The CardBoard
Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - 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: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. (/thread-14682.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - cardcrimson - 10-26-2017

Just awful coaching. Terrible preparation. Terrible play calling. Stubbornness beyond stubborn to keep Chryst in the game. But he'll say, I had confidence and we won the game. . .. .

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - martyup - 10-26-2017

Remember he gave the players time off last week to socialize.  Maybe not a good strategy for the bye week.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - Mick - 10-26-2017

Good defense.  Bad everything else.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - RuralFan - 10-26-2017

What has Costello done to so antagonize Shaw?

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - DC 86 - 10-26-2017

(10-26-2017, 09:28 PM)Mick link Wrote:Good defense.  Bad everything else.

And good punting.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - Mick - 10-26-2017

(10-26-2017, 09:29 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=17794.msg208432#msg208432 date=1509078517]
Good defense.  Bad everything else.

And good punting.
[/quote]

Good defense and good punting.  Bad everything else.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - OutsiderFan - 10-26-2017

There is no way in hell Chryst and the offense can play this way next week and survive.

They had a gigantic margin for error tonight, and almost used it all up.  Next week there will be virtually zero margin for error.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - Hey - 10-26-2017

(10-26-2017, 09:29 PM)RuralFan link Wrote:What has Costello done to so antagonize Shaw?
My thoughts as well.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - washingtonismoney - 10-26-2017

(10-26-2017, 09:56 PM)Big Brother link Wrote:[quote author=RuralFan link=topic=17794.msg208435#msg208435 date=1509078555]
What has Costello done to so antagonize Shaw?
My thoughts as well.
[/quote]

Cynically, I wonder whether Shaw knows every Stanford fan wants Costello and therefore won't switch to him as a way of proving his expertise.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - teejers1 - 10-26-2017

One theory I heard re: Shaw's decision making on Chryst vs. Costello:  think Rosen (on a smaller scale, but still . . . ).

At this point, I'd buy just about anything on this mystifying front.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - lex24 - 10-26-2017

Personally I think that’s far fetched. It’s the “s-word”. 

(10-26-2017, 10:40 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:One theory I heard re: Shaw's decision making on Chryst vs. Costello:  think Rosen (on a smaller scale, but still . . . ).

At this point, I'd buy just about anything on this mystifying front.


Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - winflop - 10-27-2017

(10-26-2017, 09:28 PM)Mick link Wrote:Good defense.  Bad everything else.

A defense that gave Oregon St three first downs by penalty in the second half plus a roughing the punter penalty on Reid which I also count. Another targeting call that will cost Alfieri the first half in Pullman.

Other than Phillips who is an absolute monster I will not give this defense a lot of credit for last night.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - Mick - 10-27-2017

(10-27-2017, 03:35 AM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=17794.msg208432#msg208432 date=1509078517]
Good defense.  Bad everything else.

A defense that gave Oregon St three first downs by penalty in the second half plus a roughing the punter penalty on Reid which I also count. Another targeting call that will cost Alfieri the first half in Pullman.

Other than Phillips who is an absolute monster I will not give this defense a lot of credit for last night.
[/quote]

Really?  They caused three turnovers, two fumbles and an interception.  Held OSU's running game to a 3.4 average and their QB had a 45.5 QBR.  OSU scored 14 points, amid some pretty questionable calls and non-calls.

I'd say our defense did damn good.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - stupac2 - 10-27-2017

(10-27-2017, 06:26 AM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=17794.msg208596#msg208596 date=1509100559]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17794.msg208432#msg208432 date=1509078517]
Good defense.  Bad everything else.

A defense that gave Oregon St three first downs by penalty in the second half plus a roughing the punter penalty on Reid which I also count. Another targeting call that will cost Alfieri the first half in Pullman.

Other than Phillips who is an absolute monster I will not give this defense a lot of credit for last night.
[/quote]

Really?  They caused three turnovers, two fumbles and an interception.  Held OSU's running game to a 3.4 average and their QB had a 45.5 QBR.  OSU scored 14 points, amid some pretty questionable calls and non-calls.

I'd say our defense did damn good.
[/quote]

IIRC neither of those fumble recoveries were particularly good defensive plays, just being in the right spot after ORST screwed up.

But regardless, you can't give them credit for a few turnovers when they were also responsible for boneheaded penalties that directly lead to all of ORST's points.

One of the things I find odd about the general population of this board is how quick everyone is to criticize the offense, given how reluctant they seem to be to criticize the defense. Both sides of the ball stunk it up last night, it just happened that our best player was on defense. That doesn't excuse the other 10 guys who were busy flailing around on tackles and committing idiotic penalties.

Both sides of the ball did just enough to win. Neither played well.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - washingtonismoney - 10-27-2017

While I thought the defense had some troubling plays, its overall performance wasn't too bad, I thought. Oregon State only had 4.1 yards per play; oddsmakers apparently expected the Beavers to score 17.5 points, so 14 points allowed is slight overperformance. So while there's certainly room for criticism of the defense, I'd say it did its job last night. Focusing on the offense is entirely appropriate.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - stupac2 - 10-27-2017

(10-27-2017, 08:36 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:While I thought the defense had some troubling plays, its overall performance wasn't too bad, I thought. Oregon State only had 4.1 yards per play; oddsmakers apparently expected the Beavers to score 17.5 points, so 14 points allowed is slight overperformance. So while there's certainly room for criticism of the defense, I'd say it did its job last night. Focusing on the offense is entirely appropriate.

I mean, sure, but the only reason ORST scored at all was a bunch of dumb penalties on our defenders. We missed a slew of tackles. The defense performed better than the offense, but it wasn't good. If you're going to assign blame after a game like that, the offense deserves the majority, but they don't deserve it all.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - cardcrimson - 10-27-2017

(10-27-2017, 08:49 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17794.msg208642#msg208642 date=1509118590]While I thought the defense had some troubling plays, its overall performance wasn't too bad, I thought. Oregon State only had 4.1 yards per play; oddsmakers apparently expected the Beavers to score 17.5 points, so 14 points allowed is slight overperformance. So while there's certainly room for criticism of the defense, I'd say it did its job last night. Focusing on the offense is entirely appropriate.

I mean, sure, but the only reason ORST scored at all was a bunch of dumb penalties on our defenders. We missed a slew of tackles. The defense performed better than the offense, but it wasn't good. If you're going to assign blame after a game like that, the offense deserves the majority, but they don't deserve it all.
[/quote]

Going into the game, if someone had said Nall would be held to 84 yards and the OSUquarterback would have a QBR of 44, all of us would have thought we'd win easily. Aside from some mind blowing, brain cramp, penalties, the defense did play well.

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - Farm93 - 10-27-2017

(10-26-2017, 10:40 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:One theory I heard re: Shaw's decision making on Chryst vs. Costello:  think Rosen (on a smaller scale, but still . . . ).

At this point, I'd buy just about anything on this mystifying front.
I believe the Stanford offense prioritizes getting into the right play.  I can only guess that Chryst is better at reading the defense and getting Stanford into the right play.  A bit frustrating because it looks like Chryst then can't execute that play crisply, but I am inclined to believe he is scoring better on pre-snap reads or some other film study type attributes.  At Stanford Stadium with Love in the backfield I think that might be OK.  Doesn't seem to be working for Chryst or Stanford on the road.

Sadly, the next team for Stanford is very good when they play at home.  :(

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - JohnR34231 - 10-27-2017

(10-27-2017, 09:02 AM)cardcrimson link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17794.msg208655#msg208655 date=1509119376]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17794.msg208642#msg208642 date=1509118590]While I thought the defense had some troubling plays, its overall performance wasn't too bad, I thought. Oregon State only had 4.1 yards per play; oddsmakers apparently expected the Beavers to score 17.5 points, so 14 points allowed is slight overperformance. So while there's certainly room for criticism of the defense, I'd say it did its job last night. Focusing on the offense is entirely appropriate.

I mean, sure, but the only reason ORST scored at all was a bunch of dumb penalties on our defenders. We missed a slew of tackles. The defense performed better than the offense, but it wasn't good. If you're going to assign blame after a game like that, the offense deserves the majority, but they don't deserve it all.
[/quote]

Going into the game, if someone had said Nall would be held to 84 yards and the OSUquarterback would have a QBR of 44, all of us would have thought we'd win easily. Aside from some mind blowing, brain cramp, penalties, the defense did play well.
[/quote]

Yep, it is a little hard to believe that a team which had yet to hold an opponent (including Portland State) to under 30 points could hold us to 15 (and for most of the game three field goals).

Re: Shaw has some s'plaining to do. - washingtonismoney - 10-27-2017

Yeah, I thought the defense could've done better -- but it was a reasonable performance overall. The offense was the bigger underperformer by far.