Stanford at UCLA 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 at UCLA Game Thread (/thread-12707.html)
+- 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 at UCLA Game Thread (/thread-12707.html)
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - JohnR34231 - 09-25-2016
If that Louisville QB keeps winning and putting up the kind of numbers he has been doing, I'm afraid CMac may have to settle for second place again.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - stupac2 - 09-25-2016
(09-24-2016, 11:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173019#msg173019 date=1474783170]
By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
I've never seen any substantive look at whether the fade does or doesn't work. I think it's just griping until someone shows their work.
[/quote]
My problem with fades (and I was just talking about this with a friend) is that they're safe but therefore relatively low-percentage throws. So going for one when you have another down left is totally fine, in fact I don't understand why that throw wasn't our first-down play instead of the spike, it would take barely more time and has the chance for a TD with a relatively low chance of being a turnover. But when teams throw fades on 3rd/4th down with the game on the line is when I question it, unless you have someone like Megatron who always has a great chance to get it. When we were routinely throwing fades to Stallworth it was maddening to me.
Showing the work there would be pretty challenging since you'd need advanced charting data that probably only ESPN has.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - Phogge - 09-25-2016
Dalvin Cook had 250 yards and Watson led a Clemson rout. Mac is about 4/5 in the race. Stanford needs to go undefeated and he needs to have four or five ESPN highlight plays to have a chance. I don't care if he wins, he'll win in life. What most impresses me re football is how many times he turns a one yard run into a three yard run. A tough kid who in the right NFL system with the right OC will be a star.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - Mick - 09-25-2016
(09-24-2016, 10:59 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
This was a pretty good fade...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtoqK0iAflI
My problem with the fade is that you need a very accurate QB, and 13 of 27 (with no apparent drops) doesn't scream accurate to me.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - DenverCard - 09-25-2016
Though just a dumb fan whose knowledge of the x's and o's of football has been embarrassingly static, given as many games as I've watched over the decades, is there not a lesson to be learnd from our performance during the last 2 minutes of this game? In a situation in which we lacked any element of surprise, as UCLA knew we'd be passing, we were able to advance 70 yards. While I appreciate such matters as Shaw's personality and the team's identity as constraints on a less conservative attack, it seems to me that our passing game is not as inept as I had believed, and that it would be all the more effective when a defense is expecting the offense to run. (Interception to the linebacker notwithstanding.) Conversely, even a modicum of success through the air would decompress the opposition's stacking of the box that clogs the running lanes.
If we play, say, Notre Dame in a driving rain, okay, run the ball 60 times. Otherwise, could we please pass the ball more?
Additional observation: I found McCaffrey's performance in this game to be as good as any of his. In many of his high-yardage games, he's run through some very big holes in the line and only encountered resistance 8-10 yards downfield. In this game with UCLA, every yard was hard-earned, and much of it obtained almost entirely on the basis of his strength, speed, and impressive patience in picking his spots.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - Spiny_Norman - 09-25-2016
(09-24-2016, 10:59 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
up in the Stanford corner of the end zone, the following exchange occurred:
Spiny Norman: Arcega-Whiteside is split to the wide side in single coverage. They're throwing the fade to him.Â
AdamB100: No!!! I hate the fade!!
subsequent dialogue interrupted by fan celebrations and drowned out by crowd noise. Things were All Right Now up in section 14.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - stupac2 - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 09:06 AM)DenverCard link Wrote:Though just a dumb fan whose knowledge of the x's and o's of football has been embarrassingly static, given as many games as I've watched over the decades, is there not a lesson to be learnd from our performance during the last 2 minutes of this game? In a situation in which we lacked any element of surprise, as UCLA knew we'd be passing, we were able to advance 70 yards. While I appreciate such matters as Shaw's personality and the team's identity as constraints on a less conservative attack, it seems to me that our passing game is not as inept as I had believed, and that it would be all the more effective when a defense is expecting the offense to run. (Interception to the linebacker notwithstanding.) Conversely, even a modicum of success through the air would decompress the opposition's stacking of the box that clogs the running lanes.
This is something that WiM and I (and probably others) harped on in 2014, when we ran the hurry up we had a ton of success, yet we almost never busted it out except when we had to. So far this year that hasn't been the case, and we actually moved the ball okay against UCLA, just had some big, important brain-farts. Hopefully we put it all together, this Friday would be a great time for that...
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 09-25-2016
Yeah, my suspicion is that Burns's accuracy just comes and goes. We've seen halves where he's consistently accurate, and this game with a great two-minute drive. So I think he just has hot streaks and cold streaks and that'll be the main rate-limiter for the offense. If so, it's a tricky challenge to manage -- someone who you can't be sure will give top-rate or so-so performance with any given throw.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - jacketree - 09-25-2016
And sometimes you need to rev the engine to get some torque.
I think Burns will get better with more live reps. But he needs to work on his downfield eyes. I predict this offense will really roll down the stretch this year. D will need to beat U Dub.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - Hank 91 - 09-25-2016
Real quick -- do you know how many times in a row Stanford has beaten UCLA?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F0rPFASUXY
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - CrazedZooChimp - 09-25-2016
(09-24-2016, 11:37 PM)HisKneeWasDown link Wrote:[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=15750.msg173028#msg173028 date=1474784633]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173027#msg173027 date=1474784572]We also ran a lot of wildcat today... it was neither a catastrophic failure nor an overwhelming success, but I was a bit surprised that nobody wrote about how the wildcat is a waste unless you have some action with it.
BC
I wasn't a fan of running it twice in a row.
[/quote]
The problem with the wildcat (at least how we do it) is that the defense expects a run, so 9 times out of 10 the play goes no where.
But the 1 out of 10 times Shaw calls something different... end sweep, or the RB actually throws it. Remember the 2013 Rose Bowl?
http://pac-12.com/videos/stanford-defeats-wisconsin-rose-bowl-highlights
[/quote]
Some day I'm actually going to gather up all the statistics to show that this is wrong. Unless you show your work, as WIM mentioned, I call bullshit. I'm going to guess the Wildcat, especially with CMac, gets 5 yards much more often than it gets 1 yard.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - paloalto - 09-25-2016
At the beginning of the game the announcers frequently used the phrase intellectual brutality. I cringe every time I hear it. It sounds pretentious to me.  Some fans of sports teams are turned off by any reference to Stanford athletes/students as "smart kids". Everyone knows they are smart kids.  No need to brag about it.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - HisKneeWasDown - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 07:05 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15750.msg173026#msg173026 date=1474784444]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173019#msg173019 date=1474783170]
By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
I've never seen any substantive look at whether the fade does or doesn't work. I think it's just griping until someone shows their work.
[/quote]
My problem with fades (and I was just talking about this with a friend) is that they're safe but therefore relatively low-percentage throws. So going for one when you have another down left is totally fine, in fact I don't understand why that throw wasn't our first-down play instead of the spike, it would take barely more time and has the chance for a TD with a relatively low chance of being a turnover. But when teams throw fades on 3rd/4th down with the game on the line is when I question it, unless you have someone like Megatron who always has a great chance to get it. When we were routinely throwing fades to Stallworth it was maddening to me.
Showing the work there would be pretty challenging since you'd need advanced charting data that probably only ESPN has.
[/quote]
Fade is bread and butter in Shaw's playbook, where we like tall receivers/tight ends. A-W has 2-3 inches on Meadors... That's not a Toilolo-esque advantage, but it's something. And maybe A-W has a good vertical. I think it was a good (albeit predictable) call.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - M T - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 10:41 AM)paloalto link Wrote:At the beginning of the game the announcers frequently used the phrase intellectual brutality. I cringe every time I hear it. It sounds pretentious to me.  Some fans of sports teams are turned off by any reference to Stanford athletes/students as "smart kids". Everyone knows they are smart kids.  No need to brag about it.
I absolutely agree. "Brutality" is not a concept I want to be associated with. Some forms of bullying might be termed intellectual brutality. I thought this term was some unofficial tagline promoted by the press, but then, after the touchdown reception, two young men in street clothes and head seats are seen hugging A-W with a shirt that says "The Home of Intellectual Brutality".  Official support for self-reference to brutality is wrong.
Substitute "Toughness" or "Strength" for "Brutality" and I'm all for it.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - martyup - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 12:24 PM)MT link Wrote:[quote author=paloalto link=topic=15750.msg173136#msg173136 date=1474825297]
At the beginning of the game the announcers frequently used the phrase intellectual brutality. I cringe every time I hear it. It sounds pretentious to me.  Some fans of sports teams are turned off by any reference to Stanford athletes/students as "smart kids". Everyone knows they are smart kids.  No need to brag about it.
I absolutely agree. "Brutality" is not a concept I want to be associated with. Some forms of bullying might be termed intellectual brutality. I thought this term was some unofficial tagline promoted by the press, but then, after the touchdown reception, two young men in street clothes and head seats are seen hugging A-W with a shirt that says "The Home of Intellectual Brutality".  Official support for self-reference to brutality is wrong.
Substitute "Toughness" or "Strength" for "Brutality" and I'm all for it.
[/quote]
This is football. Bullying is allowed. Brutality is allowed, within certain specified limits (that aren't always enforced correctly as we saw last night). IMO, the football field is no place for PC sensitivity.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - murky - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 12:24 PM)MT link Wrote:[quote author=paloalto link=topic=15750.msg173136#msg173136 date=1474825297]
At the beginning of the game the announcers frequently used the phrase intellectual brutality. I cringe every time I hear it. It sounds pretentious to me.  Some fans of sports teams are turned off by any reference to Stanford athletes/students as "smart kids". Everyone knows they are smart kids.  No need to brag about it.
I absolutely agree. "Brutality" is not a concept I want to be associated with. Some forms of bullying might be termed intellectual brutality. I thought this term was some unofficial tagline promoted by the press, but then, after the touchdown reception, two young men in street clothes and head seats are seen hugging A-W with a shirt that says "The Home of Intellectual Brutality".  Official support for self-reference to brutality is wrong.
Substitute "Toughness" or "Strength" for "Brutality" and I'm all for it.
[/quote]
I think we're in the minority, but I've never liked that slogan either.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - murky - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 12:24 PM)MT link Wrote:[quote author=paloalto link=topic=15750.msg173136#msg173136 date=1474825297]
At the beginning of the game the announcers frequently used the phrase intellectual brutality. I cringe every time I hear it. It sounds pretentious to me.  Some fans of sports teams are turned off by any reference to Stanford athletes/students as "smart kids". Everyone knows they are smart kids.  No need to brag about it.
I absolutely agree. "Brutality" is not a concept I want to be associated with. Some forms of bullying might be termed intellectual brutality. I thought this term was some unofficial tagline promoted by the press, but then, after the touchdown reception, two young men in street clothes and head seats are seen hugging A-W with a shirt that says "The Home of Intellectual Brutality".  Official support for self-reference to brutality is wrong.
Substitute "Toughness" or "Strength" for "Brutality" and I'm all for it.
[/quote]
I think we're in the minority, but I've never liked that slogan either.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - BostonCard - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 11:50 AM)HisKneeWasDown link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15750.msg173066#msg173066 date=1474812316]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15750.msg173026#msg173026 date=1474784444]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173019#msg173019 date=1474783170]
By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
I've never seen any substantive look at whether the fade does or doesn't work. I think it's just griping until someone shows their work.
[/quote]
My problem with fades (and I was just talking about this with a friend) is that they're safe but therefore relatively low-percentage throws. So going for one when you have another down left is totally fine, in fact I don't understand why that throw wasn't our first-down play instead of the spike, it would take barely more time and has the chance for a TD with a relatively low chance of being a turnover. But when teams throw fades on 3rd/4th down with the game on the line is when I question it, unless you have someone like Megatron who always has a great chance to get it. When we were routinely throwing fades to Stallworth it was maddening to me.
Showing the work there would be pretty challenging since you'd need advanced charting data that probably only ESPN has.
[/quote]
Fade is bread and butter in Shaw's playbook, where we like tall receivers/tight ends. A-W has 2-3 inches on Meadors... That's not a Toilolo-esque advantage, but it's something. And maybe A-W has a good vertical. I think it was a good (albeit predictable) call.
[/quote]
JJ-AW is a former basketball player. I think it's fair to say he has a pretty good vertical.
BC
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - BostonCard - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 11:50 AM)HisKneeWasDown link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15750.msg173066#msg173066 date=1474812316]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15750.msg173026#msg173026 date=1474784444]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173019#msg173019 date=1474783170]
By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
I've never seen any substantive look at whether the fade does or doesn't work. I think it's just griping until someone shows their work.
[/quote]
My problem with fades (and I was just talking about this with a friend) is that they're safe but therefore relatively low-percentage throws. So going for one when you have another down left is totally fine, in fact I don't understand why that throw wasn't our first-down play instead of the spike, it would take barely more time and has the chance for a TD with a relatively low chance of being a turnover. But when teams throw fades on 3rd/4th down with the game on the line is when I question it, unless you have someone like Megatron who always has a great chance to get it. When we were routinely throwing fades to Stallworth it was maddening to me.
Showing the work there would be pretty challenging since you'd need advanced charting data that probably only ESPN has.
[/quote]
Fade is bread and butter in Shaw's playbook, where we like tall receivers/tight ends. A-W has 2-3 inches on Meadors... That's not a Toilolo-esque advantage, but it's something. And maybe A-W has a good vertical. I think it was a good (albeit predictable) call.
[/quote]
JJ-AW is a former basketball player. I think it's fair to say he has a pretty good vertical.
BC
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - HisKneeWasDown - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 07:34 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=15750.msg173151#msg173151 date=1474829406]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15750.msg173066#msg173066 date=1474812316]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15750.msg173026#msg173026 date=1474784444]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173019#msg173019 date=1474783170]
By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
I've never seen any substantive look at whether the fade does or doesn't work. I think it's just griping until someone shows their work.
[/quote]
My problem with fades (and I was just talking about this with a friend) is that they're safe but therefore relatively low-percentage throws. So going for one when you have another down left is totally fine, in fact I don't understand why that throw wasn't our first-down play instead of the spike, it would take barely more time and has the chance for a TD with a relatively low chance of being a turnover. But when teams throw fades on 3rd/4th down with the game on the line is when I question it, unless you have someone like Megatron who always has a great chance to get it. When we were routinely throwing fades to Stallworth it was maddening to me.
Showing the work there would be pretty challenging since you'd need advanced charting data that probably only ESPN has.
[/quote]
Fade is bread and butter in Shaw's playbook, where we like tall receivers/tight ends. A-W has 2-3 inches on Meadors... That's not a Toilolo-esque advantage, but it's something. And maybe A-W has a good vertical. I think it was a good (albeit predictable) call.
[/quote]
JJ-AW is a former basketball player. I think it's fair to say he has a pretty good vertical.
BC
[/quote]
According to the Tom Fitzgerald story in today's Chronicle, he has a 31.5" vertical. He also says Meadors is 5-11, even though the UCLA website says he's 6'0 (and the ESPN website has him at 6'1)