The CardBoard
OK, one bad thing - 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, one bad thing (/thread-14371.html)


OK, one bad thing - washingtonismoney - 09-23-2017

Defense gave up ... 595 yards. That's the second time in four games it's given up 600 yards. That's NOT GOOD (duh). There's nothing quite like it in recent Stanford annals. While I'll concede losing Solomon Thomas is a big deal, the utter haplessness of the defense is eyebrow-raising.

Re: OK, one bad thing - amartinsu13 - 09-23-2017

And it was supposed to be a strength for us this season.

Just goes to show how important solid DL play is.  Good DL pressure = everyone else plays better.

Not saying it's just on the DL of course.  DBs being thought of as the top group in the conference is laughable in hindsight.  None of these guys look NFL ready.  They all better stay another year.

Re: OK, one bad thing - CowboyIndian - 09-23-2017

C'mon guys....get a grip. Yards...not points. That's one of the best offenses in the country which we held below their scoring average. We got good pressure on Rosen and got several turnovers (haven't seen stats).

Re: OK, one bad thing - indiancardinal - 09-24-2017

There was no way we were going to stop Rosen and his receivers from getting their yards.

However the key take away for this defensive effort was that they kept attacking the ball.
Many loose balls popping out. 3 TOS - 3 extra possessions... Difference in the game.

Edit: How could I forget the blocked Field goal as well

Re: OK, one bad thing - Langdude - 09-24-2017

Felt like we got more pressure on Rosen than we did on Darnold.

-m.

Re: OK, one bad thing - BostonCard - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 12:06 AM)indiancardinal link Wrote:There was no way we were going to stop Rosen and his receivers from getting their yards.

However the key take away for this defensive effort was that they kept attacking the ball.
Many loose balls popping out. 3 TOS - 3 extra possessions... Difference in the game.

Edit: How could I forget the blocked Field goal as well

Four turnovers.  Two fumbles and two interceptions.

bC

Re: OK, one bad thing - BostonCard - 09-24-2017

(09-23-2017, 11:41 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Defense gave up ... 595 yards. That's the second time in four games it's given up 600 yards. That's NOT GOOD (duh). There's nothing quite like it in recent Stanford annals. While I'll concede losing Solomon Thomas is a big deal, the utter haplessness of the defense is eyebrow-raising.

I agree that the defense is a concern going forward, especially since UCLA is a one dimensional team.  However, in the defense’s defense...
1) Rosen
2) they did force 4 turnovers
3) about 100 of those yards were with the game out of reach.
4). They were putting more pressure on Rosen than they had against Darnold or the SDSU QB.
5) our top cornerback was out most of the second half with a phantom tar getting penalty.
5) Rosen made some amazing plays.  Several times we had him dead to rights and he avoided the sack.

Still... the D gave up too many chunks of yardage.  ASU can score.  And Utah has a balanced offense... so we will need a defensive awakening.

BC

Re: OK, one bad thing - BostonCard - 09-24-2017

Also, we held UCLA to 3/12 on third down (but couldn’t stop them on fourth down).

BC

Re: OK, one bad thing - BostonCard - 09-24-2017

If we want to get nit picky... 12 penalties is uncharacteristically not good.  Then again, UCLA still out penalized us.

BC

Re: OK, one bad thing - indiancardinal - 09-24-2017

Refs were getting paid by the flag :P

Seriously though I think the PAC-12 officiating higher ups were probably particularly sensitive about this matchup given all the heat that the PAC 12 office took after the targeting non-call last year. Other random speculation on my part is whether UCLA has been unofficially tagged for undisciplined play and hence the higher level of scrutiny and calls for targeting, unsportsmanlike conduct etc. unfortunately we lose Holder for the 1st half of the ASU game next week.

Also it seems obvious now after Pickett's tweet that UCLA players have no idea what the rules regarding safe play are. Mora must be held accountable.

Re: OK, one bad thing - winflop - 09-24-2017

The call on both Holder was complete and total BS. I could see in the speed and heat of the moment Edwards getting a flag that was a vicious hit on a receiver over the middle, but the flag should have been picked up after review.

Holder's call is what needs to change most about the targeting rule. The helmet-to-helmet contact was a) initiated by the receiver, and b) the receiver lowered his head to hit Holder's. That either needs to be not targeting or it needs to be targeting on the offensive player, not the defender.

What I fail to understand is why a flag can't be picked up after review. If it's targeting, it's a penalty and an ejection. If it's not targeting, there's no penalty so pick up the damn flag!

Re: OK, one bad thing - CTcard - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 04:47 AM)winflop link Wrote:The call on both Holder was complete and total BS. I could see in the speed and heat of the moment Edwards getting a flag that was a vicious hit on a receiver over the middle, but the flag should have been picked up after review.

...

What I fail to understand is why a flag can't be picked up after review. If it's targeting, it's a penalty and an ejection. If it's not targeting, there's no penalty so pick up the damn flag!

The flag on Edwards was picked up upon review.

Re: OK, one bad thing - winflop - 09-24-2017

I thought the 15 yard penalty was still assessed but Edwards was not ejected

Re: OK, one bad thing - BostonCard - 09-24-2017

That was the old rule.  But it was amended so that the targeting review can overturn the penalty as well as the ejection.

The radio guys were incredulous that Holder would be called for targeting on that play.

BC

Re: OK, one bad thing - Spiny_Norman - 09-24-2017

Shaw's comments on the targeting calls.  Summary - "I'm not going to complain at all."

Quote: "If there's any doubt at all, for the most part we should throw a flag and send it upstairs," said Shaw. "Let's take a look at it and make the right decisions. I didn't get a very close-up look at any of those to say whether I agree or disagree, but we should always operate with caution and error on the side of it as a penalty.

"We teach it and coach as well as anybody, I believe, in America. And we had a couple guys that dipped their heads today. If you dip your head and go in head first, you're going to get penalized. So I'm not going to complain at all. We have to take the head out of contact."

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2017/9/24/football-sundays-with-soltau.aspx

Re: OK, one bad thing - Beeg_Dawg - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 04:47 AM)winflop link Wrote:The call on both Holder was complete and total BS. I could see in the speed and heat of the moment Edwards getting a flag that was a vicious hit on a receiver over the middle, but the flag should have been picked up after review.

Holder's call is what needs to change most about the targeting rule. The helmet-to-helmet contact was a) initiated by the receiver, and b) the receiver lowered his head to hit Holder's. That either needs to be not targeting or it needs to be targeting on the offensive player, not the defender.

What I fail to understand is why a flag can't be picked up after review. If it's targeting, it's a penalty and an ejection. If it's not targeting, there's no penalty so pick up the damn flag!

Agree 100%.  You want a big hitter out of the game, the ball carrier simply drops his head a few inches on a tackle.  Holder came in low and the UCLA lowered his head.  Maybe the official review was Holder lead with his helmet.  I didn't see it that way.