UCF 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: UCF game thread (/thread-9819.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: UCF game thread (/thread-9819.html)
Re: UCF game thread - CornFed - 09-13-2015
(09-13-2015, 08:23 AM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=12757.msg128262#msg128262 date=1442153610]I'm fine with his diminshed role I feel kinda sorry for the kid coming in with such high expectations given his last name.
[quote author=winflop link=topic=12757.msg128260#msg128260 date=1442153065]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=12757.msg128250#msg128250 date=1442149793]
[quote author=dabigv link=topic=12757.msg128247#msg128247 date=1442136822]
Barry J!
That TD run was just plain nasty. This game may have had more great jukes than any single game in Stanford history; Love and McCaffery both had some excellent shake/bake going on today, but I think the Sanders TD run was the most filthy.
However, your statement that Sanders' run was the most filthy belies the video...
It may have seemed that way, dabigv, but I am told that he isn't very good. He sure fooled me on that run. And he had another shorter beauty earlier.
[/quote]
Barry J has some good jukes but he lacks a gear that would give him breakaway speed. But my sense is that the RB rotation going forward will largely be McC, Wright, and Love. Sanders will be lucky to get 10 snaps a game. But he's still getting a Stanford degree.
[/quote]
Breakaway speed is not a feature, true. But I don't think there is anyone on the team with more ability to make defenders miss. I understand the apparent limitations in his game and am comfortable with his diminished role in the offense. However, I think some people have overreacted and now do not give Barry his proper due.
[/quote]
I'm comfortable with his reduced role I just wish others would be too. I feel bad for the kid given the unrealistic expectations placed on him because of his last name.
However, your statement that there isn't anyone with more ability to make defenders miss...um no.
https://twitter.com/treeSIDjorge/status/642941058221932544
[/quote]
I said more ability. I believe that Sanders has that move. It is true that after that move, he would probably be caught from behind. No way anyone catches Love.
Re: UCF game thread - CornFed - 09-13-2015
Speaking of some of the PI calls, I am curious. I think I recall at least one that was called against us in the second half on which there was absolutely no way the receiver could have ever even touched the ball. Maybe I overlooked something (and my DVR was not working properly), but I didn't see any earlier contact that could have been construed to have impeded the receiver. It's still true, is it not, that PI does not apply to an uncatchable pass?
Re: UCF game thread - winflop - 09-13-2015
(09-13-2015, 08:47 AM)CornFed link Wrote:Speaking of some of the PI calls, I am curious. I think I recall at least one that was called against us in the second half on which there was absolutely no way the receiver could have ever even touched the ball. Maybe I overlooked something (and my DVR was not working properly), but I didn't see any earlier contact that could have been construed to have impeded the receiver. It's still true, is it not, that PI does not apply to an uncatchable pass?
I think that was one down the UCF sideline. Replay showed that the reason it wasn't catchable was because the Stanford DB held the receiver back for 10-15 yards. That's why it was called (and correctly IMnsHO).
Re: UCF game thread - Hulk01 - 09-13-2015
I've never weighed in on refereeing before. The games I've watched seemed to have evened out.
But the stripes totally whiffted on two PI calls: the non-call on the hold on Irwin and the call on Murphy, which had me out of my seat; it takes a special kind of bad call to do that.Â
This is a remarkable DB group. Meeks had the best almost zero-stat game I've seen from a DB: Nine breakups in a single game is without precedent at Stanford, I'd bet. Harris and Meeks stood out, and Martinez may have better instincts than Tarpley, who scored about 785 on the instinct half of the football aptitude test. His breakup and INT were terrific. This is going to be a remarkable DB group for several years.
If they haven't already, any hs DB and coach watching this game tape is texting Akina this morning.Â
When Love was 92 yards from the end zone, I turned to Steph and said "touchdown." The best speed-quickness packages we've ever seen in our own colors. If he isn't DAT, he'll do.
Brandt-Sims has to make that catch. That makes at least four drops, and Hopper could have been named for a fifth. Cajuste was not drop-prone last year, so it's a good bet this was an aberration.
Hooper was phenomenal on the Wright short yardage conversion. Exploded.
We're a much better lead blocking team than a push A to B team. But we have to be able to run between the tackles to make a good run on this season.Â
The OL and DL hold the key. We aren't getting enough pressure on the QB, and we're not pushing teams back when we stick North and South, and going East West is, of course, a high beta approach, especially against teams with talent on their edges.
Re: UCF game thread - washingtonismoney - 09-13-2015
Interesting take on the DL -- I thought they whipped UCF's group pretty good. (For whatever that means, which is likely very little.)
I remain concerned about the OL, though I suppose the consolation is the number of stacked boxes they had to push against.
Drops-wise...I guess I'm very concerned about Schultz, who's got a 2 drops:1 catch ratio.
Re: UCF game thread - stupac2 - 09-13-2015
(09-13-2015, 09:40 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Drops-wise...I guess I'm very concerned about Schultz, who's got a 2 drops:1 catch ratio.
IMO so far Schultz is the most disappointing thing about this year. He was built up so much that maybe meeting those expectations was unreasonable, but so far he seems like a downgrade over Cotton or Taboada.
Re: UCF game thread - 81alum - 09-13-2015
(09-13-2015, 09:37 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We're a much better lead blocking team than a push A to B team. But we have to be able to run between the tackles to make a good run on this season.ÂI appreciate this analysis from one of our most knowledgeable fans. I really am getting worried about our ability to run between the tackles--even those of us who want a more open offense can recognize the need to do this, plus it is so ingrained in Shaw that we need to do it well since otherwise we will be stuck doing it poorly over and over.
The OL and DL hold the key. We aren't getting enough pressure on the QB, and we're not pushing teams back when we stick North and South, and going East West is, of course, a high beta approach, especially against teams with talent on their edges.
Neither Northwestern nor the-team-led-by-the-lying-resume-padder have particularly top-notch defensive lines, and yet we did not seem to be able to make the power run work consistently--even late in the game after they were supposedly worn down. I watched fairly carefully for just this point--because of all our conversations here about running power--and last night they did NOT stack the box very much. They usually controlled our inside running game with 7, although safeties crashing in probably cost them the touchdown on the flea-flicker. Those of you who have played or coached or just watched a lot more....what is our offensive line supposed to be doing when run blocking that they are not doing?
Re: UCF game thread - washingtonismoney - 09-13-2015
(09-13-2015, 10:22 AM)81alum link Wrote:and last night they did NOT stack the box very much. They usually controlled our inside running game with 7...
I suppose we'll have to defer to the tape, but on running downs when Stanford was in the I-formation, I thought they stacked the box virtually every time -- or played very aggressively with their safeties. They loosened up when we played shotgun, however.
Re: UCF game thread - yvonne - 09-13-2015
(09-13-2015, 09:37 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:But the stripes totally whiffted on two PI calls: the non-call on the hold on Irwin and the call on Murphy, which had me out of my seat; it takes a special kind of bad call to do that.Â
[/q
It felt like the refs were calling every uncaught UCF ball a PI. Several of them were clearly uncatchable.
This is a remarkable DB group. Meeks had the best almost zero-stat game I've seen from a DB: Nine breakups in a single game is without precedent at Stanford, I'd bet. Harris and Meeks stood out, and Martinez may have better instincts than Tarpley, who scored about 785 on the instinct half of the football aptitude test. His breakup and INT were terrific. This is going to be a remarkable DB group for several years.
It felt like the refs were calling every uncaught UCF ball a PI. Several of them were clearly uncatchable.
Quote:When Love was 92 yards from the end zone, I turned to Steph and said "touchdown." The best speed-quickness packages we've ever seen in our own colors. If he isn't DAT, he'll do.
[/qupte]
Not me. I was sitting there thinking, "Why did we call that?"
[quote]
The OL and DL hold the key. We aren't getting enough pressure on the QB, and we're not pushing teams back when we stick North and South, and going East West is, of course, a high beta approach, especially against teams with talent on their edges.
For a couple of series after Aziz went out, I thought that UCF was going to do what Stanford used to do to other teams at the end of games: wear down the opposing D-line. Fortunately, the LBs, especially Martinez, picked up the slack.
Re: UCF game thread - winflop - 09-13-2015
(09-13-2015, 10:22 AM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=12757.msg128292#msg128292 date=1442162253]I appreciate this analysis from one of our most knowledgeable fans. I really am getting worried about our ability to run between the tackles--even those of us who want a more open offense can recognize the need to do this, plus it is so ingrained in Shaw that we need to do it well since otherwise we will be stuck doing it poorly over and over.
We're a much better lead blocking team than a push A to B team. But we have to be able to run between the tackles to make a good run on this season.Â
The OL and DL hold the key. We aren't getting enough pressure on the QB, and we're not pushing teams back when we stick North and South, and going East West is, of course, a high beta approach, especially against teams with talent on their edges.
Neither Northwestern nor the-team-led-by-the-lying-resume-padder have particularly top-notch defensive lines, and yet we did not seem to be able to make the power run work consistently--even late in the game after they were supposedly worn down. I watched fairly carefully for just this point--because of all our conversations here about running power--and last night they did NOT stack the box very much. They usually controlled our inside running game with 7, although safeties crashing in probably cost them the touchdown on the flea-flicker. Those of you who have played or coached or just watched a lot more....what is our offensive line supposed to be doing when run blocking that they are not doing?
[/quote]
I am not worried in the least about the inside running because I don't think this team is built to do that as a major part of its offense. This team is at its core built to get players out into space and move the ball around. Doesn't mean they should abandon running inside, they just don't need to do it more than 15 times a game.