The CardBoard
Stanford - ND discussion - 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 - ND discussion (/thread-10765.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Re: Standford - ND discussion - BostonCard - 11-25-2015

(11-24-2015, 07:34 AM)NDIrish link Wrote:Side question, do you honestly feel that Shaw is a set in stone coach for now and the future of stanford, or do you think a change will be necessary to win it all?  i have always had mix emotions on him.

You never want to have a coach be "set for life"; it's always possible that he forgets how to recruit and/or coach and becomes bad.  Even Walsh didn't have that great a second stint, after he retired from the 49ers and came back to Stanford.  But I think we are set for the near future at coach as long as Shaw doesn't leave.  He may never win a National Championship at Stanford (if that's what you mean by "win it all") but I don't think a coaching switch would 99 out of 100 times make that less likely.  Shaw is a game away from taking us to the third Rose Bowl in four years and fourth BCS/New Year's six bowl in five years (fifth in six years, but the first one was with Harbaugh).  For a Stanford coach, that is unprecedented. He's now five years out from Harbaugh, which means every single player playing for us never played for Harbaugh and every single player signed with Shaw.  At this point, his success is pretty much his own (beyond the fact that Harbaugh established the principle that one can win at Stanford, which, after the depths of Buddy and Walt were in question).

It is hard to continue playing at a high level.  USC has fired both coaches it hired to continue what Carroll built (yeah, they had to deal with sanctions).  Mark Hellfrich, who I think is a great coach and will succeed at Oregon, had to deal with a sub-par season by Oregon's standards this year.  How many coaches managed to continue what Steve Spurrier did at Florida?  Successors to Tom Osborne at Nebraska?  You get the idea.  I would venture that if you have put 100 coaches in Shaw's position, maybe 3 might have done as well as he did.

Bottom line, he is set in my mind.  Things could change over the course of the next few years, and with a QB transition, next year will be fraught.  But Shaw is the right guy for us right now in my mind, even if he never delivers on a championship.

BC

BC

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - NDIrish - 11-30-2015

Hey everyone, great game,  one of the more exciting ones to watch all year.  i thought both teams played really well, as most of us figured could have went either way.  But was as good as anyone could have hoped!  Unfortunate penalty and big play in the last 25 sec put you in position to win.  I will say i thought overall the officiating was very poor, for both sides, it just worked out that it was poor in moments that seemed to set up well for Stanford, i.e. penalties/questionable calls on i believe 3 3rd downs that ended up being TD's for stanford.  But there were bad calls the other way, just not in as crucial points.  Please believe me when i say this, Stanford won that game, not taking anything away from you, just been a bad year for officials across the board.  What lost the game for ND was red zone performance and for whatever reason going prevent in the final 25 sec.  Wish you guys the best of luck in the Pac-12 championship game and look forward to the game in SB next year!

If i can get your opinion, what did you think of Kizer, as a freshman?  Think he has a bright future? 

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - Hulk01 - 11-30-2015

Kizer looked great in the first half, but very bad in the second.  I think he may have choked.

Very dangerous and strong runner, made so excellent throws early but not afterwards. 

His ceiling depends on developing more accuracy, zip--(perhaps he has it, but I don't recall seeing any), and a command of a playbook.  No idea of he can do all three, if he can, he can take a team to an NC.  If he can develop two of them, they can win big with a strong supporting cast and some playmakers with speed. 

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - CTcard - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 06:54 AM)NDIrish link Wrote:... I will say i thought overall the officiating was very poor, for both sides, it just worked out that it was poor in moments that seemed to set up well for Stanford, i.e. penalties/questionable calls on i believe 3 3rd downs that ended up being TD's for stanford. 

I don't want to hit you too much here, as we all think that officiating goes against our team, but I am having trouble finding these third down plays you mention.

Here is the closest I could find:

On Stanford drive #1, on third and 5, Hogan hits Hooper for a 5 yard gain. I suppose there could be a question on the spot on that one.

On Stanford drive #2, on third and 9 Hogan hits Rector for a 31 yard gain. The play was originally called incomplete, but overturned on replay. Rather an obvious call with the replay assist - though can see why it was tough to call real time.

On Stanford drive #2, on third and 1, ND was offside so we didn't have to run a play. Don't think that was controversial, and of course Stanford's chances were pretty good on actually running a play, but the penalty did give Stanford a first down.

That's really it for third down officials calls as far as I can remember (which in itself may be faulty).

The call I thought most und fans were complaining about was the PI call on Butler trying to defend Cajuste near the end of the third quarter. That was on first down and thus not exactly make or break for the drive.

I don't think und fans are claiming the face mask on the last drive was a bad call, are they? A bad, unnecessary play by Rochell of course.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - NDIrish - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 07:22 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=13731.msg144756#msg144756 date=1448891693]
... I will say i thought overall the officiating was very poor, for both sides, it just worked out that it was poor in moments that seemed to set up well for Stanford, i.e. penalties/questionable calls on i believe 3 3rd downs that ended up being TD's for stanford. 

I don't want to hit you too much here, as we all think that officiating goes against our team, but I am having trouble finding these third down plays you mention.

Here is the closest I could find:

On Stanford drive #1, on third and 5, Hogan hits Hooper for a 5 yard gain. I suppose there could be a question on the spot on that one.

On Stanford drive #2, on third and 9 Hogan hits Rector for a 31 yard gain. The play was originally called incomplete, but overturned on replay. Rather an obvious call with the replay assist - though can see why it was tough to call real time.

On Stanford drive #2, on third and 1, ND was offside so we didn't have to run a play. Don't think that was controversial, and of courses Stanford's chances were pretty good on actually running a play, but the penalty did give Stanford a first down.

That's really it for third down officials calls as far as I can remember (which in itself may be faulty).

The call I thought most und fans were complaining about was the PI call on Butler trying to defend Cajuste near the end of the third quarter. That was on first down and thus not exactly make or break for the drive.

I don't think und fans are claiming the face mask on the last drive was a bad call, are they? A bad, unnecessary play by Rochell of course.
[/quote]

thanks for the response.  No need to worry about hitting to much, obviously all is a matter of opinion. And i have always said a fan sees 95% of the bad calls against their team, and only 5% the other way, and will only admit 1%, lol.  but to go through the ones you listed.
-drive #1 - yes this was one, not saying the call was wrong, but it should have been reviewed in my opinion, only got to see one replay, but it look like it was short, but could have went either way, just wanted the review.
-drive #2 - all good there, heck of a catch.
-drive #2 - would have to double check there, didn't see that.

The PI call was completely terrible in my opinion, and pretty sure that led to a TD didn't it? 

Also there was a call where a stanford dlineman was clearly offsides and no call, i believe that was on an ND third down and would have given them a first.

I remember seeing a few times where it looked like stanford o lineman moved early, or shifted in their stance once set.

I thought one of the stanford TD's should have been review, i can't recall which one, but where the RB jumped the pile.  Once again, not saying 100% it was or wasn't, but a review should have been done, because if the ball cross it was by an inch (which of course would be a TD lol)

The facemask at the end was clear. 

I guess it was more about calls not made rather than calls made (other than the PI).

Overall it wasn't like any of it was just horrible, just a lot of misses, which during the game i was looking at every little thing, so its probably a little over the top.  I saw some missed holding calls on ND too.

I probably should have rewatched the game before commenting, since my emotions would be less at that time, but just the way i felt. 

Stanford deserved to win and they are a very good team.  I will rewatch sometime this week and see again, doesn't matter though, not saying any of it would have changed the game.

Good luck next week!

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - OutsiderFan - 11-30-2015

Well, the most absurd missed call of all was when a ND defender made contact with a Stanford player before the snap, and no offsides was called.  That was lunacy.

The most important thing about that game was my prediction that the game would come down to Hogan; if he had a great game, Stanford wins.  If not, they lose.  Hogan played the best game of his career.  :)

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - rastaman85 - 11-30-2015

Thanks to NDIrish for creating and contributing to a very civil discussion about a very important game for both teams. Fans will always disagree about close officiating calls, but I greatly appreciate the grown-up nature of the conversation.

Still hope my Cardinal beat the Irish on the recruiting trail and the field for years to come...

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - jacketree - 11-30-2015

Well it was a good one. I think if the script was flipped and ND had the ball with 30 seconds, they probably would have won.  I'm going to hand it to two dynamic offenses making play after play, because both defenses did show they could make a few stops. Not a brobdingnagian fan of Stanford's BBDB defense, but I understand the strategy and not sure what the alternative is other than "break more often" which is no good at all?

Kizer is a stud. He's looked good in every Irish game I've watched this year, but I haven't watched them all.  Is he the clear favorite next year?  I didn't see any sign of choking whatsoever. No INTs or anything even close (although with Stanford's soft zone, they would need tipped balls for that) and the fumble was forced and more of a great play by Scarlett IIRC.  His last drive was pretty legendary. Just left 6 seconds more on the clock than he could have.  We've certainly been there before.

When are you going to join the ACC for real and get those crummy refs 8 games out of 12? Although, I didn't see anything slanted against Stanford at all.  That PI can be called, but often isn't.  After some hand fighting during the route, they did see the defenders left (?) hand doing something. Easily could have let that go.  Or not.  But on first down, so who knows what happens? Also, aren't all scores automatically reviewed.  Wright did get the ball over the line above the pile.  Replay was pretty clear - maybe that's why they didn't call it down.  Those field goals instead of touchdowns probably did you in. Oregon in reverse for us.

Thanks for stopping by after a tough loss.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - NDIrish - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 09:47 AM)jacketree link Wrote:Well it was a good one. I think if the script was flipped and ND had the ball with 30 seconds, they probably would have won.  I'm going to hand it to two dynamic offenses making play after play, because both defenses did show they could make a few stops. Not a of exceedingly large proportions fan of Stanford's BBDB defense, but I understand the strategy and not sure what the alternative is other than "break more often" which is no good at all?

Kizer is a stud. He's looked good in every Irish game I've watched this year, but I haven't watched them all.  Is he the clear favorite next year?  I didn't see any sign of choking whatsoever. No INTs or anything even close (although with Stanford's soft zone, they would need tipped balls for that) and the fumble was forced and more of a great play by Scarlett IIRC.  His last drive was pretty legendary. Just left 6 seconds more on the clock than he could have.  We've certainly been there before.

When are you going to join the ACC for real and get those crummy refs 8 games out of 12? Although, I didn't see anything slanted against Stanford at all.  That PI can be called, but often isn't.  After some hand fighting during the route, they did see the defenders left (?) hand doing something. Easily could have let that go.  Or not.  But on first down, so who knows what happens? Also, aren't all scores automatically reviewed.  Wright did get the ball over the line above the pile.  Replay was pretty clear - maybe that's why they didn't call it down.  Those field goals instead of touchdowns probably did you in. Oregon in reverse for us.

Thanks for stopping by after a tough loss.

Im sure they will eventually join the ACC, ill give it about 5 more years.  The thing is if they expand the playoffs to 8 i would imagine the desire to do so would drop significantly. 

I dont think the refs were slanted towards stanford, i think it was average to poor most of the game, i think the poor calls happened at times that aided stanford more, thats all.  But one play changes the entire game, maybe a play goes ND's way and stanford punts and our guy fumbles it, who knows.  I have always believed you can only ever blame the very last play...  I was fine with most of the calls on the field, just thought a review was necessary a couple times.

Overall i dont want to spend too much time talking about the refs after a well played game.

the redzone is what did ND in and im not sure why they have so much difficulty there, with the playmakers they have.

What kind of returning class are you expecting for next year.  I am unsure of our defense, or our coordinator, but if the coaching staff stays intact and hopefully not a mountain of injuries, i gotta imagine next years offense will be on fire...

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - OutsiderFan - 11-30-2015

The 2016 Stanford team seems to be shaping up as a step up on D and a step down on O.  Probably an 8-10 win type team.

Offense:
- RB and TE depth of talent will be best Stanford has ever had
- Return 3/5 starters on OL
- WRs are bit of a question, but aren't they always at Stanford?
- Keller Chryst becomes the new starting QB
Returns 6-7 starters (depending on if Rector returns)

Defense:
- Good mix of experience and depth of talent in secondary
- Some good athletes to plug in at LB
- DL still will be thin and very young (best players will be RS Sophs and Frosh), but bigger than 2015
Returns 5-7 starters depending on how you count


Re: Stanford - ND discussion - Spiny_Norman - 11-30-2015

NDIrish - I expect to see ND in everyone's preseason top 10 list for 2016, especially if Will Fuller and Jaylon Smith decide to return.  As a Stanford fan, I would be fine if they decide to move on.  Even without them, the talent is there along the OL, DL and skill positions to again contend nationally.  I thought their OL and defensive front 7 were the toughest Stanford faced all year.

Stanford loses a number of starters on both sides of the ball.  By my count, 10 of the 22 starters plus Remound Wright who has 15 TDs this year (to lead the team).  Most notably Stanford will be breaking in a new QB for the first time since 2012.  And all of its top defensive performers this year will be moving on.



Re: Stanford - ND discussion - washingtonismoney - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 01:13 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:And all of its top defensive performers this year will be moving on.

All? By my count 40% of its tackles-for-loss leaders return: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/team/674/tackleforloss/index.html

5/7 of its INTs: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/team/674/interception/index.html

About 50% of its passes broken up, as well as the majority of its QB hurries: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/team/674/miscdefense/index.html

Now, to paraphrase a line, you're being modest about this production because there's much to be modest about... but it's not nothing.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - washingtonismoney - 11-30-2015

Offensively, Stanford returns ... 69% of its rushing yards (conservative estimate)
... somewhere between 67-86% of its receiving yards
... and 68 offensive line starts.

That's a pretty solid start, though it depends on how Chryst takes the baton.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - BostonCard - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 01:30 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=13731.msg144833#msg144833 date=1448914401] And all of its top defensive performers this year will be moving on.

All? By my count 40% of its tackles-for-loss leaders return: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/team/674/tackleforloss/index.html

5/7 of its INTs: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/team/674/interception/index.html

About 50% of its passes broken up, as well as the majority of its QB hurries: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/team/674/miscdefense/index.html

Now, to paraphrase a line, you're being modest about this production because there's much to be modest about... but it's not nothing.
[/quote]

On the DL, we lose Scarlett and Shittu, but Phillips (injured this year) and Thomas come back.  We will still be very thin.

At LB, we will lose Martinez on the inside and Anderson on the outsie, but Kalambayi and Alfieri (who played a fair bit with Anderson's injury) return on the outside, and Palma and Davis (who was injured much of the year) on the inside.  We lose much of our star power, but hopefully guys will step up and we should continue to have pretty good depth.

In the secondary, we lose Harris from our corners and Whitfield from our safeties, but we return Holder, Meeks, Murphy, Alexander (the latter two have been playing with injuries to Harris and Holder) among corners/nickelbacks, Reid, Lloyd, Simmons and Edwards among safeties.  Plus we have Buncom redshirting and a good class coming in.  I think the secondary should be better next year.

BC

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - Hurlburt88 - 11-30-2015

I am optimistic.  In today's game, the secondary seems to be  the most valuable part of the defense versus 90% of teams (we are an exception to that), and our secondary will have speed and skills in my rosy view.  LB's should be strong given our coaching and recruiting, so it all comes down to the newcomers on the DL--including Kamatule.  Will be very interesting to see how he puts it together after spending a year focusing on his development into a true DE. 

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - CompSci87 - 11-30-2015

I'm interested to see how some of the guys who have been playing special teams will do in the regular D next year. Mustafa Branch has been prominent on kick coverage.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - stupac2 - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 02:27 PM)hurlburt88 link Wrote:In today's game, the secondary seems to be  the most valuable part of the defense versus 90% of teams

I don't think this is true. I think secondary and DL are complementary, and that strengths in one can mask weaknesses in the other, but only to a certain extent. You need a certain level of performance from the DL (and pass-rushing LBs) to allow a good secondary to shine. After all, given 7 seconds to throw pretty much any QB can find someone open.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - Spiny_Norman - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 01:30 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=13731.msg144833#msg144833 date=1448914401] And all of its top defensive performers this year will be moving on.

All? By my count 40% of its tackles-for-loss leaders return: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/team/674/tackleforloss/index.html

5/7 of its INTs: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/team/674/interception/index.html

About 50% of its passes broken up, as well as the majority of its QB hurries: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/team/674/miscdefense/index.html

Now, to paraphrase a line, you're being modest about this production because there's much to be modest about... but it's not nothing.
[/quote]

WIM, I may have been thinking of your comment from this thread two weeks ago.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=13640.msg141800#msg141800

You said, "For next year: Defensively, we lose our best players (Harris, Shittu, Martinez). "  I guess I was thinking of "top defensive performers" as being post-season all conference award worthy this season.  Aside from those three,  maybe Scarlett could be honorable mention.  Stanford does return some guys whose performance this year shows they could be all conference in the future, especially Thomas and Meeks.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - mmboys07 - 11-30-2015

Very interesting conversation.  A few thoughts:  In my very first post, I said I liked the way Stanford played.  I didn't see anything Saturday night to change my mind.
As for the officiating:  While I didn't agree with all of the calls, I certainly didn't see anything that changed the outcome of the game, with one possible exception. (more later).  Really, I thought losing K. Russell was the most damaging loss for ND.  They were already depleted in the defensive backfield, and we saw the result of Russell being out.  It seems to me the vast majority of the big Hogan completions were to the side of the field were KR would have been playing.  Not saying those balls would not have been caught.  But, I am saying the receivers wouldn't have been so wide open. It is what it is.  Ok.  I will finish with some controversy.  No one watching at home could have imagined the guys upstairs would maintain Kizer's touchdown with 30 seconds left.  The announcers were perplexed as well.  Did anyone see a replay or maybe had a real life view that shows Kizer scored? 

Of course, a team should never let games come down to bizarre scenarios.  Psychology is a big part of any sport and any competition.  Why all year ND simply would
self-destruct and look clueless in the red zone is beyond me.  They had a brobdingnagian red zone turnover at the one yard line against Clemson.  In their last two games they were 1 for 8 in the red zone scoring a touchdown, and 3 other times a field goal.  Can't win doing that.

Can't wait to watch you guys play SC.  Should be a good game.  Then comes bowl season, then national signing day.


Re: Stanford - ND discussion - mmboys07 - 11-30-2015

OK.  I have to admit to being somewhat lacking in technical knowledge.  I noticed the other day, the wording of one of my posts was changed.  I wrote ND and somehow it was changed to "university of former dead girlfriends."  Now, in my post above the words proceeding Clemson have been garbled.  When I hit "modify" my original wording shows.