Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - 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: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... (/thread-15314.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: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... (/thread-15314.html)
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - jacketree - 12-29-2017
I means I thought Stanford could beat them; this was not some lost cause like running up against Clemson or Oklahoma. TCU's best win this year was against Ok State, which, well, fine. Put up 7 against Iowa State, which finished 7-5 and gave up more than 7 to every other team on their schedule except Texas and Kansas (which doesn't even have a pulse). Pretty clearly better than Stanford once they got out of their own way though.
Mostly, just bummed that Stanford lost 5 games to decent but not otherworldly teams. Teams like Stanford I guess.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - jacketree - 12-29-2017
I means I thought Stanford could beat them; this was not some lost cause like running up against Clemson or Oklahoma. TCU's best win this year was against Ok State, which, well, fine. Put up 7 against Iowa State, which finished 7-5 and gave up more than 7 to every other team on their schedule except Texas and Kansas (which doesn't even have a pulse). Pretty clearly better than Stanford once they got out of their own way though.
Mostly, just bummed that Stanford lost 5 games to decent but not otherworldly teams. Teams like Stanford I guess.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - martyup - 12-29-2017
We lost twice to UsuckCollege
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - martyup - 12-29-2017
We lost twice to UsuckCollege
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - stupac2 - 12-29-2017
(12-29-2017, 09:21 AM)jacketree link Wrote:I means I thought Stanford could beat them; this was not some lost cause like running up against Clemson or Oklahoma. TCU's best win this year was against Ok State, which, well, fine. Put up 7 against Iowa State, which finished 7-5 and gave up more than 7 to every other team on their schedule except Texas and Kansas (which doesn't even have a pulse). Pretty clearly better than Stanford once they got out of their own way though.
Mostly, just bummed that Stanford lost 5 games to decent but not otherworldly teams. Teams like Stanford I guess.
Yeah, that's the thing, we just weren't a world-beating team this year. It's worth noting that we were 7-6-1 ATS, so just a hair better than Vegas expected.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - stupac2 - 12-29-2017
(12-29-2017, 09:21 AM)jacketree link Wrote:I means I thought Stanford could beat them; this was not some lost cause like running up against Clemson or Oklahoma. TCU's best win this year was against Ok State, which, well, fine. Put up 7 against Iowa State, which finished 7-5 and gave up more than 7 to every other team on their schedule except Texas and Kansas (which doesn't even have a pulse). Pretty clearly better than Stanford once they got out of their own way though.
Mostly, just bummed that Stanford lost 5 games to decent but not otherworldly teams. Teams like Stanford I guess.
Yeah, that's the thing, we just weren't a world-beating team this year. It's worth noting that we were 7-6-1 ATS, so just a hair better than Vegas expected.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - Remy74 - 12-29-2017
(12-28-2017, 09:13 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18444.msg219464#msg219464 date=1514520646]
Love wasn't appreciably slower, I don't think. That guy chasing him was no joke.
-m.
It was weird to see a defender stick with Love all the way down the field. He usually loses them shortly after he breaks through the secondary.
[/quote]
-Defender chasing Love runs a 4.34 in the 40 and is TCU's fastest player.Â
-Love was actually pulling away initially but it appeared the defender slightly closed the gap towards the endzone. As a former sprinter, I doubt that Love's inital burst is impacted that much due to lack of conditioning but there is no question long-speed/speed endurance suffers when you can't practice/condition. Percy Harvin against Oklahoma in the BCS National Title Game [2008 season] coming off a high ankle sprain suffered similar lack of speed endurance due to lack of practice.Â
-Also, carrying the football impacts sprint form/stride a tad. Thus, if 2 guys are of even speed, I'd expect the defender without the football to be slighter faster than the guy carrying the ball.
-If Bryce is 100% at the NFL combine, I expect him to run 4.28-4.37 [assuming he doesn't try to gain too much weight prior to the event].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-_h1MtnlS4
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - Remy74 - 12-29-2017
(12-28-2017, 09:13 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18444.msg219464#msg219464 date=1514520646]
Love wasn't appreciably slower, I don't think. That guy chasing him was no joke.
-m.
It was weird to see a defender stick with Love all the way down the field. He usually loses them shortly after he breaks through the secondary.
[/quote]
-Defender chasing Love runs a 4.34 in the 40 and is TCU's fastest player.Â
-Love was actually pulling away initially but it appeared the defender slightly closed the gap towards the endzone. As a former sprinter, I doubt that Love's inital burst is impacted that much due to lack of conditioning but there is no question long-speed/speed endurance suffers when you can't practice/condition. Percy Harvin against Oklahoma in the BCS National Title Game [2008 season] coming off a high ankle sprain suffered similar lack of speed endurance due to lack of practice.Â
-Also, carrying the football impacts sprint form/stride a tad. Thus, if 2 guys are of even speed, I'd expect the defender without the football to be slighter faster than the guy carrying the ball.
-If Bryce is 100% at the NFL combine, I expect him to run 4.28-4.37 [assuming he doesn't try to gain too much weight prior to the event].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-_h1MtnlS4
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - Goose - 12-29-2017
(12-29-2017, 10:11 AM)Remy74 link Wrote:-If Bryce is 100% at the NFL combine, I expect him to run 4.28-4.37 [assuming he doesn't try to gain too much weight prior to the event].The question is, can he get to 100% in the time available? It could be tough. That would truly be a shame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-_h1MtnlS4
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - Goose - 12-29-2017
(12-29-2017, 10:11 AM)Remy74 link Wrote:-If Bryce is 100% at the NFL combine, I expect him to run 4.28-4.37 [assuming he doesn't try to gain too much weight prior to the event].The question is, can he get to 100% in the time available? It could be tough. That would truly be a shame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-_h1MtnlS4
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - GoodGrief - 12-29-2017
Since I missed some of the game, I'm going through this thread to track the general mood of things. This post was rather prescient.
(12-28-2017, 08:36 PM)jacketree link Wrote:Kind of a less with more first half. Feels like the Sparty Rose Bowl in a way.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - GoodGrief - 12-29-2017
Since I missed some of the game, I'm going through this thread to track the general mood of things. This post was rather prescient.
(12-28-2017, 08:36 PM)jacketree link Wrote:Kind of a less with more first half. Feels like the Sparty Rose Bowl in a way.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - GoodGrief - 12-29-2017
(12-28-2017, 09:06 PM)jacketree link Wrote:TCU finally realized they are faster. Stanford might need 42+ to win. Maybe those guys are naming their score on their arms.
So far Jacketree appears to be Psychic Of The Game
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - GoodGrief - 12-29-2017
(12-28-2017, 09:06 PM)jacketree link Wrote:TCU finally realized they are faster. Stanford might need 42+ to win. Maybe those guys are naming their score on their arms.
So far Jacketree appears to be Psychic Of The Game
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - Spiny_Norman - 12-29-2017
Tom Fitzgerald explains why we saw the 43 on some players' arms - http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports/article/Stanford-offense-should-be-strong-in-18-12461947.php
Quote:Ryan Beecher, a backup inside linebacker for Stanford, missed the Alamo Bowl on Thursday because he was diagnosed last week with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, he said Friday from his home in Fresno.
Beecher, the MVP in his senior season at San Joaquin Memorial-Fresno and the class valedictorian, said he is due for more tests. The initial scan, he said, indicated his illness is highly curable, but he acknowledged, With a diagnosis like this, it kind of flips your world upside down. But I got very good news about my marker.
Beecher, 21, a redshirt sophomore, played on special teams this season and had three tackles. He did not make the trip to San Antonio because of his illness. He said he told his teammates about it before they left. During the game, many of the players wrote his jersey number 43 on their arms or, in the case of wide receiver JJ Arcega-Whiteside, his neck.
I was incredibly touched by the support my team showed, Beecher said.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - Spiny_Norman - 12-29-2017
Tom Fitzgerald explains why we saw the 43 on some players' arms - http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports/article/Stanford-offense-should-be-strong-in-18-12461947.php
Quote:Ryan Beecher, a backup inside linebacker for Stanford, missed the Alamo Bowl on Thursday because he was diagnosed last week with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, he said Friday from his home in Fresno.
Beecher, the MVP in his senior season at San Joaquin Memorial-Fresno and the class valedictorian, said he is due for more tests. The initial scan, he said, indicated his illness is highly curable, but he acknowledged, With a diagnosis like this, it kind of flips your world upside down. But I got very good news about my marker.
Beecher, 21, a redshirt sophomore, played on special teams this season and had three tackles. He did not make the trip to San Antonio because of his illness. He said he told his teammates about it before they left. During the game, many of the players wrote his jersey number 43 on their arms or, in the case of wide receiver JJ Arcega-Whiteside, his neck.
I was incredibly touched by the support my team showed, Beecher said.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - CompSci87 - 12-29-2017
Best wishes to him! The prognosis for most types of non-Hodgkins lymphoma is much better if you get it at an early age. Curable probably means a fast-growing type; that sounds paradoxical, but chemo and radiation are much more effective when the cells are dividing.
(I'm not a doctor, but have had non-Hodgkins lymphoma twice -- two different kinds, 20 years apart.)
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - CompSci87 - 12-29-2017
Best wishes to him! The prognosis for most types of non-Hodgkins lymphoma is much better if you get it at an early age. Curable probably means a fast-growing type; that sounds paradoxical, but chemo and radiation are much more effective when the cells are dividing.
(I'm not a doctor, but have had non-Hodgkins lymphoma twice -- two different kinds, 20 years apart.)
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - teejers1 - 12-29-2017
We fans all see what we're predisposed to see, but here is what was absolutely clear to me from the stands in San Antone:
1. the ultimate result was telegraphed early, probably during TCU's first TD drive;
2. the D was torched in the 2H (after playing very well for a lot of the 1H). I attribute that - in no small part - to a Stanford offense that was not on the field;
3. TCU made great in-game adjustments (first telling the QB to run when open, then allowing him to be patient when Stanford apparently attempted to limit pressure and keep Hill in the pocket), Stanford did not;
4. Stanford's offense was mediocre - not even 400 yards of offense, notable failures to put (more) points on the board, and of course, the AYFKM DOG penalties and the now-standard "hold-your-breath-as-the-play-clock-winds-down-to-fewer-than-3-seconds-as-Stanford-is-trying-to-get-play-called-and-snap-off"; and
5. This game illustrated in spades what I have been complaining about as far as Stanford's scheme under this regime, which does nothing to get players open in space. How many times did TCU throw the ball to a WIDE OPEN receiver? I'd say at least 5 times, and that doesn't include the 2 point conversion that was mishandled by the WIDE OPEN lineman running free in the end zone. Many were delay/drag plays and other forms of misdirection. In contrast, Stanford ran Love between the tackles how many times? The "wheel" route was the closest thing to "misdirection" and it's not that by any stretch. The fundamental point is that this offense is plodding, predictable (how many times did Stanford throw on first down with Love in the backfield? Hell, throw at all with Love in the backfield?), and massively underperforms to talent.  It's so frustrating to watch because it is crystal clear that this regime does NOT put this team in the best position to win due to an inferior offensive approach.Â
I am now firmly in the camp that all the "Shaw Offense Defenders" are enablers and part of the problem. Every Stanford football fan who gives a $hit about Stanford playing to its talent level should make known their displeasure about the status quo, which we all know is not going to change one iota with Tavita as OC. But of course that won't happen because (a) some people actually believe that Stanford's offense is "good" as is, and (ii) more people think it is forbidden to criticize Shaw because his overall record at Stanford is good (which it certainly is).
Even with a depleted D with few standout players, this team should have won more games, including in CCG.
Having said all of the above, congratulations to TCU, who outplayed (and obviously out-coached) Stanford in the Alamo Bowl and deserved to win.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - BostonCard - 12-29-2017
(12-29-2017, 12:21 PM)GoodGrief link Wrote:[quote author=jacketree link=topic=18444.msg219453#msg219453 date=1514520402]
TCU finally realized they are faster. Stanford might need 42+ to win. Maybe those guys are naming their score on their arms.
So far Jacketree appears to be Psychic Of The Game
[/quote]
Yeah, I was out to dinner for the first half of the game and was good (didn't even check my phone until we were out of the restaurant). I saw the first half score and thought "great!", then I looked at the stats and thought that the score didn't reflect the stats (which were basically even at that point). Was really hoping not to see a regression to the mean, but with TCU's first second-half drive I was really wondering how we managed to hold them to 10 pts in the first half.
BC