Stanford-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-SC Game Thread (/thread-12651.html)

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - amartinsu13 - 09-17-2016

I could see Louisville jumping way up, even #2.  I wouldn't be surprised if they jumped us and we stayed at 7.  (Unfortunately)

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - thunder_chik - 09-17-2016

(09-17-2016, 10:18 PM)amartinsu13 link Wrote:I could see Louisville jumping way up, even #2.  I wouldn't be surprised if they jumped us and we stayed at 7.  (Unfortunately)

I agree. We had a good, not great, W over an unranked team.  Very likely we stay at 7.  Louisville had a blowout W over #2 (game not as close as the score would indicate, LOL); very possible they jump us.

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - jacketree - 09-17-2016

You're probably right and that would be OK. Louisville looks great. Good enough to beat Clemson for sure.

Zero points across the bridge in nearly a full quarter now.

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - thunder_chik - 09-17-2016

Let's face it:  Rankings this early in the season don't really matter except for calculating SOS.

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - vppolo - 09-17-2016

In SEC bias-ville:

Ole Miss jumps to #2 for outscoring #1 'Bama in 3 of the 4 quarters and only losing by 5 at home.

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - ChicagoCard - 09-18-2016

Almost face-guarding PI on this play...

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - ChicagoCard - 09-18-2016

Neither Cotton nor Kaumatule seemed to see much action, is that right? And yet Perez and Branch got an entire series...

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - FarmBoy - 09-18-2016

Could definitely see Wilmer raising Ole Miss in his pole based on their performance yesterday.

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - CowboyIndian - 09-18-2016

(09-18-2016, 05:37 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Could definitely see Wilmer raising Ole Miss in his pole....

And I cannot UNsee the image this presents.

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - FarmBoy - 09-18-2016

Damned auto-correct...

This Dalton Schultz tweet was recommended in my twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/BinghamBaller9/status/777392599317385216

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 09-18-2016

Nice column from Bruce Jenkins: http://www.sfchronicle.com/college/jenkins/article/Stanford-McCaffrey-leave-Trojans-without-answers-9229960.php?cmpid=twitter-premium

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - stupac2 - 09-18-2016

(09-18-2016, 02:57 AM)ChicagoVisitor link Wrote:Almost face-guarding PI on this play...

IIRC face-guarding is not a penalty. But Rector did misplay it, if he just decelerates as much as he can then it's absolutely PI because the defender would've just taken him out.

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - stupac2 - 09-18-2016

This was apparently a big enough win to earn a spot in Drawing Conclusions for the week:



I saw that because I wanted to look at the box score, I came away from that game thinking we had a pretty good offense but wondering why we only scored 27. Here are our drives:

Punt
TD
FG
TD
End of Half
FG
TD
INT
Punt
End of Game

So we scored on 5/8 meaningful possessions (you can argue about the End of Half one, but with 0 TOs and only on our 25 I don't really mind throwing McCaffrey at their line a couple times and seeing if he breaks one). That's not too bad, especially when the opponent is only scoring on 2/8. Once again it seems like the main reason we're not scoring as much as we did last year was mostly because of how few meaningful drives there were. A lot of that was probably USC moving the ball pretty well but failing to score.

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - gocard14 - 09-18-2016

I didn't see any drive calculator that would give the expected point value of a drive starting at your own 25 with 30s left, But you can look at win probability as a surrogate. Being tied in a game in that scenario gives a 57% win probability. Assuming that calculator gives you a 50% shot of winning in OT, that means you have at least a 7% chance of scoring. The true chance is likely higher, as you have to subtract the probability of a turnover and points for the other team.

That being said, I have no qualms with avoiding 3 extra touches for Mccaffrey when he already has sky high usage rates.

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - ChicagoCard - 09-18-2016

(09-18-2016, 07:30 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:IIRC face-guarding is not a penalty. But Rector did misplay it, if he just decelerates as much as he can then it's absolutely PI because the defender would've just taken him out.

I couldn't put my finger on what was bugging me about this play, but what you pointed out was it.

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - winflop - 09-18-2016

That was a fantastic butt kicking last night.  The offense wasn't as sharp as it will need to be in two weeks when the Huskies will take away the run more than U$C could.  But I'll take 300 yds rushing and a 5+ average anytime, anywhere.  Burns pretty much did what he needed to do, other than the two overthrows.  I remember Hogan making similar mistakes in his first season too.  This will get better.  By mid-October I expect him to hit at least one of those two.

This defense has a chance to be VERY VERY special - like 2010 special.  And that special-ness is in spite of ILB which continues to be a major issue.  Palma is a good run-stopper but he cannot cover TEs downfield - why he was even on the field on a 3rd & 18 is beyond me.  The one series outside of late-game where Perez played he was once again consistently out of position and that directly led to not only the long completion to the TE but also the TD run where he missed his gap.  We are going to play a lot of 2-3-6 and 3-3-5 this season which means there will only be 1 ILB out there.  Give me Palma on 1st & 2nd and Davis on 3rd.  The rest of the depth chart there needs to make a LOT of progress.

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 09-18-2016

Stanford scored about 3.8 points per drive once you filter out the end-of-half junk stuff. That's pretty solid -- per Brian Fremeau Stanford scored 3.58 ppd last year (http://www.bcftoys.com/2015-ppd/). And Stanford averaged 6.52 yards per play, just about an average performance for the team last year. (Indeed, Stanford rang up 6.49 and 6.52 ypp in its two games against SC in 2015).

As stupac says, the lack of drives/plays was probably the biggest factor. Stanford's averaging 55.5 plays/game so far this year -- down from 66 plays/game last year. I have a suspicion that Shaw wants to keep things simple for Burns: it's a small sample size, of course, but Burns has started off each game so far hot, only to lose accuracy in the second half. Pure speculation, but it may be Burns feels very comfortable in scripted situations but not as sharp deeper in the play book.

Note that Burns has passed far less in his opening two games than Nunes (28 passes/game), Hogan (26 passes/game), or of course Luck (28.5 passes/game ... though interestingly Luck had 12 and 14 attempts in games 3 and 4 of his illustrious career.)

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 09-18-2016

https://twitter.com/cbfowler/status/777536334516871170

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - stupac2 - 09-18-2016

It's funny, it didn't feel like our blocking was all that good, but I guess there were repeatedly brobdingnagian holes in the front seven. Really, USC's back 7 are just pretty good and were doing a good job tackling 1-on-1, or slowing McCaffrey/Love down enough that someone else could catch up. If they repeat that performance against UCLA's less-athletic defense...

---

Re: Stanford-SC Game Thread - pcgoode - 09-18-2016

Also from Chris Fowler:

More from @ESPNStatsInfo : @GoStanford under center 37 snaps. Ran 36 of those. USC averaged 8 in the box. Card gained 6.1/rush. Absurd

---