Stanford vs. Oregon St. Game Thread

Stanford vs. Oregon St. 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 vs. Oregon St. Game Thread (/thread-5914.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Re: Stanford vs. Oregon St. Game Thread - PrinceLightfoot - 10-26-2013

.

(10-26-2013, 11:26 PM)Extra Point link Wrote:[quote author=shinsengumi link=topic=8681.msg72694#msg72694 date=1382854825]
One interesting note: Not a single carry for Wilkerson. I suppose depth charts are indeed BS!

Wasn't the first fumble on a hand off to Wilkerson?
[/quote]

It was to Seale but that was on Lloyd and not the RB

Re: Stanford vs. Oregon St. Game Thread - shinsengumi - 10-26-2013

(10-26-2013, 11:26 PM)Extra Point link Wrote:[quote author=shinsengumi link=topic=8681.msg72694#msg72694 date=1382854825]
One interesting note: Not a single carry for Wilkerson. I suppose depth charts are indeed BS!

Wasn't the first fumble on a hand off to Wilkerson?
[/quote]

It's usually Seale who comes in with Dallas Lloyd, but I'll need to go back and check.

Re: Stanford vs. Oregon St. Game Thread - oman - 10-26-2013

How about our crazy play being a pitch out to Barry Sanders.

That's the Stanford Wildcat.

Re: Stanford vs. Oregon St. Game Thread - dabigv13 - 10-26-2013

WIM, I agree with you, but to play Shaw's advocate here, Cajuste is starting because of his blocking ability on the edge 1st, and his ability as a WR 2nd. Pratt is likely a better blocker than Whitfield or Rector. Montgomery is our big play WR.

Personally, I'd rather have two big play receivers on the edge, and my sense is that most WRs can be suitable blockers if they put in the effort, but I can understand Shaw's reasoning.

Re: Stanford vs. Oregon St. Game Thread - shinsengumi - 10-26-2013

(10-26-2013, 11:30 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Cajuste is starting because of his blocking ability on the edge 1st, and his ability as a WR 2nd.

I think Cajuste is a very good receiver. We definitely missed him today.

Re: Stanford vs. Oregon St. Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 10-26-2013

(10-26-2013, 11:30 PM)dabigv link Wrote:WIM, I agree with you, but to play Shaw's advocate here, Cajuste is starting because of his blocking ability on the edge 1st, and his ability as a WR 2nd. Pratt is likely a better blocker than Whitfield or Rector. Montgomery is our big play WR.

Personally, I'd rather have two big play receivers on the edge, and my sense is that most WRs can be suitable blockers if they put in the effort, but I can understand Shaw's reasoning.

Re: Stanford vs. Oregon St. Game Thread - dabigv13 - 10-26-2013

(10-26-2013, 11:36 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=dabigv link=topic=8681.msg72709#msg72709 date=1382855444]
WIM, I agree with you, but to play Shaw's advocate here, Cajuste is starting because of his blocking ability on the edge 1st, and his ability as a WR 2nd. Pratt is likely a better blocker than Whitfield or Rector. Montgomery is our big play WR.

Personally, I'd rather have two big play receivers on the edge, and my sense is that most WRs can be suitable blockers if they put in the effort, but I can understand Shaw's reasoning.

Got no problem with Cajuste over Rector! Cajuste offers a threat receiving (nearly 20 yards per catch!) and is an amazing blocker. But I don't understand why the choice has to be made. Hopkins offers no threat to catch the ball, and I don't believe you can play modern offense with one or more skill position threats who are total nonfactors to touch the ball.

And, heck, if you want good blocking from your wideouts, play Whitfield with Montgomery and Cajuste. Don't care -- figure out how to put five skill position threats on the field at the same time during most snaps. I don't think this is rocket science.
[/quote]

I was really just addressing the Pratt choice for tonight. Hopkins hasn't shown much so far, agreed.

But do you really think we're going to go to a 3 WR base offense when our bread is buttered by Gaffney? If we had Luck, sure, put those receiving options out there and let our QB sort it out, but Hogan is best when he can look to one option, look to option two, and then take off if neither are there.

Re: Stanford vs. Oregon St. Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 10-26-2013

(10-26-2013, 11:41 PM)dabigv link Wrote:But do you really think we're going to go to a 3 WR base offense when our bread is buttered by Gaffney? If we had Luck, sure, put those receiving options out there and let our QB sort it out, but Hogan is best when he can look to one option, look to option two, and then take off if neither are there.

I mean, we might not but we should think about it. Cajuste in the slot would present a very unenviable matchup problem to offenses: nickel back or linebacker (most teams don't have a Joe Hemschoot, wonderfully.) Depending on the defensive reaction that might open up the running game all the more.

Just having two progressions on a given play doesn't invalidate the value of having five threats to touch the ball on any given play. The defense is uncertain as to: which options Hogan is reading; which options are running routes; which ones are decoys, etc. They still have to account for it. I'm not sure why defenses bother covering Pratt and Hopkins.