Stanford vs. SC 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: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread (/thread-14247.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: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread (/thread-14247.html)
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - norcard - 09-09-2017
I dont know why we dont defer
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - gocard14 - 09-09-2017
I hate to see it too, but our D is actually playing much better last two drives. You sometimes just have to tip your cap to Darnold for perfect throws on the run with just a hair of separation.
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - BostonCard - 09-09-2017
Oh, and USC gets the ball to start the second half.
They have had five drives and have scored four touchdowns. The only bright spot on the defense was the Reid interception.
BC
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - BostonCard - 09-09-2017
(09-09-2017, 07:06 PM)norcard link Wrote:I dont know why we dont defer
Because we always want to establish the tone. I hate to say it, but had we kicked off first, we'd be down 35-17.
BC
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - cardcrimson - 09-09-2017
Surrendering when they get the ball to start the second half? I don't get that at all.
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - martyup - 09-09-2017
![[Image: 1aa7e8bd95b77b4544428c42bcbd84c4.gif]](http://i.pinimg.com/originals/1a/a7/e8/1aa7e8bd95b77b4544428c42bcbd84c4.gif)
We've got 'em right where we want them. They come out of halftime all cocky and then they crumble like Christmas cookies under foot. We wear them down and crush them in the 4th. . . . Gotta believe until the fat lady sings.
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - amartinsu13 - 09-09-2017
5 drives, 4 TD.
Our defense playing like crap thanks to 0 pressure from our DL.
Love goes HAM and runs for 102 in the first 5 minutes of the game, and then we barely seem him in the 2nd quarter. Why?
It was hard for me to see us winning this game if we gave up more than 31 points. I don't see us shutting down USC's offense in the 2nd half.Â
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - BostonCard - 09-09-2017
(09-09-2017, 07:10 PM)cardcrimson link Wrote:Surrendering when they get the ball to start the second half? I don't get that at all.
What do you mean? The fact that we ran? Love can cover 75 yards in 10 seconds. TBH, I think we have a better chance of scoring quickly with Love on the run than with Chryst throwing it.
BC
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - amartinsu13 - 09-09-2017
We gave up 350 yards of offense in the 1st half...
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - cardcrimson - 09-09-2017
(09-09-2017, 07:09 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=17352.msg199776#msg199776 date=1505009207]
I dont know why we dont defer
Because we always want to establish the tone. I hate to say it, but had we kicked off first, we'd be down 35-17.
BC
[/quote]
How about setting the tone with defense to start the game?
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - martyup - 09-09-2017
(09-09-2017, 07:12 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17352.msg199780#msg199780 date=1505009409]
Surrendering when they get the ball to start the second half? I don't get that at all.
What do you mean? The fact that we ran? Love can cover 75 yards in 10 seconds. TBH, I think we have a better chance of scoring quickly with Love on the run than with Chryst throwing it.
BC
[/quote]
It all comes down to our D making stops. I think we will keep moving the ball and scoring.
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - BostonCard - 09-09-2017
(09-09-2017, 07:11 PM)amartinsu13 link Wrote:5 drives, 4 TD.
Our defense playing like crap thanks to 0 pressure from our DL.
Love goes HAM and runs for 102 in the first 5 minutes of the game, and then we barely seem him in the 2nd quarter. Why?
It was hard for me to see us winning this game if we gave up more than 31 points. I don't see us shutting down U$C's offense in the 2nd half.
By my count, he had 6 rushes for 39 yards in the second half.
There was one drive where Scarlett was put in for a series of downs. And Chryst was throwing a bit more, likely because USC was stacking the box. But extrapolating Love's production into a full game, 24 rushes for 156 yards is a pretty good workload.
BC
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - martyup - 09-09-2017
We've got to come out and steam roll them like this:
![[Image: c55d15c6deb74766f891a25cc4d2f644.gif]](http://i.pinimg.com/originals/c5/5d/15/c55d15c6deb74766f891a25cc4d2f644.gif)
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread -- SC passing is difference - ADPATERSON - 09-09-2017
Difference in game: 225 yds passing on 14 of 17 by Darnold, 3TDs and the pick. Voldemort numbers.
Darnold scrambling is KILLING us. Nobody can cover SC wideouts for 5sec.
We must stop TWO guys: Mitchell (#4) and Burnett (#80). Those two have the majority of the yards.
Our safeties Buncom and Simmons, not so much Reid, are getting burned.Â
But Burnett's horizontal catch for the TD at the end of the half was just superior. NFL level.Â
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - stupac2 - 09-09-2017
The biggest question mark on this team all offseason was the DL and whether the strong secondary/linebackers could make up for it. We're finding out the answer now. It turns out that when you're facing a strong OL, if you can't get penetration, you give up at least 3 yards every run. If you can't get pressure against a good QB, he'll find someone open eventually. This is was the worry about this team all year, and we're finding out that we were right to worry.
I'm not sure how you could turn this around, the defense is just getting mauled. I don't think the offense is really doing all that badly, we've scored on 3/5 of our meaningful possessions. The problem is that it seems like we either get a turnover or give up a TD on defense, which has to change or this will get ugly.
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - cardcrimson - 09-09-2017
(09-09-2017, 07:12 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17352.msg199780#msg199780 date=1505009409]
Surrendering when they get the ball to start the second half? I don't get that at all.
What do you mean? The fact that we ran? Love can cover 75 yards in 10 seconds. TBH, I think we have a better chance of scoring quickly with Love on the run than with Chryst throwing it.
BC
[/quote]
42 tics left and we run a sweep. With no timeouts. Help me again understand why that's a good call.
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - Stymie - 09-09-2017
Ou est les TEs d'antan?
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - Mick - 09-09-2017
First half impressions:
1. Their OL is taking it to our DL. Our DL is quicker, but their OLs are just quick enough.
2. SC playcalling has been exactly what it needs to be, killing us bit by bit.
3. Darnold is an order of magnitude better than Chryst. Chryst throws a "what-the-heck" ball about every third time.Â
4. Both leading running backs, Love and Jones, are wearing down.Â
5. Our tackling is really poor. REALLY poor.
6. I really hope that SC is committing a lot of penalties that are about to catch up with them (like the last four minutes of the first half). Because if they aren't, this is going to get ugly. Our vaunted DBs are getting shredded, just shredded.
7. I hope Shaw and his staff are seeing some obvious changes they can make on defense. Ditto, the offense.
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - JohnR34231 - 09-09-2017
One of those where I'm not sure whether U$C's offense is playing that well, or our defense that poorly.
Darnold is the real deal and we are putting very little pressure on him.
Right now they definitely are the better team, but we can always hope for a turnaround in the second half.
Re: Stanford vs. SC Game Thread - BostonCard - 09-09-2017
(09-09-2017, 07:13 PM)cardcrimson link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17352.msg199779#msg199779 date=1505009372]
[quote author=norcard link=topic=17352.msg199776#msg199776 date=1505009207]
I dont know why we dont defer
Because we always want to establish the tone. I hate to say it, but had we kicked off first, we'd be down 35-17.
BC
[/quote]
How about setting the tone with defense to start the game?
[/quote]
That's just not what we do, and honestly, I don't think anyone has shown it makes a lick of a difference. Ever since Shaw has been head coach, we always elect to receive to start when we win the coin toss. If anything, from 2000 to 2007, the team who received the opening touchdown (in the NFL) won 51.2% of the time.
BC