FB -- Big 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: FB -- Big Game Thread (/thread-24602.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: FB -- Big Game Thread (/thread-24602.html)
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - msqueri - 11-20-2023
Needle is too harsh on Taylor’s offensive coaching. We didn’t have a prayer this year and frankly the season didn’t matter and was just about turning pages on the calendar so we can get better players, culture, strength and conditioning, etc. Some things for your consideration on the no hope offense:
Worst QB room in Stanford history by recruiting rankings (as an example, our median QB historically is a top 15 QB nationally whereas this year we don’t have a single guy on the roster that level and our QB1 was the #65 QB in the nation in his recruiting class)
RB room with dismal depth and two lead guys with a four year history of constant injury and, when healthy, record-breaking amounts of fumbles
Unproven WR room replacing three NFL WRs
A very good TE (who ended up missing much of the year)
Losing five transfer OL, including one of the best linemen in the country and a very good left tackle
According to SP+ returning the dead last amount of production in Power Five football
Inheriting an offense that even with all that talent was FEI #91 last year and #87 the year before
A gigantic amount of injuries this fall (we are in the bottom 14 percent of Pac-12 injury luck historically, but on offense it’s even worse than that as 76 percent of our absences were on offense)
In light of all that, according to PFF an OL #118 in pass blocking and #109 in run blocking. I can’t readily calculate where that would put our OL nationally but it’s certainly among the worst in the nation. In the Pac-12 the next worst blocking unit is Cal at #112 and #106.
So what were you expecting? Taylor has not run anything remotely resembling his offense this year because to do so would be to invite trauma for Daniels and an OL that should be coddled to build confidence rather than hung out to dry. As a result the two main staples of a Taylor offense - tons of spacing/WRs out in the pattern and very heavy use of RBs (including two on the field simultaneously to help with that spacing) - didn’t even make an appearance this year. We had the worst situation in Power Five football and acted accordingly. Fans should too n evaluating. Heck, we’re managing to score more than Pitt, Wake Forest, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, and Arizona State. If anything, Taylor gets solid marks for that. We are battling despite an abysmal situation. The best example of Taylor squeezing more out of offense than the talent would warrant, a stark change from Shaw, is that despite all of the above we are #80 in first downs. That is impressive given this roster and injury situation and is a testament to how Taylor is managing Daniels and Lamson to get third and fourth down conversions.
Taylor isn’t working miracles but he is doing at least what should be expected given this hand. You are not being reasonable if you think this roster playing against the #5 schedule in America should be anything but one of the worst offenses in the country.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - SamuelMcF - 11-20-2023
(11-20-2023, 10:25 AM)needle Wrote: I feel like you guys are taking something that has a kernel of truth and extrapolating way too far.
The defense against Kal started four players rated as four-star prospects coming out of HS: Sinclair, Tafiti, Aybar and Frausto-Ramos.
Not great, but also not too bad, if you ask me.
Bust, young, young (has an extra year coming off season-ending injury), young.
(11-20-2023, 10:25 AM)needle Wrote: The offense against Kal started six players rated as four-star prospects coming out of HS: Pale, Rogers, McLaughlin, Smith, Roush and Bachmeier.
Pretty good, if you ask me.
Young, good, ok, bust, young, young.
(11-20-2023, 10:25 AM)needle Wrote: Here's a link to an objective analysis that puts TT in the middle of the pack when it comes to inheriting talent as a first-year coach.
https://twitter.com/CFB_Data/status/1726637480433324269/photo/1
That "objective analysis" has an axis with the 247 talent composite, which does not factor in transfers (and if it does it just uses their HS star ratings), and is thus almost entirely useless.
It also doesn't factor in what the coach ACTUALLY DID with said talent (almost to a T jettison a lot of it out and bring in a bunch of transfers).
The inherited players were also reared in a culture of losing and doing yoga as S&C.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - needle - 11-20-2023
Quote: In light of all that, according to PFF an OL #118 in pass blocking and #109 in run blocking. I can’t readily calculate where that would put our OL nationally but it’s certainly among the worst in the nation. In the Pac-12 the next worst blocking unit is Cal at #112 and #106.
And yet Kal is No. 46 nationally in points per play.
It is just wrong to imply or, has many hear have done, state with certainty that a subpar offensive line always means horrifically bad offensive production.
+++
The offense was awful all year (Colorado second half notwithstanding), but it has absolutely cratered in the month of November.
There are factors to consider, including team health. But, on balance, I don't believe Stanford's offense has had to deal with crippling late season losses in personnel relative to what other teams have experienced. Last year, we saw a Stanford team without any running backs and also without its clear No. 1 receiver, and the results were abysmal. There is not a similar injury excuse for this 2023 team, if you ask me.
You also have to consider the opponent. Yes, Stanford has played a brutal schedule, but only a few of those teams on the schedule have fearsome defenses. Two opponents are top ten: UCLA and Oregon. I don't fault TT or anyone for the meager offensive production in those games (Stanford's offense in the first quarter against Oregon was actually quite impressive).
But look at the last three opponents, ranked by opponent points per play: WSU, No. 76; Oregon State, No. 39; Kal, No. 123. These are not great defenses! Yet the Stanford offense has looked historically bad.
If it isn't health and it isn't the opponent, I think you know where I'm looking. There is one game left. If Stanford even scores one touchdown, I will be surprised. It hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I suspect it will be soon enough: Taylor does not know what the hell he's doing on offense.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - SamuelMcF - 11-20-2023
(11-20-2023, 11:02 AM)needle Wrote: If it isn't health and it isn't the opponent, I think you know where I'm looking. There is one game left. If Stanford even scores one touchdown, I will be surprised. It hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I suspect it will be soon enough: Taylor does not know what the hell he's doing on offense.
Saving this for 2-3 years from now.
Go ahead and watch the press conference from before Big Game where Taylor was asked if he is running the type of offense he wants to run. (Hint: no)
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - 76lsjumb - 11-20-2023
SamuelMcF dateline='[url=tel:1700504070' Wrote: 1700504070[/url]']
needle dateline='[url=tel:1700503321' Wrote: 1700503321[/url]']
If it isn't health and it isn't the opponent, I think you know where I'm looking. There is one game left. If Stanford even scores one touchdown, I will be surprised. It hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I suspect it will be soon enough: Taylor does not know what the hell he's doing on offense.
Saving this for 2-3 years from now.
Go ahead and watch the press conference from before Big Game where Taylor was asked if he is running the type of offense he wants to run. (Hint: no)
Saving it to put in the same file with all the early Haase posts…?
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - Goose - 11-20-2023
No matter what side of the issue you are on, it is too early to know. IMO Stanford has a history (since 2017) of having OLs that did not live up to their recruiting hype. Why that is the case is somewhat of a mystery. It isn't proven it is/is not the OL coach, because there have been several since that time. The guys that start for Stanford today are not producing to the level predicted by their recruiting "star power". In some cases, they are young. In one case, they are supposedly "good". Obviously, the issues were not all "fixed" this year. We won't know if the problem is "solved" for a while.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - SamuelMcF - 11-20-2023
(11-20-2023, 11:23 AM)76lsjumb Wrote:SamuelMcF dateline='[url=tel:1700504070' Wrote: 1700504070[/url]']
needle dateline='[url=tel:1700503321' Wrote: 1700503321[/url]']
If it isn't health and it isn't the opponent, I think you know where I'm looking. There is one game left. If Stanford even scores one touchdown, I will be surprised. It hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I suspect it will be soon enough: Taylor does not know what the hell he's doing on offense.
Saving this for 2-3 years from now.
Go ahead and watch the press conference from before Big Game where Taylor was asked if he is running the type of offense he wants to run. (Hint: no)
Saving it to put in the same file with all the early Haase posts…?
Yep. That was disproven a few years in. We need a few years to (dis)prove this one too.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - 82lsju - 11-20-2023
(11-18-2023, 06:59 PM)TonyLima Wrote: If they call targeting, I’ll be happy that the Pac 12 is no more. I won’t miss Pac-12 officials.
call overturned, Sinclair can play the first half vs ND
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cz4NL6oPcwS/
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - lex24 - 11-20-2023
needle dateline='[url=tel:1700503321' Wrote: 1700503321[/url]']
Quote: In light of all that, according to PFF an OL #118 in pass blocking and #109 in run blocking. I can’t readily calculate where that would put our OL nationally but it’s certainly among the worst in the nation. In the Pac-12 the next worst blocking unit is Cal at #112 and #106.
And yet Kal is No. 46 nationally in points per play.
It is just wrong to imply or, has many hear have done, state with certainty that a subpar offensive line always means horrifically bad offensive production.
+++
The offense was awful all year (Colorado second half notwithstanding), but it has absolutely cratered in the month of November.
There are factors to consider, including team health. But, on balance, I don't believe Stanford's offense has had to deal with crippling late season losses in personnel relative to what other teams have experienced. Last year, we saw a Stanford team without any running backs and also without its clear No. 1 receiver, and the results were abysmal. There is not a similar injury excuse for this 2023 team, if you ask me.
You also have to consider the opponent. Yes, Stanford has played a brutal schedule, but only a few of those teams on the schedule have fearsome defenses. Two opponents are top ten: UCLA and Oregon. I don't fault TT or anyone for the meager offensive production in those games (Stanford's offense in the first quarter against Oregon was actually quite impressive).
But look at the last three opponents, ranked by opponent points per play: WSU, No. 76; Oregon State, No. 39; Kal, No. 123. These are not great defenses! Yet the Stanford offense has looked historically bad.
If it isn't health and it isn't the opponent, I think you know where I'm looking. There is one game left. If Stanford even scores one touchdown, I will be surprised. It hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I suspect it will be soon enough: Taylor does not know what the hell he's doing on offense.
Cal has Jayden Ott.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - JJJ - 11-20-2023
82lsju dateline='[url=tel:1700520419' Wrote: 1700520419[/url]']While I’m glad justice has prevailed, he will never be able to take back the second half of his last home Big Game, and we’ll never know how the game would have played out if that legitimate play was allowed to stand.
TonyLima dateline='[url=tel:1700359192' Wrote: 1700359192[/url]']
If they call targeting, I’ll be happy that the Pac 12 is no more. I won’t miss Pac-12 officials.
call overturned, Sinclair can play the first half vs ND
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cz4NL6oPcwS/
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - Giants - 11-20-2023
JJJ dateline='[url=tel:1700521794' Wrote: 1700521794[/url]']
82lsju dateline='[url=tel:1700520419' Wrote: 1700520419[/url]']While I’m glad justice has prevailed, he will never be able to take back the second half of his last home Big Game, and we’ll never know how the game would have played out if that legitimate play was allowed to stand.
TonyLima dateline='[url=tel:1700359192' Wrote: 1700359192[/url]']
If they call targeting, I’ll be happy that the Pac 12 is no more. I won’t miss Pac-12 officials.
call overturned, Sinclair can play the first half vs ND
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cz4NL6oPcwS/
Play well enough so the officials can’t influence the outcome of the game.
Every game has questionable calls. Sometimes you reap the benefit, sometimes you don’t.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - TonyLima - 11-20-2023
(11-20-2023, 05:08 PM)Giants Wrote:JJJ dateline='[url=tel:1700521794' Wrote: 1700521794[/url]']
82lsju dateline='[url=tel:1700520419' Wrote: 1700520419[/url]']While I’m glad justice has prevailed, he will never be able to take back the second half of his last home Big Game, and we’ll never know how the game would have played out if that legitimate play was allowed to stand.
TonyLima dateline='[url=tel:1700359192' Wrote: 1700359192[/url]']
If they call targeting, I’ll be happy that the Pac 12 is no more. I won’t miss Pac-12 officials.
call overturned, Sinclair can play the first half vs ND
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cz4NL6oPcwS/
Play well enough so the officials can’t influence the outcome of the game.
Every game has questionable calls. Sometimes you reap the benefit, sometimes you don’t.
That call was not questionable. It was wrong. Years ago, in less pc times, someone proposed a new rule. No one would be allowed to touch the quarterback as long as he was wearing a skirt.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - Giants - 11-20-2023
TonyLima dateline='[url=tel:1700525770' Wrote: 1700525770[/url]']
Giants dateline='[url=tel:1700525327' Wrote: 1700525327[/url]']
JJJ dateline='[url=tel:1700521794' Wrote: 1700521794[/url]']
82lsju dateline='[url=tel:1700520419' Wrote: 1700520419[/url]']While I’m glad justice has prevailed, he will never be able to take back the second half of his last home Big Game, and we’ll never know how the game would have played out if that legitimate play was allowed to stand.
TonyLima dateline='[url=tel:1700359192' Wrote: 1700359192[/url]']
If they call targeting, I’ll be happy that the Pac 12 is no more. I won’t miss Pac-12 officials.
call overturned, Sinclair can play the first half vs ND
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cz4NL6oPcwS/
Play well enough so the officials can’t influence the outcome of the game.
Every game has questionable calls. Sometimes you reap the benefit, sometimes you don’t.
That call was not questionable. It was wrong. Years ago, in less pc times, someone proposed a new rule. No one would be allowed to touch the quarterback as long as he was wearing a skirt.
Since it was not clearly right or wrong at the time it was made, it falls into the questionable category.
As for your last sentence, I find in very poor taste for a variety of reasons. I would suggest that you take a more thoughtful approach the next time you want to express your displeasure with the current rules of the game.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - OutsiderFan - 11-20-2023
(11-20-2023, 05:50 PM)Giants Wrote: Since it was not clearly right or wrong at the time it was made, it falls into the questionable category.
Bullshit. It was an atrocious call, not because a flag was originally thrown, but because it wasn't overturned after review. There was no element of the hit that was illegal according to the rule book, yet even after review, the referee got it wrong. I guarantee you he doesn't know the rules, otherwise the Pac-12 conference wouldn't have granted Sinclair his appeal.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - gailtate - 11-20-2023
The tender sensibilities on this board never disappoint. Annoy, yes. But disappoint, never.
(11-20-2023, 06:06 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(11-20-2023, 05:50 PM)Giants Wrote: Since it was not clearly right or wrong at the time it was made, it falls into the questionable category.
Bullshit. It was an atrocious call, not because a flag was originally thrown, but because it wasn't overturned after review. There was no element of the hit that was illegal according to the rule book, yet even after review, the referee got it wrong. I guarantee you he doesn't know the rules, otherwise the Pac-12 conference wouldn't have granted Sinclair his appeal.
Posty.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - cctop - 11-20-2023
(11-20-2023, 04:09 PM)JJJ Wrote: While I’m glad justice has prevailed, he will never be able to take back the second half of his last home Big Game, and we’ll never know how the game would have played out if that legitimate play was allowed to stand.
I don't think overturning the targeting call would have made much of a difference to the game.
Mendoza was down before he lost the ball, so they would have reversed the fumble call anyway.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - TonyLima - 11-20-2023
Giants dateline='[url=tel:1700527826' Wrote: 1700527826[/url]']
TonyLima dateline='[url=tel:1700525770' Wrote: 1700525770[/url]']
Giants dateline='[url=tel:1700525327' Wrote: 1700525327[/url]']
JJJ dateline='[url=tel:1700521794' Wrote: 1700521794[/url]']
82lsju dateline='[url=tel:1700520419' Wrote: 1700520419[/url]']While I’m glad justice has prevailed, he will never be able to take back the second half of his last home Big Game, and we’ll never know how the game would have played out if that legitimate play was allowed to stand.
call overturned, Sinclair can play the first half vs ND
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cz4NL6oPcwS/
Play well enough so the officials can’t influence the outcome of the game.
Every game has questionable calls. Sometimes you reap the benefit, sometimes you don’t.
That call was not questionable. It was wrong. Years ago, in less pc times, someone proposed a new rule. No one would be allowed to touch the quarterback as long as he was wearing a skirt.
Since it was not clearly right or wrong at the time it was made, it falls into the questionable category.
As for your last sentence, I find in very poor taste for a variety of reasons. I would suggest that you take a more thoughtful approach the next time you want to express your displeasure with the current rules of the game.
I will refrain from replying to this obvious bait. I will just agree with OutsiderFan’s reply above. I gotta ask, though. Are you an admin on this board?
cctop dateline='[url=tel:1700530143' Wrote: 1700530143[/url]']
JJJ dateline='[url=tel:1700521794' Wrote: 1700521794[/url]']
While I’m glad justice has prevailed, he will never be able to take back the second half of his last home Big Game, and we’ll never know how the game would have played out if that legitimate play was allowed to stand.
I don't think overturning the targeting call would have made much of a difference to the game.
Mendoza was down before he lost the ball, so they would have reversed the fumble call anyway.
Ask Mr. Sinclair what he thinks about that.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - Giants - 11-20-2023
I would prefer not to get into a long string of disagreeable posts…
Instead, I’ll leave it at - I made my point and I’ll stand by it…
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - CowboyIndian - 11-20-2023
(11-20-2023, 05:50 PM)Giants Wrote: Since it was not clearly right or wrong at the time it was made, it falls into the questionable category.
You're wrong...as was the call at the time it was made. The slo-mo video said so.
(11-20-2023, 06:40 PM)Giants Wrote: I made my point and I’ll stand by it…
Over there by yourself.
RE: FB -- Big Game Thread - Giants - 11-20-2023
Kinda like Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men…..