Other Football Games (week 4) - 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: Other Football Games (week 4) (/thread-22329.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: Other Football Games (week 4) (/thread-22329.html)
RE: Other Football Games (week 4) - JohnR34231 - 09-27-2021
(09-27-2021, 10:21 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-27-2021, 08:11 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-25-2021, 12:36 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-25-2021, 12:10 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Vandy ends up with 77 yards total. Stanford allowed that team 398. Ugh.
Unfortunately, it does demonstrate how far we are behind the top teams in the country.
Thanks for putting into crisp language the precise reason my enthusiasm for the current regime has flat-lined. Until I see significant and positive change, I will remain a disinterested (not to be confused with "uninterested") observer. R.I.P. EUTM.
Gail, you don't understand, Shaw is not just a good coach . . . he's a great coach. Ask everyone he . . . most everyone . . . well, some of the folks here still believe that. But really, the Shaw "debate" is so passe - he's not going anywhere anytime soon. The more pressing concern, as I see it, is McKee. That guy is eligible to bolt after THIS season, and that would be catastrophic to the program.
I'm really hoping McKee has sufficient interest in Stanford University (including a degree) to stick around.
Not sure the football draw part of it will be that great, though the OL should improve . . . shouldn't it? And hopefully the team can build some second-half season momentum with several Ws (the next 2 games look pretty tough).
I suggested a month or two ago that there was a chance McKee might bolt after this season and was told that it was a silly concern. So I stopped worrying about it. Should I start again?
I don't think too many people on this board think Shaw is a great coach. However, they do think he is a good one, which they feel his record here demonstrates (even post 2015). I agree that a moratorium on that debate would be appropriate.
RE: Other Football Games (week 4) - martyup - 09-27-2021
IMO, Chip Kelly exposed a weakness in McKee's game. At this point, he isn't good at dink and dunk passing. He needs time to go through his progressions and UCLA took that away from him. If McKee could have thrown quick short passes it would have defeated UCLA's defensive strategy. But, alas . . .
RE: Other Football Games (week 4) - Goose - 09-27-2021
(09-27-2021, 11:47 AM)martyup Wrote: IMO, Chip Kelly exposed a weakness in McKee's game. At this point, he isn't good at dink and dunk passing. He needs time to go through his progressions and UCLA took that away from him. If McKee could have thrown quick short passes it would have defeated UCLA's defensive strategy. But, alas . . .I think you are correct about the quick, short passes. In fairness, I am not sure McKee can't throw them, but I am pretty sure we didn't call a lot of them. I think a more experienced guy may have called them at the LOS. We knew that UCLA was going to blitz a lot, but we didn't seem to have many "hot reads" to throw into areas vacated by the blitz. That isn't a 300 page playbook thing. It is a recognition thing. We should be better at that.
RE: Other Football Games (week 4) - Papa John - 09-27-2021
McKee is somewhere between a true- and redshirt-freshman. He'll get better with time and experience. Wish I felt the same way about the O-line right now.
RE: Other Football Games (week 4) - gailtate - 09-27-2021
(09-27-2021, 11:32 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-27-2021, 10:21 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-27-2021, 08:11 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-25-2021, 12:36 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-25-2021, 12:10 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Vandy ends up with 77 yards total. Stanford allowed that team 398. Ugh.
Unfortunately, it does demonstrate how far we are behind the top teams in the country.
Thanks for putting into crisp language the precise reason my enthusiasm for the current regime has flat-lined. Until I see significant and positive change, I will remain a disinterested (not to be confused with "uninterested") observer. R.I.P. EUTM.
Gail, you don't understand, Shaw is not just a good coach . . . he's a great coach. Ask everyone he . . . most everyone . . . well, some of the folks here still believe that. But really, the Shaw "debate" is so passe - he's not going anywhere anytime soon. The more pressing concern, as I see it, is McKee. That guy is eligible to bolt after THIS season, and that would be catastrophic to the program.
I'm really hoping McKee has sufficient interest in Stanford University (including a degree) to stick around.
Not sure the football draw part of it will be that great, though the OL should improve . . . shouldn't it? And hopefully the team can build some second-half season momentum with several Ws (the next 2 games look pretty tough).
I suggested a month or two ago that there was a chance McKee might bolt after this season and was told that it was a silly concern. So I stopped worrying about it. Should I start again?
I don't think too many people on this board think Shaw is a great coach. However, they do think he is a good one, which they feel his record here demonstrates (even post 2015). I agree that a moratorium on that debate would be appropriate.
I am not, repeat NOT, engaging in or encouraging any form of "debate" about Shaw. He is a consummately knowledgeable "football man", as Glenn Dickey described Jack Christiansen. He is also a lock for the foreseeable future (translation: until his kids graduate). What Shaw is not is the kind of CEO who instinctively resists ingrained, rigid thinking and refuses to give up the right to be smarter tomorrow than he was today. Indeed, he is not a CEO in any form or fashion, a fundamental flaw. To him, disruption is anathema. The status quo is his true north. Cordial collegiality is the mandate, the overarching objective of the program. Think Software in the early 2000's. He is PeopleSoft up against Oracle.
RE: Other Football Games (week 4) - teejers1 - 09-27-2021
(09-27-2021, 01:40 PM)Goose Wrote:(09-27-2021, 11:47 AM)martyup Wrote: IMO, Chip Kelly exposed a weakness in McKee's game. At this point, he isn't good at dink and dunk passing. He needs time to go through his progressions and UCLA took that away from him. If McKee could have thrown quick short passes it would have defeated UCLA's defensive strategy. But, alas . . .I think you are correct about the quick, short passes. In fairness, I am not sure McKee can't throw them, but I am pretty sure we didn't call a lot of them. I think a more experienced guy may have called them at the LOS. We knew that UCLA was going to blitz a lot, but we didn't seem to have many "hot reads" to throw into areas vacated by the blitz. That isn't a 300 page playbook thing. It is a recognition thing. We should be better at that.
Hot reads?!? Did somebody say Red 7?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdtIgE33BvQ
RE: Other Football Games (week 4) - JohnR34231 - 09-28-2021
(09-27-2021, 02:19 PM)gailtate Wrote:(09-27-2021, 11:32 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-27-2021, 10:21 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-27-2021, 08:11 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-25-2021, 12:36 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Unfortunately, it does demonstrate how far we are behind the top teams in the country.
Thanks for putting into crisp language the precise reason my enthusiasm for the current regime has flat-lined. Until I see significant and positive change, I will remain a disinterested (not to be confused with "uninterested") observer. R.I.P. EUTM.
Gail, you don't understand, Shaw is not just a good coach . . . he's a great coach. Ask everyone he . . . most everyone . . . well, some of the folks here still believe that. But really, the Shaw "debate" is so passe - he's not going anywhere anytime soon. The more pressing concern, as I see it, is McKee. That guy is eligible to bolt after THIS season, and that would be catastrophic to the program.
I'm really hoping McKee has sufficient interest in Stanford University (including a degree) to stick around.
Not sure the football draw part of it will be that great, though the OL should improve . . . shouldn't it? And hopefully the team can build some second-half season momentum with several Ws (the next 2 games look pretty tough).
I suggested a month or two ago that there was a chance McKee might bolt after this season and was told that it was a silly concern. So I stopped worrying about it. Should I start again?
I don't think too many people on this board think Shaw is a great coach. However, they do think he is a good one, which they feel his record here demonstrates (even post 2015). I agree that a moratorium on that debate would be appropriate.
I am not, repeat NOT, engaging in or encouraging any form of "debate" about Shaw. He is a consummately knowledgeable "football man", as Glenn Dickey described Jack Christiansen. He is also a lock for the foreseeable future (translation: until his kids graduate). What Shaw is not is the kind of CEO who instinctively resists ingrained, rigid thinking and refuses to give up the right to be smarter tomorrow than he was today. Indeed, he is not a CEO in any form or fashion, a fundamental flaw. To him, disruption is anathema. The status quo is his true north. Cordial collegiality is the mandate, the overarching objective of the program. Think Software in the early 2000's. He is PeopleSoft up against Oracle.
OK, I think most can agree that (like most of us) Shaw has his strengths and his weaknesses.
Since his weaknesses have been pointed out dozens and dozens of times on this board I would humbly suggest we take a break from continuing to do it.