Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread)

Ok, time for next to start (CU 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: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) (/thread-18472.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RE: lex24 - Austroturf - 11-09-2019

(11-09-2019, 05:23 PM)lex24 Wrote: Amazing game. Not sure if Stanford ever had close to that kind of talent. Maybe 2010 and 2011 that’s it

quote="Austroturf" pid='260337' dateline='1573345260']
I have been watching Alabama-LSU. This is simply a different world of football. Some years ago, Stanford fielded teams that might have given the Tide and the Tigers a run for their money. The current state of Stanford football is embarrassing.

[/quote]

And maybe 2015 at the end of the season. Today, we would be a grease spot after facing one of those teams.

(11-09-2019, 05:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The crazy thing is that the last time LSU and Alabama met when undefeated in the regular season, the game ended 9-6. Today, it was 46-41.

BC

True. Both teams have changed a lot since those days, and one of them has the same coach.

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - winflop - 11-09-2019

Looks like I made the right decision to go play golf today, even if I totally sucked. I couldn't possibly have been as bad as that offense. The only mistake I made was to listen to the game between shots.

This was as bad as the Jack West game. A top to bottom failure on the offense

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - Goose - 11-09-2019

Today's loss is, IMHO, totally on the coaching staff. The defense had lots of issues, but they held Colorado to 16 points. KJ was not right. The coaches should have known that pregame, and certainly known it after the first quarter. We had some success running the ball. Given that situation, we should have just kept running the ball. That is who we are supposed to be. Maybe that won't work if the game is a track meet. This one wasn't. If the run works, eventually we will be able to throw short passes that don't tax KJ too much. Not doing that required KJ to do things he couldn't do today. Yes, as I have pointed out here many times, our receivers don't get open much. With a healthy KJ, maybe we can survive that. Yes, Fisk got hurt. So what? We are still in better shape doing what could work than repeating what can't. Run the GD ball! Scarlett having a total of 13 carries in a low scoring game is absurd.

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - BostonCard - 11-09-2019

Costello wasn’t perfect, and certainly wasn’t as good as he is capable, but his line 18/29 (62%) for 245 yards 8.4 ypa, 1 TD and 1 INT was hardly What doomed us. We had 25 carries and 29 passes, so while we could have run it more, the ratio wasn’t that bad.

For what it is worth, we outgained Colorado and had more yards per pass and yards per carry than the buffs. Since there was no difference in turnovers, it really came down to a few things. First, we were uncharacteristically more penalized today, and the penalties were costly. Secondly, we were bad converting third down and defending third and fourth down. We had some bad luck with catches out of bounds (Wilson, for example was in bounds but that play wasn’t reviewed; Fehoko’s touchdown was reviewed and while I can’t really complain about the call, it shows that it’s a game of inches.) and, while Shaw shouldn’t have thrown his kicker (who has done well filling in, considering) under the bus, he did miss a maleable field goal.

Now, of course, the issue is that Colorado is not a very good team, and for the game to be close enough that these small things made the difference says a lot about the issues our team is facing. A good Stanford team should have been able to beat Colorado handily, but we don’t have a good Stanford team, and we gave them a chance to kick the winning field goal as time expired.

BC

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - slide - 11-09-2019

surprised Shaw ate both timeouts at the end of the game and did not use at least one of them to try to ice Colorado's backup kicker.

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - martyup - 11-09-2019

I'm going to have to disagree with the Fehoko overruled TD catch. The freeze frame replay clearly showed his toe down in bounds while his heel was up in the air. That was a bad call and it cost us 4 points in a 3 point loss.

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - JohnR34231 - 11-09-2019

(11-09-2019, 08:55 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Costello wasn’t perfect, and certainly wasn’t as good as he is capable, but his line 18/29 (62%) for 245 yards 8.4 ypa, 1 TD and 1 INT was hardly What doomed us. We had 25 carries and 29 passes, so while we could have run it more, the ratio wasn’t that bad.

For what it is worth, we outgained Colorado and had more yards per pass and yards per carry than the buffs. Since there was no difference in turnovers, it really came down to a few things. First, we were uncharacteristically more penalized today, and the penalties were costly. Secondly, we were bad converting third down and defending third and fourth down. We had some bad luck with catches out of bounds (Wilson, for example was in bounds but that play wasn’t reviewed; Fehoko’s touchdown was reviewed and while I can’t really complain about the call, it shows that it’s a game of inches.) and, while Shaw shouldn’t have thrown his kicker (who has done well filling in, considering) under the bus, he did miss a maleable field goal.

Now, of course, the issue is that Colorado is not a very good team, and for the game to be close enough that these small things made the difference says a lot about the issues our team is facing. A good Stanford team should have been able to beat Colorado handily, but we don’t have a good Stanford team, and we gave them a chance to kick the winning field goal as time expired.

BC

Yep, I'm afraid the bottom line is that we just aren't a good team right now. Blame the coaching, injuries, bad luck, recruiting, whatever you wish. The fact remains.

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - qwerty49 - 11-10-2019

(11-09-2019, 04:22 PM)PVTree Wrote: The one on my mind is in our last possession. Tied 13 all. We get 7 yards on first down. I was sure we'd run the ball. We can get 3 yards on 2 rushes I think. Instead, we pass to a covered receiver, incomplete. On third we pass for 2 yards, and we punt. They drive, run the clock down, and kick the winning FG at the whistle...what we used to do.

That was the game right there, and that 2nd down incomplete was so typical Costello, forcing it to Parkinson who simply wasn’t open. If Shawvita had no faith in our run game on 2nd and 3, they must have forgotten that it was a Jones run on 1st down that got us there. 7 minutes left and I think even before 3rd down they were counting on getting the ball back.

Remember when people used to say Shaw was still thinking like an NFL coach? (FGs are gimmes, you only need 2 minutes to move the length of the field, etc) And not realizing he doesn’t have NFL personnel?

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - Goose - 11-10-2019

(11-09-2019, 08:55 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Costello wasn’t perfect, and certainly wasn’t as good as he is capable, but his line 18/29 (62%) for 245 yards 8.4 ypa, 1 TD and 1 INT was hardly What doomed us. We had 25 carries and 29 passes, so while we could have run it more, the ratio wasn’t that bad.

BC, I can't agree. Stanford is not a good team right now. Colorado is not a good team right now. However, Stanford is supposed to be a more physical team. We had success running the ball. That keeps our defense off the field. It also demoralizes the opponent when they know what is coming and can't stop it. KJ is a winning QB when he completes 65% of his passes. He is much more able to do that when the opponent is playing the run. Stanford believed, in it's heart, that we were the "better" team, more talented, more physical. We didn't try to prove that. Big mistake.

Colorado made 24 first downs to our 15. Colorado TOP was 32:07 to our 27:53. We had more yards, but many fewer first downs. That is a familiar pattern from Stanford's "bad old days" when we didn't really have a running game. If we win the TOP battle, preferably by a lot, our defense is "OK". Not great, but OK. If we don't win the TOP battle, they wear down and can't stop the final drive for the field goal. Seen that movie a lot. Didn't like it.

While our passing completion percentage is not horrible, we were not efficient. We didn't finish drives. If we run the ball with success, we will finish drives. Colorado has a statistically weak run defense and a statistically even weaker pass defense. However, KJ was off. The announcers even noted he was throwing ducks. Under those circumstances, we should emphasize the part of our game that is at full strength, the run. While it is obviously not a apples and apples, that is exactly what Cal did to WSU. They ran 34 times and passed 24 times. In that mix, Modster, who isn't exactly known as a great passer, completed 66% of his passes.

In the past, Shaw has been criticized for stubbornly trying to run when it was ineffective. In this game, he should have stubbornly continued to run until it was ineffective. If that happens, mix in passes. If it doesn't, continue to run the ball. That is what you do to a team you think you should beat.

Quote:Now, of course, the issue is that Colorado is not a very good team, and for the game to be close enough that these small things made the difference says a lot about the issues our team is facing. A good Stanford team should have been able to beat Colorado handily, but we don’t have a good Stanford team, and we gave them a chance to kick the winning field goal as time expired.

BC

They had the chance to kick that field goal because we failed to make a first down having second and three after a first down run. Two passes. If we hold the ball on a long field goal drive, we win. If we just take up significantly more time, at worst we get overtime. If we run the ball with conviction the whole game, we aren't even at this point, IMHO.

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - Mick - 11-10-2019

(11-09-2019, 04:21 PM)Phogge Wrote: In a crappy conference Stanford is headed down. Notre Dame will destroy this team. Evan Weaver and pals could pitch a shutout. Of course Cal will be hard pressed to score.

Notre Dame just beat another 4-5 team, Duke, by 31 points. Notre Dame is ranked #15 and would dearly like to (a) see the Top 10 again and (b) beat the snot out of Stanford to score recruiting points. They won't let up. Notre Dame by 35...at least.

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - winflop - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 09:50 AM)Goose Wrote: They had the chance to kick that field goal because we failed to make a first down having second and three after a first down run. Two passes. If we hold the ball on a long field goal drive, we win. If we just take up significantly more time, at worst we get overtime. If we run the ball with conviction the whole game, we aren't even at this point, IMHO.

Yep and one of our horribly overhyped receivers runs a two-yard out on 3rd & 3...

But no one play cost Stanford that game. It was a total program failure on offense from Shaw through Pritchard & the position coaches to KJ, the OL, and every player who took a snap on offense. The worst offensive performance since IdiotFace in 2006, the only difference being we didn't quick kick.

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - Goose - 11-10-2019

(11-10-2019, 08:07 PM)winflop Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:50 AM)Goose Wrote: They had the chance to kick that field goal because we failed to make a first down having second and three after a first down run. Two passes. If we hold the ball on a long field goal drive, we win. If we just take up significantly more time, at worst we get overtime. If we run the ball with conviction the whole game, we aren't even at this point, IMHO.

Yep and one of our horribly overhyped receivers runs a two-yard out on 3rd & 3...

But no one play cost Stanford that game.

For sure no one play cost us the game. Any one of several plays executed better and we win.

Quote:It was a total program failure on offense from Shaw through Pritchard & the position coaches to KJ, the OL, and every player who took a snap on offense. The worst offensive performance since IdiotFace in 2006, the only difference being we didn't quick kick.

I can't quite go with you there. I have no way to know how to apportion the "blame". At the end of the day, it is all on the head coach, because that is how it works, even if he is not directly responsible. We didn't come ready to play well enough to win. I believe that there is plenty of blame to go around, but I can't assign it. I DO think we would have been better advised to attack them on the ground until they demonstrated that wouldn't work. What has to happen now is that we get ready to beat WSU. Trite, I know, but that is the only way forward.

lex24 - lex24 - 11-10-2019

Funny, I thought they should have attacked more downfield. Colorado has an awful pass defense. Just goes to show... Agree completely on that last drive. Gain 7 on first running then threw twice. Why? And a roll out on third. I truly can’t ever remember Costello effectively rolling out. Anyway you slice it - comes up bad.

quote="Goose" pid='260508' dateline='1573447611']

(11-10-2019, 08:07 PM)winflop Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:50 AM)Goose Wrote: They had the chance to kick that field goal because we failed to make a first down having second and three after a first down run. Two passes. If we hold the ball on a long field goal drive, we win. If we just take up significantly more time, at worst we get overtime. If we run the ball with conviction the whole game, we aren't even at this point, IMHO.

Yep and one of our horribly overhyped receivers runs a two-yard out on 3rd & 3...

But no one play cost Stanford that game.

For sure no one play cost us the game. Any one of several plays executed better and we win.

Quote:It was a total program failure on offense from Shaw through Pritchard & the position coaches to KJ, the OL, and every player who took a snap on offense. The worst offensive performance since IdiotFace in 2006, the only difference being we didn't quick kick.

RE: lex24 - Goose - 11-11-2019

(11-10-2019, 10:14 PM)lex24 Wrote: Funny, I thought they should have attacked more downfield. Colorado has an awful pass defense. Just goes to show...

Yep, normally that would be the way to go. In this game however, KJ was having real problems getting the ball where he wanted it to be. He would throw some good balls, and then throw off-target a couple of times. One pass he completed to Wilson wobbled so much I thought for sure it would fall out of the air. He wasn't terrible, but he was clearly "off". That is one reason we had lots of yards but few first downs. We were unable to sustain drives. We had other problems as well, for sure, but we seemed to be able to run the ball pretty well.

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - martyup - 11-11-2019

Our offense was worse against UCLA.

RE: lex24 - JJJ - 11-11-2019

(11-11-2019, 09:11 AM)Goose Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 10:14 PM)lex24 Wrote: Funny, I thought they should have attacked more downfield. Colorado has an awful pass defense. Just goes to show...
Yep, normally that would be the way to go. In this game however, KJ was having real problems getting the ball where he wanted it to be. He would throw some good balls, and then throw off-target a couple of times. One pass he completed to Wilson wobbled so much I thought for sure it would fall out of the air. He wasn't terrible, but he was clearly "off". That is one reason we had lots of yards but few first downs. We were unable to sustain drives. We had other problems as well, for sure, but we seemed to be able to run the ball pretty well.

Don't know if you guys listened to Troy's Treecast, where he referenced not shaking KJ's hand and that he couldn't grip a golf club. That didn't fill me with confidence.

RE: Ok, time for next to start (CU game thread) - BostonCard - 11-11-2019

(11-11-2019, 03:26 PM)martyup Wrote: Our offense was worse against UCLA.

Perhaps it is a bad sign, but Saturday's 372 yards of total offense were the third most this season, behind only the games against Washington and Arizona, and more than we had in wins against Northwestern and Oregon State. We had 6.9 yards per play, which were easily the most we had all season (no doubt somwhat skewed by the 79 yard touchdown pass); only games against Oregon State, Arizona, and Washington did we break 6 yards per play.

To me the stat of the game is 3/10, which was our third down conversion percentage. That was a season low, in a season where our third down conversion percentage has stunk (39% for the season, which is the second worst year since 2009; only 2012, at 38% has been worse). Defensively, Colorado converted 6/14 third downs, and our overall defensive conversion percentage has been 44% for the year. It is the worst defensive third down conversion percentage since 2009.

Put together an inability to convert third downs (either because we leave ourselves in third and long or because we stink at converting them) and an inability to prevent other teams from converting third downs, and it isn't much of a surprise why we've struggled this year.

BC

(2009 is how far back cfbstats goes; I was not cherry picking).