Randoms - Printable Version

Randoms - 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: Randoms (/thread-14975.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Randoms - stupac2 - 11-20-2017

(11-20-2017, 09:22 AM)Langdude link Wrote:I did not think that our INT was a "great play." It was a stupid throw.

-m.

You still have to catch it. And from what I saw Edwards made a pretty good play on the ball. It wasn't an amazing toe-tapper like Meeks against Oregon, but he made a play when we needed one.

(11-20-2017, 09:26 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I think teejers has a point. If you play at a very slow pace youre more vulnerable to random bad plays. While I think Stanford solidly outplayed kal, it is true that if the ball bouces differently on a couple plays its a bare win.

Now, it may be over time that Stanford gets some benefits out of the pace (protecting the defense, preparing players for NFL, playing distinctive style, etc.) But I think big game showed some of the vulnerabilities of the style even in the context of a solid performance overall. I think Stanford could stand to speed up marginally not to speed merchant levels, but the pace the team achieved in 2011-12.

This is true but there's a couple issues with it from our end:

1) Our pace isn't always that slow. In fact, this game was really anomalous in that when we run very few plays it tends to be because our offense is playing badly, which was clearly not the case here. Rather, it was because...

2) The opponent has a say in pace. Part of the reason we took to the slow pace to begin with was as a counter against opponents like the Ducks who place fast. But if we go against another team that's fine slowing the game down, and our defense is letting them maintain long drives, it can result in what we saw there.

Ideally our games would go more like against Oregon, where there were plenty of explosive plays, fast drives, and stops of the opponent. That lets us rack up possessions and yards. If it just so happens that both teams are plodding, well, there's not a lot we can do about that this year. Maybe next year with a more experienced KJ we could switch to hurry-up or something, but it's not clear to me that he can really run it this year (as this game showed).

Odds of Love coming back - Redrum - 11-20-2017

Yeah, I know...I know.Â He's gotta go now. Injury-limited year just ups the ante to go pro before it all gets wiped out.Â But in three (non-official, non-mainline media) sources I've read or heard that he really is serious about becoming a doctor and will stay to get his degree.Â That theory mostly seems like it emerged from a cloud of marijuana smoke.Â The history of college football seniors is paved with avowals that the player wants to get a degree...followed by pics of family celebration when drafted or signed at the end of that same season.Â I just wondered if anyone who actually follows the program inner workings full time or heard him speak at Council of Chiefs can lend credence to the possibility of a senior year for Bryce.

Re: Randoms - Goose - 11-20-2017

(11-20-2017, 05:48 AM)gocard14 link Wrote:We did a poor job of keying on Laird when it was obvious they were trying to feed him the ball whenever possible. He frequently came out of the backfield uncovered.

He caught 4 passes for 47 yards, total. Not exactly eating our lunch. He did run 20 times for 153 yards. THAT was the problem. However, if we "keyed" on Laird, we would get what we got on the 2 point conversion. Everybody assumes Laird will get the ball and the QB walks into the end zone. Wilcox had two weeks to prepare. The offense gets a vote on what happens. I find it hard to fault our scheme. The fact is that we are not great against the run. Cal took what advantage of it they could. I think Cal executed their offensive game plan very well. They made one mistake, really. It still wasn't good enough.

Quote:I also think we needed to play a lot more press coverage, as their QB has great timing and accuracy, but a poor arm and deep ball.
That means we need to disrupt their timing with jams and dare them to beat us over the top, which he showed he was not capable of doing.

That might be true if you thought that Cal was better than Stanford. However, for years we have used an "umbrella" approach to the Cal offense. Don't give up big plays and most of the time they will be unable to execute well enough to get into the end zone. Worked again this year. If we jam and dare them to beat us over the top, they just might. This way, they have to make 10 or more good plays in a row. Usually, they can't. This "proven" approach might have to change if they become able to reliably march the field. But, so far, playing it safe has been a better choice.

Re: Randoms - ChicagoCard - 11-20-2017

(11-20-2017, 10:08 AM)Phogge link Wrote:They are 8-3 with only one explosive player on offense. And he's played on one leg for weeks. Irwin is solid and Whiteside is a talented mid range target. Next year they get St. Brown who if he's like his brothers will stretch the field. Amon Ra seems to be the most exciting if the comments from the Peter Berg digital crew following the 6'4" soph Bosco QB can be believed. So hopes for Osiris. Smith could be an Ertz-type, Parkinson needs to be thrown to and Harrington could be the blocking TE.

There are a bunch of ways to adjust to the coming loss of Love including Costello/Mills running a bit. Includes Wedington in maybe a hybrid runner/receiver role. Can Shawgrentavita adjust? Going to be fun.

Is Simi Fehoko with the team next fall?

Re: Randoms - washingtonismoney - 11-20-2017

I dunno, Arcega-Whiteside is not your traditional burner but he seems to be a pretty reliable deep threat on those jump balls. His long every game is 20+ yards and his yards per catch is second in the conference.

To be fair, I don't think Arcega-Whiteside alone is enough to provide that worrisome deep threat -- he doesn't seem to stop opposing defenses from playing their safeties aggressively oriented against the run -- but he's a good start. We'll see if St. Brown, Wedington, Parkinson, etc. are enough to complement him from a deep threat sense. There was some hype about Donald Stewart in the spring and preseason but that seems to have come to naught.

Re: Randoms - martyup - 11-20-2017

Our D made a crucial 3rd down stop that should have resulted in Cal's 2nd punt.Â If Cal didn't get a first down on that fake punt, the final score might have been 24 to 11.Â IIRC, they scored 3 on that drive.Â Had they punted or failed to gain the 1st down, we would have had one more possession and likely would have scored.Â ::)

Re: Randoms - SamuelMcF - 11-20-2017

(11-20-2017, 11:42 AM)martyup link Wrote:Our D made a crucial 3rd down stop that should have resulted in ×ÉÉ's 2nd punt.Â If ×ÉÉ didn't get a first down on that fake punt, the final score might have been 24 to 11.

This was probably the most irrationally angry I've been in a while. Everyone in the building knew the fake was coming, and we still didn't stop it.

Semi-related to the fake punt, we put on a clinic in poor tackling...it seemed like every player but Harry had their one shining moment to show us how not to stop a runner in his tracks. A real holistic display of "did that just happen...again?". Still held them to 14 though.

Re: Randoms - CTcard - 11-20-2017

(11-20-2017, 11:33 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:To be fair, I don't think Arcega-Whiteside alone is enough to provide that worrisome deep threat -- he doesn't seem to stop opposing defenses from playing their safeties aggressively oriented against the run -- but he's a good start. We'll see if St. Brown, Wedington, Parkinson, etc. are enough to complement him from a deep threat sense. There was some hype about Donald Stewart in the spring and preseason but that seems to have come to naught.

As long as Stanford runs 55+% run plays, and primarily runs to the center of the field, then defenses are going to play their safeties looking aggressively to the run.
And, as far as I can tell, Stanford wants to take opposing teams out of their base defenses and force them to load the box - with the intent to either go over their heads with a play-action pass or simply spring a guy like Love past the first row of defenders with no one left to make a stop.

-----------

As the season was beginning, people on this board made comments about Donald Stewart being a potential deep threat but that seemed to be a combination of wishful thinking, desperation about having any speed-receiver, and one good catch in the spring game. Stewart simply isn't particularly fast and has shown far more flashes as an intermediate range, possession type receiver.

At the moment, without a speed merchant out wide, our deep game is based on big guys with decent relative speed for their position who can go up and fight for a ball. JJAW is obviously example #1, but that is also roughly how Kaden Smith has managed to average almost 17 yards per reception.

Re: Randoms - ChicagoCard - 11-20-2017

(11-20-2017, 11:33 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I dunno, Arcega-Whiteside is not your traditional burner but he seems to be a pretty reliable deep threat on those jump balls. His long every game is 20+ yards and his yards per catch is second in the conference.

To be fair, I don't think Arcega-Whiteside alone is enough to provide that worrisome deep threat -- he doesn't seem to stop opposing defenses from playing their safeties aggressively oriented against the run -- but he's a good start. We'll see if St. Brown, Wedington, Parkinson, etc. are enough to complement him from a deep threat sense. There was some hype about Donald Stewart in the spring and preseason but that seems to have come to naught.

And no Brandt-Sims :(.

Re: Randoms - Mick - 11-20-2017

(11-20-2017, 12:03 PM)SamuelMcF link Wrote:[quote author=martyup link=topic=18094.msg213945#msg213945 date=1511203366]
Our D made a crucial 3rd down stop that should have resulted in ×ÉÉ's 2nd punt.Â If ×ÉÉ didn't get a first down on that fake punt, the final score might have been 24 to 11.