Stanford - UW 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 - UW game thread (/thread-14841.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 - UW game thread (/thread-14841.html)
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - BostonCard - 11-10-2017
(11-10-2017, 10:07 PM)PalmTree link Wrote:We are not wrapping guys up
After a three and out would seem like an odd time to state that.
But yeah, weve had trouble with that today.
BC
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - BostonCard - 11-10-2017
(11-10-2017, 10:07 PM)PalmTree link Wrote:We are not wrapping guys up
After a three and out would seem like an odd time to state that.
But yeah, weve had trouble with that today.
BC
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - PalmTree - 11-10-2017
(11-10-2017, 10:08 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=17955.msg211632#msg211632 date=1510376833]
We need more players involved on offense. JJAW and Love and not much else.
Irwin?
[/quote]
+ TEs, Stewart?
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - PalmTree - 11-10-2017
(11-10-2017, 10:08 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=17955.msg211632#msg211632 date=1510376833]
We need more players involved on offense. JJAW and Love and not much else.
Irwin?
[/quote]
+ TEs, Stewart?
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - CornFed - 11-10-2017
(11-10-2017, 10:08 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=17955.msg211632#msg211632 date=1510376833]
We need more players involved on offense. JJAW and Love and not much else.
Irwin?
[/quote]
Yeah, true.
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - CornFed - 11-10-2017
(11-10-2017, 10:08 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=17955.msg211632#msg211632 date=1510376833]
We need more players involved on offense. JJAW and Love and not much else.
Irwin?
[/quote]
Yeah, true.
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 11-10-2017
What a horrendous drive in that situation
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 11-10-2017
What a horrendous drive in that situation
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - BostonCard - 11-10-2017
Longest run of the game so far for us.
On the one hand, down 14-10 is not a bad outcome so far.
On the other hand, it sure seems like weve struggled to move the ball; weve faced 10 third downs already (and converted 6), while for the most part UW has moved the ball eqsily.
Bc
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - BostonCard - 11-10-2017
Longest run of the game so far for us.
On the one hand, down 14-10 is not a bad outcome so far.
On the other hand, it sure seems like weve struggled to move the ball; weve faced 10 third downs already (and converted 6), while for the most part UW has moved the ball eqsily.
Bc
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - Trevmiesterj - 11-10-2017
Somehow, they didn't finish us in the first half.
Need some turnovers.
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - Trevmiesterj - 11-10-2017
Somehow, they didn't finish us in the first half.
Need some turnovers.
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - lex24 - 11-10-2017
Frankly after UW first drive I didnt think theyd be in it at half. At least they have a shot.
But I agree with Jacktree that Love should be done. Ankles are tough
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - lex24 - 11-10-2017
Frankly after UW first drive I didnt think theyd be in it at half. At least they have a shot.
But I agree with Jacktree that Love should be done. Ankles are tough
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - CornFed - 11-10-2017
(11-10-2017, 10:10 PM)CornFed link Wrote:[quote author=martyup link=topic=17955.msg211637#msg211637 date=1510376901]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=17955.msg211632#msg211632 date=1510376833]
We need more players involved on offense. JJAW and Love and not much else.
Irwin?
[/quote]
Yeah, true.
[/quote]
3 catches. 29 yards. But our efforts to get Wedington involved have gone nowhere. That screen to Speights was set up well (vs. prevent defense, though) but he just fell down.
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - CornFed - 11-10-2017
(11-10-2017, 10:10 PM)CornFed link Wrote:[quote author=martyup link=topic=17955.msg211637#msg211637 date=1510376901]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=17955.msg211632#msg211632 date=1510376833]
We need more players involved on offense. JJAW and Love and not much else.
Irwin?
[/quote]
Yeah, true.
[/quote]
3 catches. 29 yards. But our efforts to get Wedington involved have gone nowhere. That screen to Speights was set up well (vs. prevent defense, though) but he just fell down.
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - lex24 - 11-10-2017
Fade? BC - .........
(11-10-2017, 10:04 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:UW knows how to defend the fade. The safety covered a lot of ground, and we are lucky it wasnt intercepted.
BC
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - lex24 - 11-10-2017
Fade? BC - .........
(11-10-2017, 10:04 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:UW knows how to defend the fade. The safety covered a lot of ground, and we are lucky it wasnt intercepted.
BC
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - stupac2 - 11-10-2017
(11-10-2017, 10:11 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:What a horrendous drive in that situation
Not really. The tunnel screen looked like it had more room until Speights got tripped up by a blocker. The throw to Irwin was misplaced, sure, but I'm that situation we were mostly done once the first down play didn't get a first down.
A terrible drive there is a turnover...
Re: Stanford - UW game thread - stupac2 - 11-10-2017
(11-10-2017, 10:11 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:What a horrendous drive in that situation
Not really. The tunnel screen looked like it had more room until Speights got tripped up by a blocker. The throw to Irwin was misplaced, sure, but I'm that situation we were mostly done once the first down play didn't get a first down.
A terrible drive there is a turnover...