The CardBoard
Stanford - UCLA 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 - UCLA thread (/thread-5870.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - DC - 10-19-2013

(10-19-2013, 04:06 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=DC link=topic=8636.msg71749#msg71749 date=1382223799]
Well, the defense covers up his weaknesses.

I am really not that down in general on Shaw's playcalling ability. It's fine! However, that playcalling in the last couple drives in the fourth quarter were, in fact, terrible.

Other note: did Luke Kaumatule get more meaningful snaps today than Shittu has gotten over his entire career?
[/quote]

They said on TV that Shaw calls the pass plays and the OC calls the running plays.  But I assume Shaw decides whether it will be a run or a pass.

I think Shaw overall is too conservative, but when you have an elite defense, you can get away with it.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - GoodGrief - 10-19-2013

Unheralded key to victory has to be that UCLA center. A ton of low snaps that slowed the execution of their offensive plays and two what-were-those-penalties--illegal snaps or something like that? Also that snap into Hundley's ankles while Hundley wasn't even looking at the ball. Love that guy!

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - FarmBoy - 10-19-2013

While I admit that I too grumble during the game at some of Shaw/Bloomgren's head scratch inducing play calling, it's kind of amusing how critical we are of a head coach who is 29-5 with two BCS, a Pac12 Championship and Rose Bowl victory. He must be doing SOMETHING right with his play calling philosophy.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - 2 for 2028 - 10-19-2013

(10-19-2013, 05:20 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:While I admit that I too grumble during the game at some of Shaw/Bloomgren's head scratch inducing play calling, it's kind of amusing how critical we are of a head coach who is 29-5 with two BCS, a Pac12 Championship and Rose Bowl victory. He must be doing SOMETHING right with his play calling philosophy.

Same here.  I question the offense at times.  Last Saturday hurt.  But I can't question Derek Mason today.  Those boys can play football.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - FarmBoy - 10-19-2013

Did anyone see the ESPN GameDay  picks segment with guest Bill Murray? It was pretty funny. Murray gave some pretty twisted, irrelevant logic for his picks that was entertaining. When picking Stanford-UCLA, I think he mentioned that Stanford's black uniforms were a sacrilege, that the UCLA cheerleading squad had a great recruiting year, and that Stanford kids have to study but UCLA kids don't, so he was going with UCLA.

I think most of the Gameday crew agreed with the UCLA pick.



Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - Bruce Wang - 10-19-2013

Whitfield's catch was Cris Carteresque.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - stupac2 - 10-19-2013

I found this quote from the ESPN writeup of the game pretty interesting:

Quote:"We got back to our base play, the plays we've been repping since training camp," he said. "I had to go a little bit more simple."

That said, it was notable that the Cardinal gave UCLA a good dose of up-tempo, no-huddle play, particularly in the first half. There also were more designed runs for Hogan. Pac-12 defensive coordinators will raise an eyebrow at that.


Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - ChicagoCard - 10-20-2013

I was sweating about missed opportunities (early Montgomery and late Cajuste play). On the other hand, probably pretty good for morale to prevail the way they did.

How much was Kaumatule in? Also, did anybody see Lueders in at all on the defensive line?

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - washingtonismoney - 10-20-2013

(10-20-2013, 06:44 AM)ChicagoOutsider link Wrote:How much was Kaumatule in? Also, did anybody see Lueders in at all on the defensive line?

Kaumatule just missed a sack and I think played 3-4 overall. (He looked like he was positioned to play more if Gardner went down...) Lueders also got a couple.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - ChicagoCard - 10-20-2013

On reply of the 1st Richards' interception, seems the receiver had gotten way past Lyons. Is that something to do with the defensive scheme, or just Richards making a great play, anticipating what the QB was going to do?

p.s. I hope Carter was just having hamstring problems that won't keep him out. It wasn't another kind of leg injury, was it?

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - CompSci87 - 10-20-2013

Richards said he saw the quarterback pump and then knew the QB was going over the top, so he just went and got the ball.

I assume Lyons had been beaten on the play.  Though maybe he knew he had safety help deep and had been playing for a short route.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - scorecard - 10-20-2013

Random thoughts:
- Whitfield's catch was remarkable in that he both showed such an amazing hand to pluck that out of the air, but then showed terrible hands by fumbling the ball before he could celebrate
- James Vaughters owes both Jordan Richards and Cajuste dinner for getting called for totally unnecessary holding on the interception return.  Richards should have had another pick 6, and Cajuste saved him by catching the long pass on a jump ball to set up the TD on the subsequent drive.
- Would be tremendous news if Cajuste's injury is not that serious, but he can expect to get a lot of crap from his teammates if it isn't!
- Can someone explain the bizarre block below the waist call that killed one of our drives?  Looked completely legal to me, wasn't a crack back block
- Anybody see that limp wristed handshake that Mora gave to Shaw, followed by him running off the field?  It looked more like he was taking a baton in a relay than a handshake.  Apparently, in the post-game press conference, he said he was mad that we punched in the last touchdown per Lombardi's twitter.  What is it with these coaches these days crying in the post-game conference?  It almost (note: I said "almost") makes me respect Pete Carroll a little more, for at least taking the time to take the pacifier out of his mouth long enough to utter "What's your deal?"
- Stanford Stadium: where Voldemort hopes go to die.  Barkley last year, Sankey, Hundley, and hopefully Mariota next
- Glad I am not a betting man because who can predict the Pac-12 this year: Washington gets absolutely smoked by Arizona State, Utah loses to Arizona.  At least, we can always rely on Cal
- Great day in upsets for us though, but need some help from Ohio State and Florida State to get back into the national title picture

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - Hurlburt88 - 10-20-2013

My sense was that our defense worked the way it was supposed to, with Lyons playing tight and safety over the top.  Saw this on multiple plays, and was impressed at the level at which Reynolds/Richards were constantly talking & tweaking with the corners on specific assignments. 

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - stupac2 - 10-20-2013

(10-20-2013, 07:54 AM)scorecard link Wrote:- Anybody see that limp wristed handshake that Mora gave to Shaw, followed by him running off the field?  It looked more like he was taking a baton in a relay than a handshake.  Apparently, in the post-game press conference, he said he was mad that we punched in the last touchdown per Lombardi's twitter.  What is it with these coaches these days crying in the post-game conference?  It almost (note: I said "almost") makes me respect Pete Carroll a little more, for at least taking the time to take the pacifier out of his mouth long enough to utter "What's your deal?"

To be fair, I was pretty surprised we did that as well. Not only because we could just kneel out the game at that point, but because we've had injury trouble this year and you just knew that UCLA would try to get their own garbage time score.

I guess Shaw figured it would be better to stick in the knife and twist, and also to instill that mentality in the players. We were definitely missing it last week so good for him, I guess.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - washingtonismoney - 10-20-2013

One underrated part of the 3:30 broadcast time: we got ESPN's second-best announcing crew and got to listen to Chris Spielman -- who I think is the best football color analyst working these days -- instead of Matt Millen announcing why he was one of the worst NFL GMs ever.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - DC - 10-20-2013

A few years back, Jamal Rashad Patterson purposely fell down at the ASU 4 with little time left to prevent himself from scoring and us going up by 11 (We won 17-13 instead of 24-13).  Harbaugh defended the play strongly and a technical purist like Shaw you would think also would feel that way.  Maybe he decided to reward Gaffney for all his hard work.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - Hank 91 - 10-20-2013

That was actually Anthony Wilkerson.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - Hank 91 - 10-20-2013

(10-20-2013, 08:03 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=scorecard link=topic=8636.msg71843#msg71843 date=1382280889]- Anybody see that limp wristed handshake that Mora gave to Shaw, followed by him running off the field?  It looked more like he was taking a baton in a relay than a handshake.  Apparently, in the post-game press conference, he said he was mad that we punched in the last touchdown per Lombardi's twitter.  What is it with these coaches these days crying in the post-game conference?  It almost (note: I said "almost") makes me respect Pete Carroll a little more, for at least taking the time to take the pacifier out of his mouth long enough to utter "What's your deal?"

To be fair, I was pretty surprised we did that as well. Not only because we could just kneel out the game at that point, but because we've had injury trouble this year and you just knew that UCLA would try to get their own garbage time score.

I guess Shaw figured it would be better to stick in the knife and twist, and also to instill that mentality in the players. We were definitely missing it last week so good for him, I guess.
[/quote]

I think that's the key. The offensive line dominated the line of scrimmage, but had only one touchdown to show for it. I think it was a good idea to reward them and to reward Gaffney.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - Hank 91 - 10-20-2013

Oh, and another good point brought up by scorecard -- why don't these coaches understand that they look like babies when they publicly complain about these things? If they want to call up the opposing coach, use it for future motivation, even get some payback next year, I've got no issue with any of that. But whining to the press just seems a bit juvenile.

Re: Stanford - UCLA thread - Nan3cy - 10-20-2013

(10-20-2013, 09:04 AM)garvin link Wrote:I don't think trying to give yourself a two-score lead with nearly two minutes to go in the game counts as running it up. If Mora has so little in life to complain about that he's got got time to brood about that, he's a lucky man indeed.

Just imagine the meltdown on the Stanford boards if Shaw had elected to kill the clock and we'd given up a Joe Borchard-esque  98-yard touchdown, then we'd lost in overtime... would be beyond ugly. I know that whatever the clock said, I felt a lot better with a two-touchdown lead.