Stanford ND 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 ND game thread (/thread-7932.html)

---

Re: Stanford ND game thread - Bruce Wang - 10-04-2014

(10-04-2014, 05:41 PM)SamAtoms1980 link Wrote:We need a new Andrew Luck Director of Offense

Would be cool if Andrew came back someday and became the Andrew Luck Director of Offense.

---

Re: Stanford ND game thread - BostonCard - 10-04-2014

(10-04-2014, 07:19 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Did ND max protect on that play?  Would 5 have helped? 

Duane Akina needs to coach his DBs on how not to draw PI calls.

No, Notre Dame went with an empty backfield on that last play.

BC

---

Re: Stanford ND game thread - fullmetal - 10-04-2014

Gadzooks.

---

Re: Stanford ND game thread - StanFan88 - 10-04-2014

(10-04-2014, 06:08 PM)Oasis link Wrote:Well, the commentators were saying Stanford was playing soft, playing back, not pressuring Golson.  It seems to me that giving him time to throw (at least on most plays) was our undoing.  I would've rushed five guys. [/size][/font]

Defense stood on its head most of the game - other than Lyons who had an awful game.  Golson was really bad when he had to move or throw off his back foot.  Rushing 3 was the dumbest thing Lance Anderson could have dialed up - send 4 or even 5.  Look what ND did at the end of the game - they brought the house, forced Hogan into a grounding penalty that game, and won.

---

Re: Stanford ND game thread - HisKneeWasDown - 10-05-2014

4th and 11, of course there was pass written all over it. But remember that 33 yd QB draw play in the 2nd qtr that bit us on their 1st scoring drive? With 3 men rushing and coverage deep, I'm surprised they didn't call that again. Then again, maybe our defense wasn't looking deep because they didn't want to get caught by that draw play again.

So much second and third guessing. I'd love to look at the "All-22" film to see what our guys were doing/thinking.

---

Re: Stanford ND game thread - simscitizen - 10-05-2014

I don't understand all the griping about the call on 4th down. Dropping 8 makes total sense on 4th and 11 down near the goal line. The field is vertically compressed, so 5 underneath zones by the first down marker and 3 deep zones in the end zone is just sound football. The draw is not as much of a concern because they have to get 11 yards and the field is so vertically compressed, so the defenders don't have to run as much to stop a draw. Our 3 even got pressure on the QB and flushed him out of the pocket.

The problem is that the entire defense was playing Cover 3 except for Lyons, who looked like he thought the call was Cover 2. The commentator even pointed this out without calling out Lyons specifically. But based on personnel and the actions of all other 10 defenders it is obvious that Lyons has responsibility for the deep third and completely blew it.

---

Re: Stanford ND game thread - NDIrish - 10-06-2014

Hey everybody, had a lot of fun last week (for the most part lol).  I have still been trying to rewatch the entire game, i got stuck watching it with people who spent more time talking about other games or asking questions about football or wonder why people like it... (was going crazy).  But, from what i have seen so far, not the prettiest of games, pretty much what everybody though.  Both QBs seemed more effected by the weather than i thought they would be.  I dont wanna make assumptions about what led to Hogan's lack of success, but Golson seemed to run out of the pocket even before there was pressure, and this often caused him to run into pressure.  It was not the smartest game i have seen him play, but i had to remind myself he is only in his second year of live college football.  I feel though that he expected his line to play worse than they did, so he would start running around when he still had some time to sit and then he would just run right into the hands of the defenders (but there were plenty of times when he was  under pressure)  His 2 turnovers really hurt, take away a few plays and the game could be a 2 score win by either team.  I can see that a lot has been made about the refs and how they are all on NDs side, obviously every one will have their own opinion, but i saw plenty of missed calls on Stanford too.  Like i said last week, you will see 10:1 calls missed on your team, then the other way around.  To me, the only one worth discussing, because missed holdings, pass interference, etc. are going to be missed and like i said: 10:1, is the catch/no catch reviewed call.  I have not gotten to that point in my rewatch, so i dont really have a strong opinion.  In the crowd i was in, it was hard to get a clear look, i figured the call on the field would stand, but wouldn't have been surprised if it was over turned. 

But it was a good game given all the conditions.  Good luck the rest of the season!

---

Re: Stanford ND game thread - Rally - 10-06-2014

Thanks, NDIrish.  See you next year.

---

Re: Stanford ND game thread - Hulk01 - 10-06-2014

The personal foul call on Richards was absurd.  Even the announcers questioned the spot on the reception that was two feet short. 

Notre Dame played better.  But referees in that environment want to hear cheers, too, and they know what call will get the cheers.  It has been Notre Dame's homefield advantage ever since I've seen games there.

---

Re: Stanford ND game thread - Papa John - 10-06-2014

(10-06-2014, 07:23 AM)NDIrish link Wrote:Hey everybody, had a lot of fun last week (for the most part lol).

Like David Shaw, I believe in the post-game handshake, even though, on Monday morning, I am still royally pissed off at how Stanford lost that game.

So congratulations to you and your team, NDIrish. I wish you a happy rest of the football season.

---