The CardBoard
Bloomgren to Rice? - 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: Bloomgren to Rice? (/thread-15169.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Red State - 12-08-2017

(12-08-2017, 04:08 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:C'mon now Red State, that Rose Bowl team was crippled due to injuries.  Think both the "ironman" center and Walters were hurt and either didn't play or shouldn't have played.  [IIRC, the OL played one snap and then sat; Walters was hobbling around out there with some kind of injury].

The bottom line is that the O was not the same squad we saw all season.

But I'll give you that Wiscy controlled the ball more - as did a lot of team that year against Stanford, which had a mediocre (occasional big-play) D.  The O carried that team to the Rose Bowl.  Imagine that . . .

Stanford's defense was statistically horrible, among the bottom 10 in the country. The pass defense was especially bad. The O did carry the team, and that tells you how bad the P10 was in '99. The laughing stock of the country.

Sheen did play his butt off that day, but Ron Dayne still rushed for 200 yards. Wisconsin's ground game methodically wore down a game Stanford team...just like Stanford has done to most of its opponents during this stretch of the greatest success in the history of Stanford football.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - BostonCard - 12-08-2017

(12-05-2017, 11:05 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Husak was the QB on one of the best offenses under Willingham/Diedrick (the Seattle Bowl team was a tick above, IIRC).  He is articulate and communicates well, per broadcasts.  And of course he was one of the smartest QBs to play on The Farm (his sack totals were low, due to knowledge of when to throw it away).

I would roll the dice on a guy with those attributes.  Indeed, over-performing (to God-given talent) QBs are precisely the kind of players I expect would be good OCs.

Of course, I suspect the chances of Coach Shaw rolling those dice to be infinitesimally small.

Who was the OC for that offense?  I think Dana Bible had already left, no?

BC

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - jacketree - 12-08-2017

Bill Diedrick?

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - 82lsju - 12-08-2017

(12-08-2017, 10:00 PM)jacketree link Wrote:Bill Diedrick?

During his three years on The Farm, Deidrick has guided Stanford to unparalled offensive success. His offense rewrote the Stanford record books in '99 as it set school records for points in a season (409; old record, 366, 1949) and total offense in a season (5,138; old record, 4,919, 1969). The Cardinal put 30 or more points on the scoreboard nine times in 1999, and 40 or more on five occasions. Stanford also produced the Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year in wide receiver Troy Walters, as well as First Team All-Pac-10 quarterback Todd Husak. The Cardinal finished the regular season ranked among the top 10 in the nation in scoring offense (37.2 pg.; 6. NCAA, 1. Pac-10), total offense (467.09 pg.; 5. NCAA, 2. Pac-10) and passing offense (313.5 pg.; 10. NCAA, 1. Pac-10).

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/2013/4/17/208440882.aspx

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - BostonCard - 12-08-2017

Good memory. 

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/2013/4/17/208440882.aspx

In the "where are they now" game, I found this for Dietrick:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sdut-Palomar-notre-dame-stanford-football-2014nov19-story.html

BC



Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - scorecard - 12-08-2017

(12-05-2017, 10:46 AM)BobK link Wrote:Dalman has his son on the team so can he coach his son?  Plus daughter in the recruiting group

I love the idea of bringing Chris Dalman back as the OL coach (since Shaw apparently plans on hiring another assistant) -- alum and former Shaw teammate, and also coached with him when Harbaugh was at the helm.  His kids are already here, and he can keep the TWU as the strength of the team.  There were grumblings that he had a falling out with Harbaugh when he left, but would love to have him back.  Has the NFL pedigree as well. 


Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - teejers1 - 12-08-2017

I'm not following your logic, Red State.  The Stanford D was bad; the O was great; ergo, the Pac 10 was the laughingstock of the country. 
Plus, an undermanned Cardinal team went toe-to-toe with Wisconsin from the Mighty Big 10, and I think the Cardinal wins if McLaughlin and Walters are healthy.

But regardless, I have yet to see why Stanford cannot have a good defense and a dominant pro style offense, circa 1999/2001.  More fundamentally, I don't know why anyone would want Stanford to strive for any other kind of offense.  It's freaking mind-boggling. 

Expand your horizons, Cardinal Fans.  Yes, the team's W/L record has been very good under this regime.  But guess what?  It could have/should have been better.  It's okay to believe that.  Really, it is . . .

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - lex24 - 12-08-2017

Sure it’s ok to believe it.  I mean  it can ALWAYS be better.  Thing is - it never has been better in our lifetime.  Not even close. That is a fact. The rest is belief.

(12-08-2017, 11:41 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:I'm not following your logic, Red State.  The Stanford D was bad; the O was great; ergo, the Pac 10 was the laughingstock of the country. 
Plus, an undermanned Cardinal team went toe-to-toe with Wisconsin from the Mighty Big 10, and I think the Cardinal wins if McLaughlin and Walters are healthy.

But regardless, I have yet to see why Stanford cannot have a good defense and a dominant pro style offense, circa 1999/2001.  More fundamentally, I don't know why anyone would want Stanford to strive for any other kind of offense.  It's freaking mind-boggling. 

Expand your horizons, Cardinal Fans.  Yes, the team's W/L record has been very good under this regime.  But guess what?  It could have/should have been better.  It's okay to believe that.  Really, it is . . .


Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - BostonCard - 12-09-2017

Quote:I have yet to see why Stanford cannot have a good defense and a dominant pro style offense, circa 1999/2001

Stanford did not have a "good defense" in 1999.  We gave up 69 points to Texas.  We gave up 44 to San Jose friggin State (and lost, to boot).  WE gave up more than 30 points in half of our games.  Since Shaw has become coach, the worst scoring defense year we had (2015) we gave up 316 points in 14 games.  The 1999 team gave up 364 in 12.  And while you lament that our offense slows takes time ff the clock, back then our opponents did too; the hurry up no huddle offense as a base offense (as opposed to the 2 minute drill) wasn't widespread back then and pretty much everybody had a pro style offense.

So, no, 1999, we did not have a good defense.  We had a pretty bad defense.  We outscored a lot of teams, which was lots of fun, but let's not pretend that we had it all back then.  And redstate is right; we were fortunate to make it into the Rose Bowl that year.  It was a down year for the conference (only Oregon ended the season ranked), and the one team we didn't play that year was... Oregon.

Lastly, we ended that season 8-4.  This season we are 9-4 against a tougher schedule.  Just sayin'.

BC

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - BostonCard - 12-09-2017

One more thing... sandwiched between that Rose Bowl season and the 9-3 2001 Seattle Bowl season, was the 2000 season.  Same coaches.  WE went 5-6 and averaged 23.7 points per game (compared to 32 ppg this year and 26.3 ppg in Shaw's worst year [last year]).  Yet somehow you are holding up the Willingham/Dietrick offense as the model that we should follow?  I mean, I think I was the one who started the thread about offensive fragility, but 3 points at Arizona, 6 at Oregon State (makes our 15 this year look amazing), 14 at Notre Dame.  All three of those were lower scoring than our worst game this year.  Now that was a fragile offense.

BC

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - dabigv13 - 12-09-2017

I don't think teejers was saying 1999 or 2001 had good defenses, but that he wishes a good defense could be paired with that type of offense. How I read it at least.

I'm pretty sure he's been saying that since 2001 in fact.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - BostonCard - 12-09-2017

I mean, sure.  I'd love the 2011 offense (43.2 ppg) to have been paired with the 2012 defense (17.2 ppg given up).  And I'd love my wife to look like Uma Thurman (that's bait for Garvin).  But I love my wife for who she is, not who she is not and I would never want to give her up.  Are there "sexier" offenses out there?  Sure.  But I still think that as college football fandom goes, there are few I'd trade places with.

BC

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - BostonCard - 12-09-2017

Last point.  The 2001 (35.2) and 1999 (34.8 ppg) offenses would rank 3rd and 4th had they been David Shaw's seasons, behind 2015 (37.7 ppg) and 2010 (40.3 ppg); and those were Willingham's two best seasons.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Phogge - 12-09-2017

I'm just a fortunate Gator I guess. My wife is better looking than Uma.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Bruce Wang - 12-09-2017

Some random used Condom on /cfb said Lane Kiffin tried to hire Bloomgren as OC, which means Bloomgren might be $C head coach.

Fake News?

So in that alternate universe, Shaw would have promoted Mike Sanford instead. $C would never cease being under Stanford control and we would be still celebrating a national championship?  :P

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - CornFed - 12-09-2017

(12-08-2017, 02:11 PM)oman link Wrote:Suit yourself but that hotel is haunted.

Isn't that the charm?  After all, a lot of the ghosts were part of Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Red State - 12-09-2017

(12-08-2017, 11:41 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:I'm not following your logic, Red State.  The Stanford D was bad; the O was great; ergo, the Pac 10 was the laughingstock of the country. 
Plus, an undermanned Cardinal team went toe-to-toe with Wisconsin from the Mighty Big 10, and I think the Cardinal wins if McLaughlin and Walters are healthy.

But regardless, I have yet to see why Stanford cannot have a good defense and a dominant pro style offense, circa 1999/2001.  More fundamentally, I don't know why anyone would want Stanford to strive for any other kind of offense.  It's freaking mind-boggling. 

Expand your horizons, Cardinal Fans.  Yes, the team's W/L record has been very good under this regime.  But guess what?  It could have/should have been better.  It's okay to believe that.  Really, it is . . .

A number of people really dislike Stanford's offense, say, since 2012, which was the first of Shaw's 3 Rose Bowls. The biggest disdain is not from Stanford's fan base, however, but mostly from coaches, players and fans of opposing teams. Over the past few seasons I've read and listened to comments from Oregon, USC, UCLA and UW people who HATE Stanford's offense, not so much because of what it does to their defense, but rather what it does to their offense.

This is not Todd Husak era football. With so many P12 teams running spread, high tempo, run-oriented offenses that feature a lot of speed, Shaw and Staff have smartly countered those schemes with the very best antidote: Keeping them off the field. Stanford's Power O ball control offense drains the clock and protects an often depth-challenged D. But at its best, what it does is frustrate opposing offenses that thrive on playing fast, running A LOT of plays, and getting into a rhythm. I've seen it happen many times, the opposing offense on the sideline for 6, 7, 8 minutes, and then pressing and making mistakes, especially when they've fallen behind.

The most striking example of this was Oregon '13, which was the highest profile game to be played at Stanford in over 40 years. #3 Oregon was riding high with Marcus Mariota and their high-powered offense. How did Stanford win? Brutally. Tyler Gaffney carried 45 times and Stanford held the ball for 43 Minutes. Absolutely Beautiful. I saw Oregon players in tears, and droves of silent Duck fans, most of them were gone before Q4. Do I think Stanford could have won that game with any other kind of offense that night? Absolutely not. And Stanford wouldn't have gone to Rose Bowl, either.

Is Stanford's Power O offense better/more efficient some seasons than others? Yeah, just like any other offense. Do I think the offense could be tweaked or have a new wrinkle? Depending on the personnel available, yes. Do I think this offense should be scrapped in favor of a more finesse, crowd-pleasing O? Hell, No. That would be a sad goodbye to Intellectual Brutality.

Sorry, Teejers, the Stanford yesteryear offense is not coming back, certainly not as long as Shaw is HC. You're just going to have to find solace in 9-10+ win seasons, P12 Titles and major bowl games.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Langdude - 12-09-2017

(12-09-2017, 08:34 AM)CornFed link Wrote:[quote author=oman link=topic=18293.msg217527#msg217527 date=1512767488]
Suit yourself but that hotel is haunted.

Isn't that the charm?
[/quote]

Said the first victim of, like, EVERY horror movie.

-m.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - JohnR34231 - 12-09-2017

(12-09-2017, 10:17 AM)Red State link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18293.msg217603#msg217603 date=1512801682]
I'm not following your logic, Red State.  The Stanford D was bad; the O was great; ergo, the Pac 10 was the laughingstock of the country. 
Plus, an undermanned Cardinal team went toe-to-toe with Wisconsin from the Mighty Big 10, and I think the Cardinal wins if McLaughlin and Walters are healthy.

But regardless, I have yet to see why Stanford cannot have a good defense and a dominant pro style offense, circa 1999/2001.  More fundamentally, I don't know why anyone would want Stanford to strive for any other kind of offense.  It's freaking mind-boggling. 

Expand your horizons, Cardinal Fans.  Yes, the team's W/L record has been very good under this regime.  But guess what?  It could have/should have been better.  It's okay to believe that.  Really, it is . . .

A number of people really dislike Stanford's offense, say, since 2012, which was the first of Shaw's 3 Rose Bowls. The biggest disdain is not from Stanford's fan base, however, but mostly from coaches, players and fans of opposing teams. Over the past few seasons I've read and listened to comments from Oregon, U$C, UCLA and UW people who HATE Stanford's offense, not so much because of what it does to their defense, but rather what it does to their offense.

This is not Todd Husak era football. With so many P12 teams running spread, high tempo, run-oriented offenses that feature a lot of speed, Shaw and Staff have smartly countered those schemes with the very best antidote: Keeping them off the field. Stanford's Power O ball control offense drains the clock and protects an often depth-challenged D. But at its best, what it does is frustrate opposing offenses that thrive on playing fast, running A LOT of plays, and getting into a rhythm. I've seen it happen many times, the opposing offense on the sideline for 6, 7, 8 minutes, and then pressing and making mistakes, especially when they've fallen behind.

The most striking example of this was Oregon '13, which was the highest profile game to be played at Stanford in over 40 years. #3 Oregon was riding high with Marcus Mariota and their high-powered offense. How did Stanford win? Brutally. Tyler Gaffney carried 45 times and Stanford held the ball for 43 Minutes. Absolutely Beautiful. I saw Oregon players in tears, and droves of silent Duck fans, most of them were gone before Q4. Do I think Stanford could have won that game with any other kind of offense that night? Absolutely not. And Stanford wouldn't have gone to Rose Bowl, either.

Is Stanford's Power O offense better/more efficient some seasons than others? Yeah, just like any other offense. Do I think the offense could be tweaked or have a new wrinkle? Depending on the personnel available, yes. Do I think this offense should be scrapped in favor of a more finesse, crowd-pleasing O? Hell, No. That would be a sad goodbye to Intellectual Brutality.

Sorry, Teejers, the Stanford yesteryear offense is not coming back, certainly not as long as Shaw is HC. You're just going to have to find solace in 9-10+ win seasons, P12 Titles and major bowl games.
[/quote]

The Duck fans who left in Q3 missed a pretty exciting finish. Oregon came to life in the fourth quarter and we had to hold on by our nails for the victory.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Red State - 12-09-2017

(12-09-2017, 11:04 AM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=Red State link=topic=18293.msg217629#msg217629 date=1512839858]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18293.msg217603#msg217603 date=1512801682]
I'm not following your logic, Red State.  The Stanford D was bad; the O was great; ergo, the Pac 10 was the laughingstock of the country. 
Plus, an undermanned Cardinal team went toe-to-toe with Wisconsin from the Mighty Big 10, and I think the Cardinal wins if McLaughlin and Walters are healthy.

But regardless, I have yet to see why Stanford cannot have a good defense and a dominant pro style offense, circa 1999/2001.  More fundamentally, I don't know why anyone would want Stanford to strive for any other kind of offense.  It's freaking mind-boggling. 

Expand your horizons, Cardinal Fans.  Yes, the team's W/L record has been very good under this regime.  But guess what?  It could have/should have been better.  It's okay to believe that.  Really, it is . . .

A number of people really dislike Stanford's offense, say, since 2012, which was the first of Shaw's 3 Rose Bowls. The biggest disdain is not from Stanford's fan base, however, but mostly from coaches, players and fans of opposing teams. Over the past few seasons I've read and listened to comments from Oregon, U$C, UCLA and UW people who HATE Stanford's offense, not so much because of what it does to their defense, but rather what it does to their offense.

This is not Todd Husak era football. With so many P12 teams running spread, high tempo, run-oriented offenses that feature a lot of speed, Shaw and Staff have smartly countered those schemes with the very best antidote: Keeping them off the field. Stanford's Power O ball control offense drains the clock and protects an often depth-challenged D. But at its best, what it does is frustrate opposing offenses that thrive on playing fast, running A LOT of plays, and getting into a rhythm. I've seen it happen many times, the opposing offense on the sideline for 6, 7, 8 minutes, and then pressing and making mistakes, especially when they've fallen behind.

The most striking example of this was Oregon '13, which was the highest profile game to be played at Stanford in over 40 years. #3 Oregon was riding high with Marcus Mariota and their high-powered offense. How did Stanford win? Brutally. Tyler Gaffney carried 45 times and Stanford held the ball for 43 Minutes. Absolutely Beautiful. I saw Oregon players in tears, and droves of silent Duck fans, most of them were gone before Q4. Do I think Stanford could have won that game with any other kind of offense that night? Absolutely not. And Stanford wouldn't have gone to Rose Bowl, either.

Is Stanford's Power O offense better/more efficient some seasons than others? Yeah, just like any other offense. Do I think the offense could be tweaked or have a new wrinkle? Depending on the personnel available, yes. Do I think this offense should be scrapped in favor of a more finesse, crowd-pleasing O? Hell, No. That would be a sad goodbye to Intellectual Brutality.

Sorry, Teejers, the Stanford yesteryear offense is not coming back, certainly not as long as Shaw is HC. You're just going to have to find solace in 9-10+ win seasons, P12 Titles and major bowl games.
[/quote]

The Duck fans who left in Q3 missed a pretty exciting finish. Oregon came to life in the fourth quarter and we had to hold on by our nails for the victory.
[/quote

Yeah, Stanford was attempting a FG to go up 29-7 with a few minutes to go. It was blocked and run back for a TD. Then the onside kick recovery and late TD. Fluky finish.