The CardBoard
Stanford-Oregon 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-Oregon game thread (/thread-13035.html)

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

Re: Stanford-Oregon game thread - gocard14 - 11-13-2016

(11-13-2016, 11:31 AM)Stymie link Wrote:[quote author=hurlburt88 link=topic=16088.msg179131#msg179131 date=1479056102]
Lesson from this year has to be that QB depth--and thus competition--is critical 

We had 3 highly rated QBs this year, spread out nicely by age.  90+% of the Power 5 teams would have salivated over our brood, so depth was not the problem.  There was competition, by definition, and the coaching team made their decision and that decision has proved to be wrong.  I personally think that if Shaw had gone to Chryst from game 1, we might now be salivating about our prospects in the "pick 6" group for the FCB.  I see the future as follows:

--10-3 finish with a good bowl win
--Chyst taking us to FCB next year.  How far?  Who knows but we can dream....
--Chryst goes to play on Sunday next year and then we will have two and out years from Costello and then Mills and then we will all sleep happily ever after,,,,

Stymie
[/quote]

I hate to be the negative one but its going to take a heck of a lot more then one good game against a terrible defense to make me think that Chryst can lead us to a pac12 title, get us a spot in the playoff, or play on sundayss

Re: Stanford-Oregon game thread - dabigv13 - 11-13-2016

Yeah seriously. Chrsyt had a decent game against a horrible defense, as well as two really bad games against mediocre/bad defenses. The trend is encouraging, but a long way to go.

Re: Stanford-Oregon game thread - Mick - 11-13-2016

(11-13-2016, 12:21 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Yeah seriously. Chrsyt had a decent game against a horrible defense, as well as two really bad games against mediocre/bad defenses. The trend is encouraging, but a long way to go.


How about THREE really good games against bad defenses?  After Cal and Rice, that's what he'll have.

Re: Stanford-Oregon game thread - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 11-13-2016

(11-13-2016, 12:21 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Yeah seriously. Chrsyt had a decent game against a horrible defense, as well as two really bad games against mediocre/bad defenses. The trend is encouraging, but a long way to go.

I'm curious what your threshold for a "good" game would be. He completed 73% of his passes at 9.9 yards per attempt. 3 touchdowns, 0 interceptions. It was, statistically, the best performance by a Stanford quarterback since last year's ND game.

Re: Stanford-Oregon game thread - dabigv13 - 11-13-2016

Still short hopped several throws, and had placement issues on a couple. Maybe decent is harsh, it was a very good game with some big league throws.

But again we barely had more yards than Oregon averages giving up, and we had a lot.

Hopefully this is what we'll see more of, and not the very poor quality we saw the last two weeks.

Re: Stanford-Oregon game thread - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 11-13-2016

Right. I don't have a problem saving the praise, considering the opponent. I thought it was encouraging, and perhaps should put a temporary halt on the Costello talk. But I'm also not ready to wonder whether he's declaring for the draft.

I'd like to see three more performances of roughly similar quality, and then perhaps we can have a 2017 camp battle to look forward to.