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.... - 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
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - Mick - 12-30-2017
(12-29-2017, 11:29 PM)teejers1 link Wrote: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.
I'm going to assume that Tavita's offensive mind was concealed in the most egregious way and that an extraordinary and complex offensive mind lurks above his truly mediocre throwing arm. I anticipate a highly sophisticated offensive game plan, a plan with which Coach Shaw will not interfere, and I will give Tavita the benefit of the doubt for two full games. After San Diego State and USC, we can praise him to the heavens or roast him on a digital spit.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - Mick - 12-30-2017
(12-29-2017, 11:29 PM)teejers1 link Wrote: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.
I'm going to assume that Tavita's offensive mind was concealed in the most egregious way and that an extraordinary and complex offensive mind lurks above his truly mediocre throwing arm. I anticipate a highly sophisticated offensive game plan, a plan with which Coach Shaw will not interfere, and I will give Tavita the benefit of the doubt for two full games. After San Diego State and USC, we can praise him to the heavens or roast him on a digital spit.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - dabigv13 - 12-30-2017
(12-29-2017, 11:29 PM)teejers1 link Wrote: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.
If someone asked me to do a spoof teejers post after the TCU game, this is close to what I'd do. The best part is how even the poor defense is ultimately because of Shaw's bad offensive playcalling. Don't think Murphy getting torched for 93 and a score had anything to do with him being tired, but maybe I'm wrong.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - dabigv13 - 12-30-2017
(12-29-2017, 11:29 PM)teejers1 link Wrote: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.
If someone asked me to do a spoof teejers post after the TCU game, this is close to what I'd do. The best part is how even the poor defense is ultimately because of Shaw's bad offensive playcalling. Don't think Murphy getting torched for 93 and a score had anything to do with him being tired, but maybe I'm wrong.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - teejers1 - 12-30-2017
Well, dabig, I did use the word "predisposed" at the outset!
Look, my takes rely on the eye test, combined with what I believe are the relative strengths of the team. It's plain to this fan that Stanford's D under this regime (and under Harbaugh) were only really good/great when it had stellar DL that could inflict disruption/punishment in the backfield by themselves. This year, Stanford had Phillips and not much else on that front (though I do think Cotton improved and played well for a player with his profile/experience). And that is before you take into account the injuries (and "reassignments" - see Alfieri) that further undermined strength of the D. So, I didn't come into the season with high expectations for this group, though I think they would have been decent to pretty good with better health.
The O is a completely different matter. The OL is very good to excellent, QB is very good, TEs the best, RB the best, and WRs at least serviceable (how do you think JJAW was feeling during the game? The guy was targeted what? . . . 5 times and had 3 TDs and arguably the biggest play of the day for Stanford on O - the third down conversion in Q4). And yet, we saw a season where the "strategy" was to run as few plays as possible; and run Love as many times as possible into the teeth of the D, especially on first and second downs. And I categorically reject the notion that "well, you have to run Love 15 times into the teeth of the D because he is likely to break 1 or 2 of them for big gains." I think it much more likely that Love would break off long runs if he were given the ball in space with only 1 or 2 defenders to beat, as opposed to 9 defenders in the box. And I don't think you'd need to give it to Love 15 times for him to break off 1 or 2.
It was exceptionally frustrating for this fan (and others, too, I wasn't the only one complaining) to see this game after game.
And yes, there were execution problems, most notably the missed WIDE OPEN guy (Parkinson?) in right side of end zone when Costello locked in on Smith(?) and threw into double coverage. That is not a play calling error (but it is also not a great play call to get a player open - the only reason that Parkinson was wide open was because TCU blitzed the corner on that play and Parkinson was uncovered).
Last point: rule of thumb is about 100 yards of offense will get you 7 points. Historically that has been the case, at least according to Terry (I believe) on the Bootleg a few years back. Stanford scored 37 points against TCU. That would typically equate to over 500 yards of offense. Stanford had less than 400 (360 or 380). I previously posted the relative yardage performances of Stanford and its opponents this season (Stanford was outgained in most games, now including the bowl game). I just don't see how anyone can think this is a "good" offense. It's sad to say, but it can be summarized as "toss Bryce up the gut and hope he can break one or two" and if close to the end zone, "throw the jump ball to JJAW."
P.S. The long TD was (a) a great call (reminiscent of Joe Borchard to Troy Walters in home game against UCLA - do you think our coach would ever even think to call that play), where (b) safety help was not there. Think having our starter back there might have prevented the TD . . . but then again, maybe not.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - teejers1 - 12-30-2017
Well, dabig, I did use the word "predisposed" at the outset!
Look, my takes rely on the eye test, combined with what I believe are the relative strengths of the team. It's plain to this fan that Stanford's D under this regime (and under Harbaugh) were only really good/great when it had stellar DL that could inflict disruption/punishment in the backfield by themselves. This year, Stanford had Phillips and not much else on that front (though I do think Cotton improved and played well for a player with his profile/experience). And that is before you take into account the injuries (and "reassignments" - see Alfieri) that further undermined strength of the D. So, I didn't come into the season with high expectations for this group, though I think they would have been decent to pretty good with better health.
The O is a completely different matter. The OL is very good to excellent, QB is very good, TEs the best, RB the best, and WRs at least serviceable (how do you think JJAW was feeling during the game? The guy was targeted what? . . . 5 times and had 3 TDs and arguably the biggest play of the day for Stanford on O - the third down conversion in Q4). And yet, we saw a season where the "strategy" was to run as few plays as possible; and run Love as many times as possible into the teeth of the D, especially on first and second downs. And I categorically reject the notion that "well, you have to run Love 15 times into the teeth of the D because he is likely to break 1 or 2 of them for big gains." I think it much more likely that Love would break off long runs if he were given the ball in space with only 1 or 2 defenders to beat, as opposed to 9 defenders in the box. And I don't think you'd need to give it to Love 15 times for him to break off 1 or 2.
It was exceptionally frustrating for this fan (and others, too, I wasn't the only one complaining) to see this game after game.
And yes, there were execution problems, most notably the missed WIDE OPEN guy (Parkinson?) in right side of end zone when Costello locked in on Smith(?) and threw into double coverage. That is not a play calling error (but it is also not a great play call to get a player open - the only reason that Parkinson was wide open was because TCU blitzed the corner on that play and Parkinson was uncovered).
Last point: rule of thumb is about 100 yards of offense will get you 7 points. Historically that has been the case, at least according to Terry (I believe) on the Bootleg a few years back. Stanford scored 37 points against TCU. That would typically equate to over 500 yards of offense. Stanford had less than 400 (360 or 380). I previously posted the relative yardage performances of Stanford and its opponents this season (Stanford was outgained in most games, now including the bowl game). I just don't see how anyone can think this is a "good" offense. It's sad to say, but it can be summarized as "toss Bryce up the gut and hope he can break one or two" and if close to the end zone, "throw the jump ball to JJAW."
P.S. The long TD was (a) a great call (reminiscent of Joe Borchard to Troy Walters in home game against UCLA - do you think our coach would ever even think to call that play), where (b) safety help was not there. Think having our starter back there might have prevented the TD . . . but then again, maybe not.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - Goose - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 10:38 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:And yes, there were execution problems, most notably the missed WIDE OPEN guy (Parkinson?) in right side of end zone when Costello locked in on Smith(?) and threw into double coverage. That is not a play calling error (but it is also not a great play call to get a player open - the only reason that Parkinson was wide open was because TCU blitzed the corner on that play and Parkinson was uncovered).What you describe clearly could not have happened. Our receivers are never wide open. It must have been fake news. :)
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - Goose - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 10:38 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:And yes, there were execution problems, most notably the missed WIDE OPEN guy (Parkinson?) in right side of end zone when Costello locked in on Smith(?) and threw into double coverage. That is not a play calling error (but it is also not a great play call to get a player open - the only reason that Parkinson was wide open was because TCU blitzed the corner on that play and Parkinson was uncovered).What you describe clearly could not have happened. Our receivers are never wide open. It must have been fake news. :)
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - washingtonismoney - 12-30-2017
"Eye test" = "something I observe which I refuse to allow any external evidence to contradict"
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - washingtonismoney - 12-30-2017
"Eye test" = "something I observe which I refuse to allow any external evidence to contradict"
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - CornFed - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 12:18 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:"Eye test" = "something I observe which I refuse to allow any external evidence to contradict"
And statistics in isolation are for people lacking a "feel" for the game (momentum, emotion, sense of something "weird" going on). I would suggest that properly using statistical input involves realtime assessment of what is unfolding, i.e. "the eye test". Or perhaps those who dismiss "the eye test" categorically feel that ultimately play-calling can be done w/ an algorithm.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - CornFed - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 12:18 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:"Eye test" = "something I observe which I refuse to allow any external evidence to contradict"
And statistics in isolation are for people lacking a "feel" for the game (momentum, emotion, sense of something "weird" going on). I would suggest that properly using statistical input involves realtime assessment of what is unfolding, i.e. "the eye test". Or perhaps those who dismiss "the eye test" categorically feel that ultimately play-calling can be done w/ an algorithm.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - washingtonismoney - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 02:52 PM)CornFed link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=18444.msg219851#msg219851 date=1514661531]
"Eye test" = "something I observe which I refuse to allow any external evidence to contradict"
And statistics in isolation are for people lacking a "feel" for the game (momentum, emotion, sense of something "weird" going on). I would suggest that properly using statistical input involves realtime assessment of what is unfolding, i.e. "the eye test". Or perhaps those who dismiss "the eye test" categorically feel that ultimately play-calling can be done w/ an algorithm.
[/quote]
Oh, I don't dismiss the eye test. I dismiss teejers' use of the eye test, which is a mysterious test that involves discounting some statistics, using others, invoking mysterious principles, and coming to the conclusion that David Shaw's bad offensive coaching caused the sinking of the Lusitania.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - washingtonismoney - 12-30-2017
(12-30-2017, 02:52 PM)CornFed link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=18444.msg219851#msg219851 date=1514661531]
"Eye test" = "something I observe which I refuse to allow any external evidence to contradict"
And statistics in isolation are for people lacking a "feel" for the game (momentum, emotion, sense of something "weird" going on). I would suggest that properly using statistical input involves realtime assessment of what is unfolding, i.e. "the eye test". Or perhaps those who dismiss "the eye test" categorically feel that ultimately play-calling can be done w/ an algorithm.
[/quote]
Oh, I don't dismiss the eye test. I dismiss teejers' use of the eye test, which is a mysterious test that involves discounting some statistics, using others, invoking mysterious principles, and coming to the conclusion that David Shaw's bad offensive coaching caused the sinking of the Lusitania.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - teejers1 - 12-30-2017
Yeah, that's exactly my position WIM.
But you keep doing what you do - its all good for the program.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - teejers1 - 12-30-2017
Yeah, that's exactly my position WIM.
But you keep doing what you do - its all good for the program.
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - lex24 - 12-30-2017
The second half defensive performance was in part due to injury. They lost Reid Buncom Robinson and Swan. Already were missing Holder Alfieri and Cotton.
7 of their top defenders. Makes it tough. Not an excuse. Next man up etc. But still...
Re: Alamo Bowl Game Thread: Let's.... - lex24 - 12-30-2017
The second half defensive performance was in part due to injury. They lost Reid Buncom Robinson and Swan. Already were missing Holder Alfieri and Cotton.
7 of their top defenders. Makes it tough. Not an excuse. Next man up etc. But still...