Utah 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: Utah game thread (/thread-16561.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: Utah game thread (/thread-16561.html)
RE: Utah game thread - BostonCard - 10-07-2018
I do wonder how much the complexion of the game changes if we scored a touchdown instead of giving up a pick-6. We might go into the second half down only 17-14 instead of 24-7, and we could have conceiveably headed into the fourth quarter up 8 instead of down 6.
Would we still have collapsed in the fourth quarter? Would it have been more painful because we had the lead, or would we have played differently, not trying to do too much because we were behind.
Well, woulda coulda shoulda. I give a lot of credit to Utah for taking advantage of opportunities and playing a clean game. But I wonder how it would have gone had we not shot our selves in the foot.
BC
RE: Utah game thread - Austroturf - 10-07-2018
(10-07-2018, 12:04 AM)d4cohn Wrote:(10-06-2018, 11:47 PM)Austroturf Wrote:(10-06-2018, 11:36 PM)d4cohn Wrote: I want to first preface my comments by saying I love this program, and what it stands for, and the men of character that we have coaching the team and on the field (which is ultimately most important). Even though the past couple of weeks have been tough, I think it is important to remember this perspective amid our collective disappointment.I like your optimism and positive analysis, but I feel this team is coming unglued. If we cannot beat a middling Utah team at home, we are not Pac-12 contenders. At this point, we will be lucky to have a positive conference record.
Tonight was a tougher loss than Notre Dame for me, because unlike Notre Dame, where I felt the Irish were clearly the better and more talented team, I felt that we were the more talented (but obviously not better) team tonight. However, we made more avoidable mistakes than I can recall us making in a long time that gifted points to Utah, or took points off the board on our end:
1) The running into the punter penalty, ultimately leading to Utah's 1st TD, instead of us getting the ball in a scoreless game (albeit likely backed up)
2) The most costly was the pick six, which turned a likely 7-7 game (at worst 7-3 game), into a 14-0 game
3) 2nd INT, which took a likely 3 points off the board
4) The very poor defensive scheme with :08 left (even though I know we nearly got burned for a TD on the previous play), to leave the intermediate pass wide open (thanks to dropping three guys at the goaline), with the space completely vacated, leading to the necessary yardage to tack on 3 points before half (another big back-breaker)
5) Missed sack, and blown coverage by No.5, compounded by another poor angle, leading to TD that made it 37-21 and once and for all iced the game
Very thankfully, we have a bye after this, because I think we are clearly in need of a reset (not necessarily so much in scheme, though there are some scheme changes that might be made on defense). Other solace we can take is that this is only the first Pac-12 loss, and the loss was to a team from the South, rather than the North.
However, any margin of error is completely gone, and we are staring at a very tough road game in a week and a half against a desperate (but I think pretty solid) ASU team. I hope we are ready for the challenge.
I understand your point, but people felt the same way after we lost back-to-back last year to USC and SDSU last year (with our QB unable to complete 3 yard screen passes in the latter game). It took some changes, but we were able to recover and still make the Pac-12 Championship Game. However, it is also possible that this year turns into another 2014. Even 2014 though, we were able to recover that year and stun UCLA, and win 4 in a row to close a season.
Personally, I didn't think we were going to win the Pac-12 North this year, even prior to ND and Utah, because winning at Husky Stadium is a really tall order (even if they don't look all that spectacular). I am certainly not saying it is likely, but the team is still potentially set up to accomplish some of those goals (even if it is going to take a lot of work, and much better play between now and November to ensure that we get that chance at Husky Stadium).
Regarding the conference record, while we cannot take anyone on the schedule for granted, I am going to go out on a limb and say we beat Oregon State at home, and win at UCLA. That would give us at least 6 wins (so bowl eligibility), and 4 conference wins (>= .500 conference record). That may be well below the level we have become accustomed to since 2010, but I cannot realistically, as bad we looked tonight, see us not at least clearing those two bars, with the wins we already have banked.
(10-06-2018, 11:47 PM)Austroturf Wrote: How embarrassing. This has to be one of the absolute low points in the Shaw era. Getting blown out at home by an average Utah team! At least when UW blew us out in 2016, they did so in their own stadium and went on to the CFP that year.
I need a new hobby.
Eh, tonight was tough, but we also got blown out similarly against an average/slightly above average Wazzu team in 2016 at home (also in a 7:30 night game, lost 42-16). Different styles between Utah and Wazzu, but similar in terms of outcome/flow of game. We also lost homecoming in 2016 to Colorado 10-5, where we technically weren't blown out, but we also looked very inept. And despite those two performances, 2016 still ended with 10 wins, a bowl win, wins over SC, Cal and UCLA (so Kings of California), a trouncing of Oregon, and six straight wins to end the season.
Just for the record, the 2014 team closed the season with three straight wins, not four: Cal, UCLA and Maryland (in the Foster Farms Bowl). That year, we had an excellent defense that kept us in most games (even the Oregon game until the fourth quarter), but could not generate points. Hogan was struggling due to an inept OL and his own personal issues (father terminally ill), but came on strong at the end of the year (at a time the OL also started playing well. Funny how that works). It was an 8-5 season that stood 5-5 after a 2OT loss to Utah (again at home).
In 2016, we also had OL issues, plus a QB quandary and an injured McCaffrey. The final six games we won that season were against the weakest teams on the schedule. No such luck this year, as Washington and WSU loom on the schedule, and even Cal and ASU pose threats as we have to play in their backyards. The only sure win I see is OSU at home, but after the egg we laid yesterday, I wouldn't bet on it.
Last night's game was not tough. Tough would have been clawing tooth and nail with an inspired Utah team and losing on a last second FG or in OT: something like our loss to the Utes in SLC back in 2013. That was tough. Last night was downright embarrassing and an indictment of where this program stands. Last year, we lost early to a very good USC team in the Coliseum and, against the backdrop of Chryst's worst collegiate performance, to a pretty solid SDSU team in San Diego. It was clear that the 2017 team had issues, and nowhere more prominently than at QB. We were heading for our 3rd straight loss against UCLA when Chryst got injured, and Costello came in to save the day. It came too slowly, but Shaw finally entrusted the team to Costello, and we got big wins over UW and Notre Dame and a northern division title. What big change can we make this year? We have a capable Costello under center; we have an excellent receiving corps; we had an all-world tailback before he was reinjured; we are supposed to have a monster O-line that just hasn't managed to gel; our defense showed promise in the early part of the season, but now seems to be coming unglued. I hope Shaw finds the reset button, because this season threatens to founder in the second half. Not feeling very optimistic right now. I will be happy to be proven wrong; but yesterday's game has me thinking 6-6 or 7-5. And considering that the Oregon game was also nearly an L, we are very fortunate to be 4-2 right now.
(10-07-2018, 01:16 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I do wonder how much the complexion of the game changes if we scored a touchdown instead of giving up a pick-6. We might go into the second half down only 17-14 instead of 24-7, and we could have conceiveably headed into the fourth quarter up 8 instead of down 6.Good point. Often, early mistakes can be back breakers and set the momentum for the game. Still, we managed to get back to 27-21 with an entire quarter to play. Should have been possible to claw our way to a victory. But two more turnovers (fumbles!) sealed the deal. No words for the shoddy execution down the stretch. And that missed sack that led to a TD. Unbelievable. Just hurts to think about it.
Would we still have collapsed in the fourth quarter? Would it have been more painful because we had the lead, or would we have played differently, not trying to do too much because we were behind.
Well, woulda coulda shoulda. I give a lot of credit to Utah for taking advantage of opportunities and playing a clean game. But I wonder how it would have gone had we not shot our selves in the foot.
BC
RE: Utah game thread - JPR36 - 10-07-2018
I never thought we were going to beat the Huskies in Seattle, but I thought we had a chance of winning the North if we could win the rest of our conference games, because I felt (and still do) Washington might lose to the Ducks in Eugene and one other on the road.
With the loss to Utah, of course, that has gone out the window.
RE: Utah game thread - 81alum - 10-07-2018
(10-06-2018, 11:47 PM)Austroturf Wrote: I need a new hobby.How about soccer, basketball, or volleyball?
RE: Utah game thread - Austroturf - 10-07-2018
(10-07-2018, 06:00 AM)81alum Wrote:(10-06-2018, 11:47 PM)Austroturf Wrote: I need a new hobby.How about soccer, basketball, or volleyball?
Good suggestions. Alligator-wrestling also comes to mind.
RE: Utah game thread - winflop - 10-07-2018
For the fifth time in six weeks, it took a full 30 minutes for the team to wake up - U$C being the lone exception. It's just flat out unacceptable that the coaches don't have these kids ready to play from the opening kickoff and that it takes them a full half to make necessary adjustments.
Turnovers killed us, and I'm sure nobody feels worse about the two first half picks than KJ. He's barely 21 years old and hasn't even started for a full season. Not gonna put this on him he also made some great throws tonight. The passing game overall was the only bright spot. Utah had to send 6 or 7 to get pressure on Costello, which makes me wonder - WHY DON'T WE DO THAT MORE OFTEN??? We have one of the best pairs of corners out there.
I didn't expect much out of the run game - our run blocking stinks, Love was out, and Utah's really good at run D.
The defense sucked - no two ways about it. The problem with bend don't break is that it means they spend extra time on the field, and that hurts in the second half. I see it as a significant contributor to the fourth quarter meltdowns the last two weeks. Also, the front 7 can't generate any QB pressure without sending 5+
I still think the coaches remain unwilling to accept the identity of this team - pass-first on offense, and needing to be much more aggressive on defense. How many more first halves of pounding their heads against a wall is it going to take them to figure it out??? If they don't, there are at least two more losses on the schedule and the best we will see this year is another Amazing Chicken Bowl.
RE: Utah game thread - Goose - 10-07-2018
(10-07-2018, 06:35 AM)winflop Wrote: I still think the coaches remain unwilling to accept the identity of this team - pass-first on offense,Can't agree with you there. The coaches clearly realize it. That is why we pass so much. They don't like it, but they know it. They also know that we have to run the ball, or at least try to do so. If we go too pass-heavy, we will get blitzed to death. We saw that in this game. The coaches also know that our receivers often don't actually get "open". We throw to a covered receiver and rely on the receiver winning the battle. That certainly isn't optimal for a "pass first" team. If the QB misses the target by even a little, an interception is the likely result. Throwing into double coverage will also do that. We may be a pass-first team, but we aren't really designed to be that. As a result, it is a bit of a kludge when we do it. Sometimes, it works. But not all the time. Probably our only option right now, but that simply means we aren't very good no matter what we do.
Quote:and needing to be much more aggressive on defense.
If you have players that are tackling challenged, I suggest that a high-risk defensive strategy is going to result in even worse results. Utah, up to last night, didn't do much on offense. Our defense made them look good because we got beat at the LOS and missed tackles we should have made. A more attacking approach just makes it easier for them to do that. Granted, we give up a lot of underneath stuff. However, we are relying on the idea that we need just one bad play in a set of downs to force a punt. We usually get that. However, we then blow the next play by not tackling somebody/not covering somebody. A more attacking style will just make those errors more costly.
Last night, the offense made the defense's life real hard by giving up turnovers. When you turn the ball over four times, the defense has challenges in not wearing down, If that doesn't happen, and if the offense stays on the field, the defense was "good enough", which is the best we can hope for.
RE: Utah game thread - martyup - 10-07-2018
(10-07-2018, 01:16 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I do wonder how much the complexion of the game changes if we scored a touchdown instead of giving up a pick-6. We might go into the second half down only 17-14 instead of 24-7, and we could have conceiveably headed into the fourth quarter up 8 instead of down 6.
Would we still have collapsed in the fourth quarter? Would it have been more painful because we had the lead, or would we have played differently, not trying to do too much because we were behind.
Well, woulda coulda shoulda. I give a lot of credit to Utah for taking advantage of opportunities and playing a clean game. But I wonder how it would have gone had we not shot our selves in the foot.
BC
At the start of the 4th quarter, I really thought that we were going to win the game going away. We seemed to have found our stride on offense and our D was stopping UT. We outscored them 14-3 in the 3rd and were were only down by 6. But . . . alas . . .
RE: Utah game thread - Austroturf - 10-07-2018
(10-07-2018, 01:39 PM)martyup Wrote:(10-07-2018, 01:16 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I do wonder how much the complexion of the game changes if we scored a touchdown instead of giving up a pick-6. We might go into the second half down only 17-14 instead of 24-7, and we could have conceiveably headed into the fourth quarter up 8 instead of down 6.
Would we still have collapsed in the fourth quarter? Would it have been more painful because we had the lead, or would we have played differently, not trying to do too much because we were behind.
Well, woulda coulda shoulda. I give a lot of credit to Utah for taking advantage of opportunities and playing a clean game. But I wonder how it would have gone had we not shot our selves in the foot.
BC
At the start of the 4th quarter, I really thought that we were going to win the game going away. We seemed to have found our stride on offense and our D was stopping UT. We outscored them 14-3 in the 3rd and were were only down by 6. But . . . alas . . .
Two fumbles and a missed sack will have that negative effect on a quarter. Yes, mega-alas....
RE: Utah game thread - doubledub - 10-07-2018
(10-06-2018, 08:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote:Utah gets a little credit, but the real problem was the defensive play call on the next to last play (before the kicked FG). They had the DBs back defending the hail mary...why would they leave the entire underneath of the field open? Utah had a time out so they could simply run receivers out 10-15 yards, catch it, call time out and kick the FG - just like they did. It was third down...why did we think they were going to throw a hail mary? Bad, bad, bad(10-06-2018, 08:56 PM)stupac2 Wrote: I cannot believe they managed to steal three points there...
The PI seemed questionable from my seat, but I was on the other side of the field.
Gotta credit Utah for their two minute drill.
BC
RE: Utah game thread - winflop - 10-07-2018
(10-07-2018, 01:39 PM)martyup Wrote: At the start of the 4th quarter, I really thought that we were going to win the game going away. We seemed to have found our stride on offense and our D was stopping UT. We outscored them 14-3 in the 3rd and were were only down by 6. But . . . alas . . .
Different week, same story. Bend don't break defense means too many minutes on the field. In past successful years, our defense got off the field before the opponent crossed midfield a LOT more often.
RE: Utah game thread - Goose - 10-07-2018
(10-07-2018, 08:48 PM)winflop Wrote: Different week, same story. Bend don't break defense means too many minutes on the field. In past successful years, our defense got off the field before the opponent crossed midfield a LOT more often.True. Bend but don't break works only if the defense can reliably execute and the other team's offense makes mistakes. In past years, our defense could reliably execute. This year, it makes too many mistakes (mostly missed tackles) that leave us on the field. In fairness, in past years, our offense kept the other team's offense off the field. That gave our defense more time to rest and focus on NOT screwing up. Not this year.
RE: Utah game thread - winflop - 10-07-2018
And that goes right back to our inability to run the ball. Can't control clock and keep the D off the field without it. But we are a 6-6 team if we try to be something we're not.
RE: Utah game thread - BostonCard - 10-08-2018
(10-07-2018, 01:59 PM)ewhitlock Wrote:(10-06-2018, 08:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote:Utah gets a little credit, but the real problem was the defensive play call on the next to last play (before the kicked FG). They had the DBs back defending the hail mary...why would they leave the entire underneath of the field open? Utah had a time out so they could simply run receivers out 10-15 yards, catch it, call time out and kick the FG - just like they did. It was third down...why did we think they were going to throw a hail mary? Bad, bad, bad(10-06-2018, 08:56 PM)stupac2 Wrote: I cannot believe they managed to steal three points there...
The PI seemed questionable from my seat, but I was on the other side of the field.
Gotta credit Utah for their two minute drill.
BC
They were defending the last play instead of the next one. They almost got beat by a deep ball Hail Mary, so on the next play they lined up to prevent exactly that. That's on our coaches for not recognizing the situation and not defending the intermediate pass that allowed for a field goal try, but it was also smart of the Utah coaches to take what we gave them.
BC