The CardBoard
Time to focus on Army - 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: Time to focus on Army (/thread-7747.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Time to focus on Army - JohnR34231 - 09-10-2014

My top 3:
1. Win the game (I don't particularly care if it is dominant or not)
2. Avoid injuries
3. Work on execution (specifically in the red zone)

Re: Time to focus on Army - Spiny_Norman - 09-10-2014

My very first game as a Stanford student (and my first game at Stanford Stadium) was vs. Army.  We lost.  It was my introduction to Stanford's long history of underperforming vs. lesser teams.  This history would reach a new low later that season when Stanford lost to Oregon State (one of the worst D1 teams).  The margin was a safety.  On a kickoff.  It was OSU's only victory that season.

With that memory still in mind, I am setting a low bar for Saturday - Beat Army.  No injuries.  Pyrrhic victories are not really victories.

Re: Time to focus on Army - CornFed - 09-10-2014

I want at least six TD's and a couple of 40+yd FG's and I want the Cardinal to hold the Cadets to no more than 10 points, and I want to see Barry Sanders get 15 carries/receptions and I want Hogan to throw for 350 yards with 4 TD's, 2 to Ty, 1 to Cajuste and 1 to Hooper, and I want us to get 8 sacks and I want us to hold Army under 200 yards rushing and, of course, I want NO injuries of any kind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tkdCJ-8xXg

Re: Time to focus on Army - Rally - 09-10-2014

(09-10-2014, 12:23 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:1) Dominant win
1a) No injuries

No need to worry about tipping the playbook hand before conference play...

Uh, conference play began last week, right?

Re: Time to focus on Army - BostonCard - 09-10-2014

(09-10-2014, 10:50 AM)GoodGrief link Wrote:I would like to see:

1. All Barry J Sanders all the time
2. Christian McCaffrey the rest of the time.

Not to put too fine a point to it, but if, say, Wright gets 18 carries and 200 yards, and Sanders and McCaffrey split another 10 carries gaining 80 yards, are you going to be disappointed that the guys you wanted to play didn't play as much as you wanted them, or are you going to be happy that a running back has emerged from the pack and excelled. Would you rather Sanders get 20 carries but go for 70 yards, and our running game overall barely break the 100 yard mark?

I really don't care which of our talented and highly recruited running backs emerge.  I would be delighted to see Barry Sanders do well, but I would be equally excited if Wright or Young had a breakout game, or if all of them have a great game and somehow the running back by committee thing works out.  All I really want is for our running game to show its potential and improve over what has been a somewhat lackluster start to the season.

BC

Re: Time to focus on Army - CornFed - 09-10-2014

Look.  I think that, since none of the running backs has been identified as dominant, I am smitten with Sanders due the excitement I've derived from the glimpses we have had of his running style.  Perhaps there are those here who will continue to lobby for their "favorite" even in the hypothetical scenario you describe.  I don't really recall off the top of my head, but were there grumblings from Kelsey Young adherents after Gaffney began to emerge as the lead horse?

Can't speak for others, but I would have much to be excited about if Wright performs in the manner you describe.  Until that happens, I would like to see what Sanders could do with a meaningful number of reps.  And I'm NOT jumping on Shaw or jumping up and down in outrage that that has not been the case.  I presume that he is not yet demonstrating enough proficiency at pass blocking, or doesn't have complete mastery of the playbook, or whatever.  Just want to see Sanders run in the open field.  What has been intimated by his limited use up to this point gets me pretty fired up about what it would be like if he earned the "main dog" role.

Re: Time to focus on Army - fullmetal - 09-10-2014

(09-10-2014, 02:02 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=10599.msg97779#msg97779 date=1410377001]
1) Dominant win
1a) No injuries

No need to worry about tipping the playbook hand before conference play...

Uh, conference play began last week, right?
[/quote]

It's a long season, and we have more than one conference opponent.

Re: Time to focus on Army - Rally - 09-10-2014

(09-10-2014, 04:38 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10599.msg97790#msg97790 date=1410382949]
[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=10599.msg97779#msg97779 date=1410377001]
1) Dominant win
1a) No injuries

No need to worry about tipping the playbook hand before conference play...

Uh, conference play began last week, right?
[/quote]

It's a long season, and we have more than one conference opponent.
[/quote]

Very true, just pointing out the obvious.  Sorry.  And if we didn't tip the playbook last week, why not?  Might have been a good time to pull out the stops.  What surprises are you expecting later?

Re: Time to focus on Army - 81alum - 09-10-2014

(09-10-2014, 01:05 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:My very first game as a Stanford student (and my first game at Stanford Stadium) was vs. Army.  We lost.  It was my introduction to Stanford's long history of underperforming vs. lesser teams.  This history would reach a new low later that season when Stanford lost to Oregon State (one of the worst D1 teams).  The margin was a safety.  On a kickoff.  It was OSU's only victory that season.

With that memory still in mind, I am setting a low bar for Saturday - Beat Army.  No injuries.  Pyrrhic victories are not really victories.
I remember that season!  That was 1979.  In those days we never lost to either of the lowly Oregon schools, but we managed to lose to both of them.  Losing to Oregon State  in Corvallis was especially galling.  Didn't someone receive a kick, back up into the end zone, and down it for the loss? 

That was Elway's first year, although Turk Schonert started most of the games.  It was also the most thrilling win over UCLA I can remember.  Gordie Banks blocked a last minute UCLA field goal, we rapidly drove the field, and then we kicked a long FG that was long enough by a few inches and also hit the cross bar before bouncing over for the win.  I think Elway started that game and broke the fingers of one of the receivers with his hard throws. 

That was also the year that we tied USC 21-21.  That result was almost as shocking as our 24-23 victory decades latter.  USC was No 1, we were not.  I remember turning off the 1979 game at halftime when we were losing 21-0.  And 21-0 hardly covers it.  They were pounding us.  Then I tuned back in when I was driving around campus, just in time to hear the tying touchdown.  USC got the ball, drove the field, attempted a field goal--blocked by Gordie Banks again!  That guy was fast.  USC was undefeated that year.

I think 1979 epitomizes the old Stanford.  Defeating excellent teams, losing to bad teams.  Sparks of brilliance and completely inconsistent play.



Re: Time to focus on Army - CTcard - 09-10-2014

(09-09-2014, 08:16 AM)Stymie link Wrote:Yup.  The closer the arm action comes to the ear (think of how baseball catchers make throws to 2nd base steal attempts) the better the action.  Hogan is a decent slinger, but he's no Sorry Jurgensen or Sammy Baugh.....

Kind of looks like Jurgensen to me.
[Image: 3e6cdb707bf1de71b9a4041533239980.jpg]


Baugh might have had a better motion. All the photos I could find of him throwing, except one, were staged for publicity shots. Those show a rather exaggerated over the top motion.
[Image: sammy-baugh-1943.jpg]

There is this one photo which seems to be game action and seems to show a better "by the ear" motion.
[Image: Baugh_Sammy.jpg]

Re: Time to focus on Army - CTcard - 09-10-2014

(09-10-2014, 04:00 PM)CornFed link Wrote:I think that, since none of the running backs has been identified as dominant, I am smitten with Sanders due the excitement I've derived from the glimpses we have had of his running style. 

There is insufficient evidence, but the immediate trend seems to indicate you may be about to be disappointed.

Player      Game 1                Game 2
Wright  4 carries, 28 yds    11 carries, 60 yds
Young    7 carries, 37 yds      7 carries, 39 yds
Sanders 7 carries, 43 yds      2 carries,  7 yds

Re: Time to focus on Army - CornFed - 09-10-2014

If that ship has sailed, I am delighted to cheer on Remound Wright with all the jiu-jiu I can muster.  I think your aside - there is insufficient evidence - is maybe relevant, but the jump in carries for Wright does seem to suggest that the coaches are leaning his way.  I am curious, though, because the Army game depth schedule suggests Young will start.  Nonetheless, I get it.  Sanders's carries dropped to only 2 and one cannot avoid reading into that that he is just not as ready yet as the other guys.

Re: Time to focus on Army - GoodGrief - 09-10-2014

(09-10-2014, 03:32 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=GoodGrief link=topic=10599.msg97758#msg97758 date=1410371447]
I would like to see:

1. All Barry J Sanders all the time
2. Christian McCaffrey the rest of the time.

Not to put too fine a point to it, but if, say, Wright gets 18 carries and 200 yards, and Sanders and McCaffrey split another 10 carries gaining 80 yards, are you going to be disappointed that the guys you wanted to play didn't play as much as you wanted them, or are you going to be happy that a running back has emerged from the pack and excelled. Would you rather Sanders get 20 carries but go for 70 yards, and our running game overall barely break the 100 yard mark?
[/quote]

Objectively, I want whatever will put Stanford in the best position to win, whether that's one guy carrying it 90% of the time or a committee in which Remound comes in for bowling ball plays, Kelsey Young comes in for speed-burning plays, Barry J Sanders comes in for juke-everybody-out-of-their-socks plays, and McCaffrey comes in for juking, speed-burning, bowling ball plays.

Subjectively, I like flash and dazzle. I am infatuated by the flash of Barry J Sanders at the WSU game, the dazzle of McCaffrey in the opener, and the high school tape of Keller Chryst. If it were up to me, I'd start all three of them immediately. I would also run a lot of double-reverses, bombs, fumblerooskis, hook-and-ladders, and all assortments of trick plays.

If I were coaching Stanford football, we wouldn't win many games, but we would be very entertaining.



Nobody would complain that I was too conservative, that's for sure.

Re: Time to focus on Army - Extra Point - 09-10-2014

Quote:Losing to Oregon State in Corvallis was especially galling.  Didn't someone receive a kick, back up into the end zone, and down it for the loss? 

Yes! Because of that event, the NCAA adopted the rule about a kickoff being a touchback when the receiver is carried into the endzone after catching the ball.

Re: Time to focus on Army - 81alum - 09-10-2014

So, given that we are supposedly focusing on Army, anyone want to write a primer on what makes Army's offense special?  Why was our game against them last year so mediocre?  Do they do anything special on defense akin to their unique offense?

Re: Time to focus on Army - BostonCard - 09-10-2014

(09-10-2014, 06:46 PM)GoodGrief link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=10599.msg97805#msg97805 date=1410388335]
[quote author=GoodGrief link=topic=10599.msg97758#msg97758 date=1410371447]
I would like to see:

1. All Barry J Sanders all the time
2. Christian McCaffrey the rest of the time.

Not to put too fine a point to it, but if, say, Wright gets 18 carries and 200 yards, and Sanders and McCaffrey split another 10 carries gaining 80 yards, are you going to be disappointed that the guys you wanted to play didn't play as much as you wanted them, or are you going to be happy that a running back has emerged from the pack and excelled. Would you rather Sanders get 20 carries but go for 70 yards, and our running game overall barely break the 100 yard mark?
[/quote]

Objectively, I want whatever will put Stanford in the best position to win, whether that's one guy carrying it 90% of the time or a committee in which Remound comes in for bowling ball plays, Kelsey Young comes in for speed-burning plays, Barry J Sanders comes in for juke-everybody-out-of-their-socks plays, and McCaffrey comes in for juking, speed-burning, bowling ball plays.

Subjectively, I like flash and dazzle. I am infatuated by the flash of Barry J Sanders at the WSU game, the dazzle of McCaffrey in the opener, and the high school tape of Keller Chryst. If it were up to me, I'd start all three of them immediately. I would also run a lot of double-reverses, bombs, fumblerooskis, hook-and-ladders, and all assortments of trick plays.

If I were coaching Stanford football, we wouldn't win many games, but we would be very entertaining.



Nobody would complain that I was too conservative, that's for sure.
[/quote]

Hook and ladder:
[Image: Pierce-Aetna-Hose-Hook-and-Ladder-Compan...7&ext=.jpg]

Hook and lateral:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4s8vdzYwFU

The play is named for the route (a hook) and what comes after (a lateral).  That being said, the misnomer has gotten so common, that if you call it a hook and ladder, everyone would know what you were talking about.

BC

Re: Time to focus on Army - GoodGrief - 09-10-2014

(09-10-2014, 10:03 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The play is named for the route (a hook) and what comes after (a lateral).  That being said, the misnomer has gotten so common, that if you call it a hook and ladder, everyone would know what you were talking about.

BC

Similarly, I couldn't be bothered to figure out whether it's a flea-flicker or a fleet-flicker, so I just wrote "double reverse." Point remains that I would not be a very good football coach.

Re: Time to focus on Army - fullmetal - 09-11-2014

(09-10-2014, 07:55 PM)81alum link Wrote:So, given that we are supposedly focusing on Army, anyone want to write a primer on what makes Army's offense special?  Why was our game against them last year so mediocre?  Do they do anything special on defense akin to their unique offense?

Army runs a triple option offense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_option), which is designed around speed and misdirection.  This is a wise decision for them as they cannot count on power/strength to run traditional schemes due to height/weight restrictions for cadets.  It's a fairly unique offensive scheme (all three FBS service academies run this scheme for the same reason), and specific preparation for it isn't helpful for defending the rest of college football's offenses, much in the way that Oregon doesn't see a power running game like Stanford's very often.

Army's defense doesn't do anything special as far as I know.  They're smaller, perhaps quicker, and thus will have to rely on discipline and speed to deal with Stanford's power up front and blocking. 

As most smaller teams do, Army tends to practice cut blocks, where a smaller player blocks a larger player by hitting them in the legs, usually around the knees, in order to knock them down (or trip them).  This can be dangerous for the larger players, and some larger players will play hesitantly to protect their legs when they know cut blocking is a possibility.  Cut blocking can be employed on both sides of the ball.

Last year, Shaw stuck with a very vanilla playbook against Army (iirc) because he believed Stanford could beat Army straight up on power and athleticism without needing to show too much of the playbook before the bulk of the season.  Army therefore was in a decent position to defend and attack knowing that there wouldn't be too much misdirection.  I think the scoreboard and progression of the game bore that out.


Here's a brief rundown on Army's scheme from the view of a Boston College fan:
http://www.bcinterruption.com/boston-college-football-army-2013/2013/6/20/4448480/how-stop-army-triple-option-offense-boston-college-2013-preview

Re: Time to focus on Army - Spiny_Norman - 09-11-2014

(09-10-2014, 05:55 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=10599.msg97813#msg97813 date=1410390008]
I think that, since none of the running backs has been identified as dominant, I am smitten with Sanders due the excitement I've derived from the glimpses we have had of his running style. 

There is insufficient evidence, but the immediate trend seems to indicate you may be about to be disappointed.

Player      Game 1                Game 2
Wright  4 carries, 28 yds    11 carries, 60 yds
Young    7 carries, 37 yds      7 carries, 39 yds
Sanders 7 carries, 43 yds      2 carries,  7 yds
[/quote]

Somebody besides Wright will get to carry the load vs. Army.  He will likely be held out of the game.   
https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/status/510219060894650368

Re: Time to focus on Army - fullmetal - 09-12-2014

Here's a good Rivals.com article on Stanford's defense against the triple-option.  It also mentions Wright's undisclosed injury against U$C.

https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1680513