Washington 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: Washington Game Thread (/thread-21080.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: Washington Game Thread (/thread-21080.html)
lex24 - lex24 - 12-06-2020
(12-05-2020, 11:58 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(12-05-2020, 10:53 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-05-2020, 06:38 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-05-2020, 05:48 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Tremendously entertaining and well played football game.
Would have been nice to score more than 7 pts in second half, but at least they weren't needed.
You must make plays to win games and Stanford made many.
Mills really is an uber talented QB. His quick feet and release on the first 3rd down conversion of the last drive was a tremendous example of that. Nick Mullens, an NFL QB, can't do that.
We only had three possessions that didn't end at the end of the game. We had one TD, one punt, and the fumble. We were certainly in field goal range and had first and ten at the Washington 12 at the end of the game, so we could have scored more had we needed to. To be honest, the last drive 14 plays, 79 yards, nearly 8(!) minutes, was the most impressive of the game. We converted two third downs and a fourth down. Mills had a couple big third down passes, and at the end, Jones had runs of 3, 11, 2, 5, 2, 3 against a defense that was selling out to stop the run.
To be honest, one of the most satisfying things to watch in the 2009 - 2015 era was Stanford get the ball in the fourth quarter with a one-score lead and and not relinquish the ball to the other team. We'd run a 10+ play drive that chewed up 5+ minutes and ended with us taking a knee. This was a nice reminder of those days.
BC
Am looking forward to watching the first three quarters - what I saw in Q4 was vintage Shaw, bailed out by uber-elite QB play from Mills (and a ridiculous catch by Fehoko). I could not believe the run plays on 1st and second downs on the last drive - both led to third and longs. It's okay to run - but in that formation where no one is out wide, Stanford runs to the heavy side every time. It led to 1, 1, and 0 yards (the back-to-back same play after the first first down was especially exasperating). Anyway, it all worked out in the end, but man, it felt like Stanford had some good fortune there (and elite QBs can make good fortune).
But perhaps watching the first 3 quarters will make those formations/plays more reasonable.
As stated elsewhere, I thought the best call of the last drive was the fourth down where Shaw again lined up in tight formation, heavy left. But the RB got the ball and ran right (presumably the called play) for the first down to ice the game. Nice! [BTW, right decisions to burn clock before snapping and to go for it on fourth down late, instead of kicking FG].
Congrats to team and coaching staff. That one has to feel really good.
(12-05-2020, 11:58 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(12-05-2020, 10:53 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-05-2020, 06:38 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-05-2020, 05:48 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Tremendously entertaining and well played football game.
Would have been nice to score more than 7 pts in second half, but at least they weren't needed.
You must make plays to win games and Stanford made many.
The heavy set was quite successful throughout the game, as good as it's been in some time. Hinton makes a big difference.
Mills really is an uber talented QB. His quick feet and release on the first 3rd down conversion of the last drive was a tremendous example of that. Nick Mullens, an NFL QB, can't do that.
We only had three possessions that didn't end at the end of the game. We had one TD, one punt, and the fumble. We were certainly in field goal range and had first and ten at the Washington 12 at the end of the game, so we could have scored more had we needed to. To be honest, the last drive 14 plays, 79 yards, nearly 8(!) minutes, was the most impressive of the game. We converted two third downs and a fourth down. Mills had a couple big third down passes, and at the end, Jones had runs of 3, 11, 2, 5, 2, 3 against a defense that was selling out to stop the run.
To be honest, one of the most satisfying things to watch in the 2009 - 2015 era was Stanford get the ball in the fourth quarter with a one-score lead and and not relinquish the ball to the other team. We'd run a 10+ play drive that chewed up 5+ minutes and ended with us taking a knee. This was a nice reminder of those days.
BC
Am looking forward to watching the first three quarters - what I saw in Q4 was vintage Shaw, bailed out by uber-elite QB play from Mills (and a ridiculous catch by Fehoko). I could not believe the run plays on 1st and second downs on the last drive - both led to third and longs. It's okay to run - but in that formation where no one is out wide, Stanford runs to the heavy side every time. It led to 1, 1, and 0 yards (the back-to-back same play after the first first down was especially exasperating). Anyway, it all worked out in the end, but man, it felt like Stanford had some good fortune there (and elite QBs can make good fortune).
But perhaps watching the first 3 quarters will make those formations/plays more reasonable.
As stated elsewhere, I thought the best call of the last drive was the fourth down where Shaw again lined up in tight formation, heavy left. But the RB got the ball and ran right (presumably the called play) for the first down to ice the game. Nice! [BTW, right decisions to burn clock before snapping and to go for it on fourth down late, instead of kicking FG].
Congrats to team and coaching staff. That one has to feel really good.
It was vintage Shaw. Which is a good thing. Running out clocks is something they used to do with regularity.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 12-06-2020
(12-06-2020, 10:01 AM)lex24 Wrote: It was vintage Shaw. Which is a good thing. Running out clocks is something they used to do with regularity.
Guys, Vintage Shaw is run, run and then convert on 3rd and 3 or fewer.
Yesterday, in the clinching drive, Stanford's first series converted a 3rd and 8 (after Mills scrambled and made an improvised toss to a covered Fehoko just past the sticks, and then took a shot). The chances of Stanford converting 3rd and 8 generally - and then after Mills is pressured out of the pocket - have to be less than 30%.
On the third series of that drive, after two telegraphed runs in heavy formation netted .5 yards, Stanford converted on a 3rd and 10 on the Fehoko one-handed grab. The chances of Stanford converting 3rd and 10 . . . well below 50%.
It's fair to say that Stanford was fortunate to convert either third down, let alone both.
The point is to temper talk about vintage Shaw (at least with respect to that last drive). Converting third and longs is not "vintage Shaw." Good fortune is a good thing, and it was with Stanford on that last drive.
Having said all of the above, I watched the entire game in the early a.m. today and the running calls were more defensible given what transpired in the 1H. Still, that third series on the last drive had me screaming at the TV in disgust . . . and then Mills and Fehoko bail out the Cardinal. Nice! But more fundamentally, great win for team and coaches and program!
lex24 - lex24 - 12-06-2020
(12-06-2020, 02:22 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-06-2020, 10:01 AM)lex24 Wrote: It was vintage Shaw. Which is a good thing. Running out clocks is something they used to do with regularity.
Guys, Vintage Shaw is run, run and then convert on 3rd and 3 or fewer.
Yesterday, in the clinching drive, Stanford's first series converted a 3rd and 8 (after Mills scrambled and made an improvised toss to a covered Fehoko just past the sticks, and then took a shot). The chances of Stanford converting 3rd and 8 generally - and then after Mills is pressured out of the pocket - have to be less than 30%.
On the third series of that drive, after two telegraphed runs in heavy formation netted .5 yards, Stanford converted on a 3rd and 10 on the Fehoko one-handed grab. The chances of Stanford converting 3rd and 10 . . . well below 50%.
It's fair to say that Stanford was fortunate to convert either third down, let alone both.
The point is to temper talk about vintage Shaw (at least with respect to that last drive). Converting third and longs is not "vintage Shaw." Good fortune is a good thing, and it was with Stanford on that last drive.
Having said all of the above, I watched the entire game in the early a.m. today and the running calls were more defensible given what transpired in the 1H. Still, that third series on the last drive had me screaming at the TV in disgust . . . and then Mills and Fehoko bail out the Cardinal. Nice! But more fundamentally, great win for team and coaches and program!
You do a tremendous job of looking very hard to find the negative. If you want to go “vintage Shaw” the basis is that this was a football game where they controlled the line of scrimmage ran the football effectively and used the power running game to beat a probably more talented football team. Which is what Stanford has been able to do at times when it has the right personnel to do it. Perhaps with this offensive line line and a pretty good couple of young running backs, coupled with a superb quarterback they have that personal. Unfortunately it’s a short season And they’re now down their top three receivers for how many games they have left. If any. In any event we were talking oh for the season a while ago they’ve come back to win a couple. This last one under incredibly difficult circumstances. So good for them
RE: lex24 - Austroturf - 12-06-2020
(12-06-2020, 02:29 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-06-2020, 02:22 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-06-2020, 10:01 AM)lex24 Wrote: It was vintage Shaw. Which is a good thing. Running out clocks is something they used to do with regularity.
Guys, Vintage Shaw is run, run and then convert on 3rd and 3 or fewer.
Yesterday, in the clinching drive, Stanford's first series converted a 3rd and 8 (after Mills scrambled and made an improvised toss to a covered Fehoko just past the sticks, and then took a shot). The chances of Stanford converting 3rd and 8 generally - and then after Mills is pressured out of the pocket - have to be less than 30%.
On the third series of that drive, after two telegraphed runs in heavy formation netted .5 yards, Stanford converted on a 3rd and 10 on the Fehoko one-handed grab. The chances of Stanford converting 3rd and 10 . . . well below 50%.
It's fair to say that Stanford was fortunate to convert either third down, let alone both.
The point is to temper talk about vintage Shaw (at least with respect to that last drive). Converting third and longs is not "vintage Shaw." Good fortune is a good thing, and it was with Stanford on that last drive.
Having said all of the above, I watched the entire game in the early a.m. today and the running calls were more defensible given what transpired in the 1H. Still, that third series on the last drive had me screaming at the TV in disgust . . . and then Mills and Fehoko bail out the Cardinal. Nice! But more fundamentally, great win for team and coaches and program!
You do a tremendous job of looking very hard to find the negative. If you want to go “vintage Shaw” the basis is that this was a football game where they controlled the line of scrimmage ran the football effectively and used the power running game to beat a probably more talented football team. Which is what Stanford has been able to do at times when it has the right personnel to do it. Perhaps with this offensive line line and a pretty good couple of young running backs, coupled with a superb quarterback they have that personal. Unfortunately it’s a short season And they’re now down their top three receivers for how many games they have left. If any. In any event we were talking oh for the season a while ago they’ve come back to win a couple. This last one under incredibly difficult circumstances. So good for them
teejers is right in his observation that the plays that kept the drive going were not necessarily "Vintage Shaw"; but the higher level strategy of killing the clock with a long, concerted drive and keeping the ball out of the opponent's hands was definitely "Vintage Shaw".
RE: lex24 - pokey - 12-06-2020
(12-06-2020, 02:37 PM)Austroturf Wrote: teejers is right in his observation that the plays that kept the drive going were not necessarily "Vintage Shaw"; but the higher level strategy of killing the clock with a long, concerted drive and keeping the ball out of the opponent's hands was definitely "Vintage Shaw".
There were a couple of things that came to mind during the Drive To End The Game.
- During the AL years, the pattern actually was pretty similar near the end of games - keep running unless you got into 3rd and long. However, I do think the throws that Mills made were a lot harder than Spider 2 Y Banana (and IMO more impressive).
- It really did seem that on average UW didn't have a good answer for our running attack, and so I was hoping to see a drive where we ran power every time until a UW Dlineman decided to sub himself out.
- The commentators noted that we were going 3-TE again. They seemed to like that. Maybe that had a lot to do with the recent running success? There were TE names in that participation log I hadn't recognized much.
lex24 - lex24 - 12-06-2020
(12-06-2020, 03:03 PM)pokey Wrote:(12-06-2020, 02:37 PM)Austroturf Wrote: teejers is right in his observation that the plays that kept the drive going were not necessarily "Vintage Shaw"; but the higher level strategy of killing the clock with a long, concerted drive and keeping the ball out of the opponent's hands was definitely "Vintage Shaw".
There were a couple of things that came to mind during the Drive To End The Game.
- During the AL years, the pattern actually was pretty similar near the end of games - keep running unless you got into 3rd and long. However, I do think the throws that Mills made were a lot harder than Spider 2 Y Banana (and IMO more impressive).
- It really did seem that on average UW didn't have a good answer for our running attack, and so I was hoping to see a drive where we ran power every time until a UW Dlineman decided to sub himself out.
- The commentators noted that we were going 3-TE again. They seemed to like that. Maybe that had a lot to do with the recent running success? There were TE names in that participation log I hadn't recognized much.
They were down at least 3 wideouts. Not sure if Higgins also got hurt. That explains going with the three TE’s perhaps.
RE: Washington Game Thread - BostonCard - 12-06-2020
I didn’t see us run power (pulling guard and fullback) at all. I might have missed a play, but I didn’t see our guard pull much.
BC
RE: Washington Game Thread - old spanish trail - 12-07-2020
(12-06-2020, 04:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I didn’t see us run power (pulling guard and fullback) at all. I might have missed a play, but I didn’t see our guard pull much.
BC
I think you are right. More accurate to call it jumbo set.
RE: Washington Game Thread - SamuelMcF - 12-07-2020
Re power: Bragg and Miller both had multiple pulling plays, and Heimuli saw over 20 snaps.
RE: Washington Game Thread - JohnR34231 - 12-07-2020
Here's one Pacific NW sportswriter's take on the game.
While he doesn't think much of Mills and the rest of the Stanford skill players he does give some props to the OL. That plus the Washington defense basically sucked.
http://sportspressnw.com/2247952/2020/thiel-stanford-plays-uws-game-huskies-lose
RE: Washington Game Thread - OutsiderFan - 12-07-2020
(12-07-2020, 03:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Here's one Pacific NW sportswriter's take on the game.
While he doesn't think much of Mills and the rest of the Stanford skill players he does give some props to the OL. That plus the Washington defense basically sucked.
http://sportspressnw.com/2247952/2020/thiel-stanford-plays-uws-game-huskies-lose
Anyone not impressed by Mills after watching him against UW doesn't know enough about football to have their analysis taken seriously, so I won't read that game story.
RE: Washington Game Thread - cardcrimson - 12-07-2020
(12-07-2020, 08:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(12-07-2020, 03:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Here's one Pacific NW sportswriter's take on the game.
While he doesn't think much of Mills and the rest of the Stanford skill players he does give some props to the OL. That plus the Washington defense basically sucked.
http://sportspressnw.com/2247952/2020/thiel-stanford-plays-uws-game-huskies-lose
Anyone not impressed by Mills after watching him against UW doesn't know enough about football to have their analysis taken seriously, so I won't read that game story.
Everything is relative. Mills looked good relative to how he's looked. Watched Mac Jones play after our game, simply amazing. Anyone who can't see the difference doesn't know enough about football to have their analysis taken seriously.
RE: Washington Game Thread - Hurlburt88 - 12-07-2020
My spectator's assessment of HIggens was a dislocated finger at the end of the 1st half. you could see him shake it and it was clearly bent out of place. He stayed in for the next play due to time management, and I think that was it. HOpefully more on the "minor" side
RE: Washington Game Thread - OutsiderFan - 12-07-2020
(12-07-2020, 09:36 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(12-07-2020, 08:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(12-07-2020, 03:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Here's one Pacific NW sportswriter's take on the game.
While he doesn't think much of Mills and the rest of the Stanford skill players he does give some props to the OL. That plus the Washington defense basically sucked.
http://sportspressnw.com/2247952/2020/thiel-stanford-plays-uws-game-huskies-lose
Anyone not impressed by Mills after watching him against UW doesn't know enough about football to have their analysis taken seriously, so I won't read that game story.
Everything is relative. Mills looked good relative to how he's looked. Watched Mac Jones play after our game, simply amazing. Anyone who can't see the difference doesn't know enough about football to have their analysis taken seriously.
The all-time wins leader and 7-time world champion in Formula One, Lewis Hamilton drives for the Mercedes team that dominates the circuit kind of like Alabama does college football, but in more dominant fashion. There are 10 F1 teams, including Williams with driver George Russell, that is 9th out of 10 teams this year.
Lewis Hamilton tested positive for Covid this week and was held out of yesterday's race. Who replaced him? Russell. Hamilton doesn't always get the pole position, but he wins many such races. Russell has never had a F1 point in over 30 races (Top 10 finish) with Williams and he qualified 2nd in Hamilton's car. Not only that, he led most of the race.
In fact, had the Mercedes team not screwed up a pit stop and Russell not had a very randomly bad luck tire puncture, he would have won the race. As it was, he finished 9th after needing an extra pit stop to change his punctured tire. This is all to say that the supporting cast matter a lot. Consider Mills as Russell if given the chance to QB Alabama's "Mercedes offense."
And as great a driver as Lewis Hamilton is, he isn't winning anything in the Williams car. And I suspect Mac Jones isn't doing any better than Davis Mills, if even as well, if QB in Stanford's offense.
RE: Washington Game Thread - george - 12-07-2020
Quote:The Cardinals bullied the Huskies then too, rushing for 189 yards and holding possession for 39 minutes.That tells you everything you need to know about how much this author follows Stanford football.
RE: Washington Game Thread - BostonCard - 12-07-2020
(12-07-2020, 10:41 AM)george Wrote:Quote:The Cardinals bullied the Huskies then too, rushing for 189 yards and holding possession for 39 minutes.That tells you everything you need to know about how much this author follows Stanford football.
Right. I believe we only had possession for 32 minutes and change.
BC
(12-07-2020, 10:33 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The all-time wins leader and 7-time world champion in Formula One, Lewis Hamilton drives for the Mercedes team that dominates the circuit kind of like Alabama does college football, but in more dominant fashion. There are 10 F1 teams, including Williams with driver George Russell, that is 9th out of 10 teams this year.
Lewis Hamilton tested positive for Covid this week and was held out of yesterday's race. Who replaced him? Russell. Hamilton doesn't always get the pole position, but he wins many such races. Russell has never had a F1 point in over 30 races (Top 10 finish) with Williams and he qualified 2nd in Hamilton's car. Not only that, he led most of the race.
In fact, had the Mercedes team not screwed up a pit stop and Russell not had a very randomly bad luck tire puncture, he would have won the race. As it was, he finished 9th after needing an extra pit stop to change his punctured tire. This is all to say that the supporting cast matter a lot. Consider Mills as Russell if given the chance to QB Alabama's "Mercedes offense."
And as great a driver as Lewis Hamilton is, he isn't winning anything in the Williams car. And I suspect Mac Jones isn't doing any better than Davis Mills, if even as well, if QB in Stanford's offense.
The Economist recently had a piece on the relative contributions of car and driver
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/17/engineers-not-racers-are-the-true-drivers-of-success-in-motor-sport
Quote:This difference stems mostly from the impact of their cars. Both stars raced in the finest vehicles of their day. But 20 years ago, cars from Williams and McLaren were nearly as strong as Ferrari’s. In contrast, Mercedes now towers over its rivals, enabling Mr Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas, his teammate, to coast past lesser cars. Before joining Mercedes, Mr Bottas had never won a F1 race. He now has nine victories.
BC
RE: Washington Game Thread - SamuelMcF - 12-07-2020
(12-07-2020, 09:36 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Everything is relative. Mills looked good relative to how he's looked. Watched Mac Jones play after our game, simply amazing. Anyone who can't see the difference doesn't know enough about football to have their analysis taken seriously.
Anyone who can't see the difference between Alabama's multiple 1st-round WRs running free basically every play and Stanford's not-1st-round WRs not running free on basically any play doesn't know enough about football to have their analysis taken seriously. I can say the same thing about Kedon Slovis and USC's blue-chippers.
RE: Washington Game Thread - cardcrimson - 12-07-2020
Jones, the #18 pro-style QB in 2017 (Mills was #1), took over an offense designed for Tua, a dual threat QB (#1 same year). Using your analogy, that's like a nascar driver hopping in a formula one race car.
Regardless, Jone's accuracy, arm strength, ability to connect on the deep ball, pocket presence, etc were extremely impressive. Granted, I'm no quarterback expert and they were playing LSU, but Jones appears to be special. The Alabama fanbase questioned his ability at the start of the season. No more; his development has been spectacular. He's even second in the running for the H E I S Man, behind the #92 pro-style QB from 2016 (KJ was #3).
If you haven't seen him play, take a peek.
(12-07-2020, 10:33 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(12-07-2020, 09:36 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(12-07-2020, 08:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(12-07-2020, 03:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Here's one Pacific NW sportswriter's take on the game.
While he doesn't think much of Mills and the rest of the Stanford skill players he does give some props to the OL. That plus the Washington defense basically sucked.
http://sportspressnw.com/2247952/2020/thiel-stanford-plays-uws-game-huskies-lose
Anyone not impressed by Mills after watching him against UW doesn't know enough about football to have their analysis taken seriously, so I won't read that game story.
Everything is relative. Mills looked good relative to how he's looked. Watched Mac Jones play after our game, simply amazing. Anyone who can't see the difference doesn't know enough about football to have their analysis taken seriously.
The all-time wins leader and 7-time world champion in Formula One, Lewis Hamilton drives for the Mercedes team that dominates the circuit kind of like Alabama does college football, but in more dominant fashion. There are 10 F1 teams, including Williams with driver George Russell, that is 9th out of 10 teams this year.
Lewis Hamilton tested positive for Covid this week and was held out of yesterday's race. Who replaced him? Russell. Hamilton doesn't always get the pole position, but he wins many such races. Russell has never had a F1 point in over 30 races (Top 10 finish) with Williams and he qualified 2nd in Hamilton's car. Not only that, he led most of the race.
In fact, had the Mercedes team not screwed up a pit stop and Russell not had a very randomly bad luck tire puncture, he would have won the race. As it was, he finished 9th after needing an extra pit stop to change his punctured tire. This is all to say that the supporting cast matter a lot. Consider Mills as Russell if given the chance to QB Alabama's "Mercedes offense."
And as great a driver as Lewis Hamilton is, he isn't winning anything in the Williams car. And I suspect Mac Jones isn't doing any better than Davis Mills, if even as well, if QB in Stanford's offense.