The CardBoard
Colorado 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: Colorado game thread (/thread-12914.html)

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

Re: Colorado game thread - JohnR34231 - 10-22-2016

(10-22-2016, 03:08 PM)cardfan77 link Wrote:Stanford losing to teams  like WSU and Colorado is unacceptable.

WSU and Colorado are good teams this year. Losing to them is not a disgrace. Being able to put up only one touchdown offensively against them collectively (in garbage time) is.

Re: Colorado game thread - CornFed - 10-22-2016

Burns is not the only focus, as you probably will all agree.  He's just the most conspicuous.  We need something to help accelerate the learning curve of the OL, which seems to have at least a slight upward slope.

Re: Colorado game thread - 82lsju - 10-22-2016

(10-22-2016, 03:11 PM)martyup link Wrote:We held CO to their lowest scoring of the season.  We just couldn't put points on the board.

they held us to their opponents lowest score of the season, lower than the points put up by offensive titans like Colorado St, Idaho St and Oregon St........


Re: Colorado game thread - cardfan77 - 10-22-2016

(10-22-2016, 03:18 PM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=cardfan77 link=topic=15963.msg176821#msg176821 date=1477174080]
Stanford losing to teams  like WSU and Colorado is unacceptable.

WSU and Colorado are good teams this year. Losing to them is not a disgrace. Being able to put up only one touchdown offensively against them collectively (in garbage time) is.
[/quote]

There's no denying that they are good teams this year but Stanford should be better or at least be competitive.

Fans are frustrated.  Coaches and players must be as frustrated as the fans if not more. 

What will it take to improve this team?  IDK but I welcome anything.

Re: Colorado game thread - TreesAndBirds - 10-22-2016

At this stage my concern is recruiting/retaining players who have eligibility left. Lets see if KJ is the quarterback of the future (although maybe KC needs more of a chance). A lot of this may be on the O line, but somethings are easier to experiment with then others.

Re: Colorado game thread - thunder_chik - 10-22-2016

Pitiful offensive (pun intended) performance.  I see no reason to disallow the next man up (Chryst) a chance.

Gawd - Redrum - 10-22-2016

OK.  It's official.  Shaw has  lost his mojo or his earpiece that delivers plays from Jon Gruden.  Whatever...
But here's the question about the calls to put in Costello:  Do we really want to burn his shirt and risk injury behind an OLine that can't find their asses with both hands?  I expected a down year but not a complete downer. I just hope we can land all of our recruiting targets and not see the chances for improved personnel go up in smoke (and blood, and guts, and a foul stench).

I also hope this doesn't drive a wedge between the offense and defense, with the defense taking the "f*** it, we are in this alone" mindset.

So is Costello the sacrificial lamb who loses a season of eligibility to pay for Burns/Chryst/Bloomgren/Shaw sins?
I'd wager he played behind a more effective OL at Mater Dei.  Next year our boys might have it together, but this season Costello would have the same 1.2 secs to throw that Burns/Chryst have.



Re: Colorado game thread - JJJ - 10-22-2016

If Costello was the answer and that good in practice, wouldn't they put in packages for him a la Hogan? I notice he is 19yrs old. Doesn't the fact that they haven't done that say something?

Re: Colorado game thread - Ratmandoo - 10-22-2016

(10-22-2016, 04:05 PM)JJJ link Wrote:If Costello was the answer and that good in practice, wouldn't they put in packages for him a la Hogan? I notice he is 19yrs old. Doesn't the fact that they haven't done that say something?

I don't think Costello is getting any reps at all in practice. With Burns and Chryst struggling as much as they are, they need to take all the practice reps that are out there. I don't see any way Costello could possibly be ready to come into a game at this point. Then again, I don't know anything and I'm just assuming what would be happening.

Re: Colorado game thread - thunder_chik - 10-22-2016

Disappointing season.  Silver lining--CMac stays for another season.

Re: Colorado game thread - jacketree - 10-22-2016

So just left NMCMS in Annapolis and saw the score. Looks like Stanford could use some help in its bullpen.

I dunno about CMac staying - Redrum - 10-22-2016

(10-22-2016, 04:34 PM)thunder_chik link Wrote:Disappointing season.  Silver lining--CMac stays for another season.

He has to be thinking about his prospects on a team that is in the shape we are and the fact that his bankable season will have been two years in the past if he comes back for another year.  His prospects might be better rather than risk another season on a team that won't really boost his visibility and carries the chance of injury more serious than the one he experienced this season.

Or, maybe he is serious about getting his degree and on-field redemption.  But there are plenty of opportunities to come back and finish a degree after a pro career.

Re: Colorado game thread - JJJ - 10-22-2016

(10-22-2016, 03:01 PM)81alum link Wrote:I finally did tune in to Husak, who had very interesting commentary.  Here is what I took away from him:
1) Stanford ran the same 1st down running play that did not work over and over and over.  The Colorado defense all reacted to the snap and yet we never used it to set up play action.

2) Colorado played 1 on 1 press coverage on our receivers, who did not get open against the coverage.  Most of our throws were into coverage.  He wondered why we did not use any crossing routes or try the other classic routes to beat 1 on 1, but instead kept running the same routes that never opened up.

3) He wondered why Love was not on the field more--particularly why he and CMac were not played at the same time.

I've always liked Husak--he obviously knows a heck of a lot more than I do.  These seem like good questions to me.

As for me--not sure how we can salvage our offensive line at this point.  I'm inclined to give another quarterback a chance.  Burns seems to get deceived on coverages quite easily--or so said Husak.  He was not reading the field properly.
How about Husak for OC?  :'(

Re: Colorado game thread - martyup - 10-22-2016

Strangely, ESPN lists as top performers in our game:

Quote:Ryan Burns  STAN
16-29, 170 YDS, 3 INT

[Image: Puzzled-animated-Is_This_Supposed_to_Mak...xlarge.gif]

Re: Colorado game thread - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 10-22-2016

Are we done pretending that Burns is an acceptable starter?

Re: Colorado game thread - Langdude - 10-22-2016

(10-22-2016, 04:50 PM)jacketree link Wrote:So just left NMCMS in Annapolis and saw the score. Looks like Stanford could use some help in its bullpen.

That made me laugh. Thanks for providing that after a rough day for fandom.

-m.

Re: Colorado game thread - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 10-22-2016

(10-22-2016, 10:12 PM)Langdude link Wrote:[quote author=jacketree link=topic=15963.msg176856#msg176856 date=1477180208]
So just left NMCMS in Annapolis and saw the score. Looks like Stanford could use some help in its bullpen.

That made me laugh. Thanks for providing that after a rough day for fandom.

-m.
[/quote]

After we left the game my buddy said to me "Wow, what a game between the Rockies and Giants." Gave me a small chuckle.

Re: Colorado game thread - HisKneeWasDown - 10-23-2016

(10-22-2016, 02:57 PM)amartinsu13 link Wrote:Team should be embarrassed to play like this on Homecoming.

I think the school wanted the alums to feel like it was the Stanford of yesteryear.

Re: Colorado game thread - fullmetal - 10-25-2016

Ten years ago, this was the kind of Stanford team that took the field--a depressingly accurate homecoming. 

Reading through this game thread is eye-opening--I didn't watch the game, but now I know how it went.  Shannon Turley needs to help the OL get stronger, pronto.  Bloomgren needs to figure out how his OL can block most effectively.  And Shaw has to mold his playcalling around the strengths/weaknesses of his team.  That the defense can still put up three-and-outs is amazing and a testament to every coach working on that defense.

Burns is done, imho.  I think he's broken mentally and emotionally--even if not, he seems incapable of performing, which renders the same results.  I don't think the team looks at him to lead them with a performance like that.

Re: Colorado game thread - Spiny_Norman - 10-25-2016

I was at the game and want to add one other observation, this one about the defensive line.

At least twice, Stanford started the series by substituting Watkins, Cotton and/or Jackson for Thomas and Phillips.  I think the intent was to give those guys a break.  Colorado recognized that Thomas and Phillips were out and ran the ball right between the tackles again and again in big chunks. Once they reached the Stanford 25-30 yard line, the coaches rushed Thomas and Phillips back in the game.  The defense tightened up and Colorado was forced to attempt a FG.

It was a vivid example of Stanford's DL weakness - not enough experience or depth. Got to hope that Jackson who is a redshirt frosh can develop as he gets more experience.  And the frosh who are sitting out this year have to be able to contribute right away next season.