a game in the teens seems likelier.





Re: ND-Stanford - Hulk01 - 10-02-2014

And concur re Hogan in the mud.  HS football in his part of the country is messy.

Re: ND-Stanford - washingtonismoney - 10-02-2014

(10-02-2014, 08:59 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Cold and damp also makes it tougher for a QB to grip a ball, particularly if the QB has small fans. 

Why rely on those when we have air conditioning technology?

Re: ND-Stanford - 2 for 2028 - 10-02-2014



His father was a mudder ... his mother was a mudder.

Re: ND-Stanford - SUBuddha - 10-02-2014

All this talk of mudder's has me singing The Hero of Canton (Ballad of Jayne) to myself as I prepare to head to the Orlando airport for my flight home. For those wondering what I am talking about it is a completely OT reference to a short lived TV show.

http://youtu.be/DOQ5m4btECM



Re: ND-Stanford - NDIrish - 10-02-2014

(10-02-2014, 08:59 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Interesting regarding rain and cold.  It could have an influence, depending.

First, it could shrink ND's clear advantage on field goal attempts.  A cold ball doesn't travel as fair, and a damp field can make for a shakier left foot plant and weaker push off, reducing a kicker's range even more.  And it will make it a bit harder for either team to force a touchback on a kickoff, although there aren't likely to be many kickoffs in the game.

Cold and damp also makes it tougher for a QB to grip a ball, particularly if the QB has small fans.  We Bronco fans know this from painful experience and at least one too many analyses of Peyton Manning's struggles in those conditions.  This might hanper Golston, and hamper him more than Hogan, who has big hands.

And we all know that a wet field favors, even more, the teams with the stronger lines and the team that favors an inside running game.  But it also appears that field maintenance has improved since that axiom first took hold, and we've Stanford fans have seen fields that were supposed to favor us do us no favors at all.  (Not dredging this up further.)

Does ND have a home field advantage?  Maybe a tiny one, but it's an exhilirating place to play for a visiting player, and silencing that stadium is even more encouraging to a defensive player.  It could favor a quick huddling and quick striking offense like Oregon's  in past seasons, but that's not the ND style and your fans are--for better or worse, depending--more like ours than like Oregon's,  (Hat's off to you, but it deprives your guys of a little boost now and then.

It's near certain to be a field position and punting game.  Stanford has made teams play long fields and grind their way up and down a field.  Neither team has made a lot of big offensive plays, and neither has allowed many teams into its red zones.  Unless there are some bad turnovers in bad places, there could be only five offensive scores in the game. 

But Stanford has one added weapon here, and a possible major mismatch: its virtual three tight end blocking game, both on running and passing plays.  Cajuste and Montgomery are unusually big, strong, and fast; they can take out linebackers and dominate smaller defensive backs.  Mongomery hammering on a defensive back evokes Stanford fan memories of Andrew Luck nearly KOing Shareece Wright and, almost as famously, a Low APR U safety.  If Stanford is able to get another guys with the ball in space, Devon and Ty could turn it into a very big play.

More than you asked for, perhaps.  I can't hide that I hope we overwhelm you. If we don't underwhelm ourselves, it is a possibllity, but a game in the teens seems likelier.

Agree on kicking game..

I would have to look this up to make sure, but i think golson has been considered to have big hands.. if not big, i know they have said he has strong ones (in the past known for not using laces and still throwing 60+)  But hopefully both QBs have good showings (as much as i want to win, i like to do so with QBs playing well).

The new turf should help alot for both teams... hopefully we got all of our fumbles out last week (something like 5)

I have always wondering about how teams feel about coming to ND, because half the teams come and talk good about it in front of the cameras, but then storys always get released that players don't feel that its anything special, so dont know...

Dont know if it will happen, and if it does, it definitely wont be an oregon style, but i circled this game weeks ago for when kelly releases a quick play offense... but we will see

We have always struggled with tight end play, what was his name for you guys before zach ertz? he had big games against us.  So i definitely see that as helping you guys, considering 2 of our linebackers are smaller...

Great perspective, thanks! 

Re: ND-Stanford - SeattleTree - 10-02-2014

Coby Fleener played TE and graduated just before Ertz.  Levine Toilolo played at the same time as Ertz.  Both, like Ertz (the Eagles), are in the NFL, playing for the Colts (Fleener) and Falcons (Toilolo).

Re: ND-Stanford - Bruce Wang - 10-02-2014

(10-02-2014, 08:59 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Cold and damp also makes it tougher for a QB to grip a ball, particularly if the QB has small fans. 

This should work to our advantage.  Their fans are leprechauns.

Re: ND-Stanford - CTcard - 10-02-2014

(10-02-2014, 08:59 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:And we all know that a wet field favors, even more, the teams with the stronger lines and the team that favors an inside running game. 

That certainly is the common wisdom, but it's not necessarily true - perhaps depending upon just how bad field conditions are.

A qb does indeed have to be able to grip the ball to throw, but if so, then the other side of the coin is receivers getting open. A slippery field tends to help receivers as they know where they are going and don't have to make cuts quite as sharply.

A vaguely similar issue with lines. If you know your line is stronger, you probably want good footing to make sure they can use that strength. A slippery field nobody gets traction.

Broadly speaking, a bad field helps randomness and thus favours underdogs. If the teams are evenly matched, it's a much tougher call - probably the benefit goes to the team that is less scared of it.

Quote:Does ND have a home field advantage?  Maybe a tiny one, but it's an exhilirating place to play for a visiting player, and silencing that stadium is even more encouraging to a defensive player. 

A lot of home field advantage has nothing to do with crowds.
Notre Dame is playing in familiar surroundings,  staying in their own beds longer (and presumably night-before accommodations that they are well used to), eating their usual food, etc.
Stanford is traveling across the country, doing different stuff than usual, and starting at a not-too-awful but not somewhat earlier than usual 12:30 Pacific Time.

Lately, Stanford's only loss in the past five years was in South Bend. For awhile before that we just lost every game, but came closer at home as in the last game of Wlat's first year where we really had no business almost winning. From 1994 through 2002 the home team won every game (though no games in 1995,96). The only real exception was in 1990 and 1992 we pulled off two big upsets in South Bend while losing at home in the surrounding years.

(10-02-2014, 09:16 AM)NDIrish link Wrote:Dont know if it will happen, and if it does, it definitely wont be an oregon style, but i circled this game weeks ago for when kelly releases a quick play offense... but we will see

I certainly have no idea if that might be Kelly's plan. However, it doesn't seem to be particularly advantageous in playing Stanford. By this point, Stanford has plenty of practice in playing up-tempo offenses, and indeed that is one of the things that our defense seems to have figured out how to handle - with Oregon the past two years being the extreme example.

Some Stanford followers have determined that the toughest match-ups for Stanford are teams like itself. Examples of that are losses to MSU in the Rose Bowl and S.-C. the past two years [though this year's S.-C. game would be less applicable if you focus on tempo and more if you focus on the spread the field aspect]. I am not sure that this is exactly correct. While MSU was certainly one of the defense's poorer performances last year, it happened as they abandoned what they usually did (power run game - only 65 rushing yards against us) but they went crazy through the air in Connor Cook's career best passing game. S.-C. last year was a similar story. They only had 23 rushing yards but managed to win by combining key moments passing with Stanford self-destruction (2 INTs, lost fumble, missed FG - ugh that's two years in a row of this now vs those guys).

This year it appears that Stanford has sacrificed some of the imperative to stop the run in order to shore up the passing defense. So far so good, as not only is the defense ranked #1 in the country in total D in yds/gm (#2 in yds/play), but also #1 nationally in pass defense yds/gm, yds/att, and #5 in PER allowed. How that plays out going forward is a key for Stanford given the nature of the teams we are going to face.

Re: ND-Stanford - thunder_chik - 10-02-2014

Wind could be a factor, especially if we have to kick field goals to win; forecast is for wind 14 mph, gusts to 37.

Re: ND-Stanford - jayasena - 10-02-2014

IMO, ND's home field advantage has little to do with the field or the weather or the crowd. It has to do with the refs. They seem to become total homers when they are in South Bend and on NBC (even more so than when ND plays elsewhere).

Re: ND-Stanford - NDIrish - 10-02-2014

(10-02-2014, 10:14 AM)somnambule link Wrote:IMO, ND's home field advantage has little to do with the field or the weather or the crowd. It has to do with the refs. They seem to become total homers when they are in South Bend and on NBC (even more so than when ND plays elsewhere).

I am not a big fan of the ref argument.. and i know a response would be "because i am a notre dame fan"  but i feel that they never are going to call everything (or call things incorrectly) and you are going to notice 10:1 missed calls that go against your team than ones that go for it.  And i am guilty of yelling about missed calls or bad calls when i watch and there have been instances where a call can can change a game, but i try to never go into a game saying that its going to help one team or the other.  I can go remember a lot of games just off the top of my head where bad/missed calls have hurt the irish or cost them games, but never before it...

And we dont even have our own refs to speak of being an independent, so there really isn't any loyalty for them to help us win.

Re: ND-Stanford - FarmBoy - 10-02-2014

Quote:They seem to become total homers when they are in South Bend and on NBC (even more so than when ND plays elsewhere).

My understanding is that the contract disctates that Pac12 refs call the game in SB and BigTen/ACC refs call the games in PA.

Re: ND-Stanford - NDIrish - 10-02-2014

(10-02-2014, 10:23 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:
Quote:They seem to become total homers when they are in South Bend and on NBC (even more so than when ND plays elsewhere).

My understanding is that the contract disctates that Pac12 refs call the game in SB and BigTen/ACC refs call the games in PA.

now that you say that i do remember hearing that before.  That is the case and we rotate stanford/usc so we play one here and one there, and whoever we play here is earlier in the year (first 6 games) and i dont know if its written in, but the one there usually ends up being one of the last games.  I believe the idea of playing the one here early is to avoid snow...

Re: ND-Stanford - FarmBoy - 10-02-2014

Quote:I believe the idea of playing the one here early is to avoid snow...

As is the idea of playing the late one in CA as well.

Re: ND-Stanford - NDIrish - 10-02-2014

(10-02-2014, 10:27 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:
Quote:I believe the idea of playing the one here early is to avoid snow...

As is the idea of playing the late one in CA as well.

to avoid excessive heat?  i thought that might have to do with it.