The CardBoard
Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - 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: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . (/thread-14874.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - teejers1 - 11-12-2017

But I didn't check the board after getting home way late last night and then had to get up crack-o-dawn to coach 6 games of youth basketball all over the Bay Area . . .

Anyway, a few observations:

1.  A most impressive W that Shaw and the players should feel GREAT about.  The physicality of the play on the field was palpable in the stands, yet the Cardinal took a couple haymakers early and went toe-to-toe and bested UW straight up.  [BTW, I hope the Cardinal don't lose too many starters to injury/nicks for next week's Big Game].

2.  Real time, when UW had the short fourth and 1 and was rolling through the Stanford D like $hit through a goose, I stated out loud in Section 131 "I hope the Huskies go for it."  Which seemed crazy at the time because everybody thought UW would get it.  But there was a desperation kicking in, and it felt like Stanford needed a jolt.  Fortunately, the D was stout, stuffed the run, and kept Stanford in the game.  IMO, the biggest play of the game.

3.  The pass down the middle to JJAW was beautiful and looked so easy.  Call me a fan of attacking skinny post and other middle-of-the-field passes. 

4.  Bryce Love.  What can you say?  Warrior. Tough.  Supremely gifted.  I still don't understand why he continually gets thrown to the dogs between the tackles (and takes a beating), but it's hard to argue the ultimate stat line.  And it did appear that TOP had the typical effect on the UW D.

5.  Okereke.  Gargankong night.  A handful of really impactful plays.  Great to see.

6.  Was actually expecting Toner to knock that FG through, but he must have chili-dipped it a bit - he has plenty of leg, but didn't strike it well enough.  Still, the guy was nails on 3 other occasions and he has been terrific all year.

7.  The Stanford D has played really well this season, especially given some roster holes (in particular, the D-Line is not partying in the backfield as the glory teams of yesteryear did).

8.  Bottom bottom line:  a tough, gritty, gutty, physical, and ultimately very rewarding W for the Good Guys. 

Congrats one and all!

P.S.  A little nervous about this week's injury report.

Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - teejers1 - 11-12-2017

But I didn't check the board after getting home way late last night and then had to get up crack-o-dawn to coach 6 games of youth basketball all over the Bay Area . . .

Anyway, a few observations:

1.  A most impressive W that Shaw and the players should feel GREAT about.  The physicality of the play on the field was palpable in the stands, yet the Cardinal took a couple haymakers early and went toe-to-toe and bested UW straight up.  [BTW, I hope the Cardinal don't lose too many starters to injury/nicks for next week's Big Game].

2.  Real time, when UW had the short fourth and 1 and was rolling through the Stanford D like $hit through a goose, I stated out loud in Section 131 "I hope the Huskies go for it."  Which seemed crazy at the time because everybody thought UW would get it.  But there was a desperation kicking in, and it felt like Stanford needed a jolt.  Fortunately, the D was stout, stuffed the run, and kept Stanford in the game.  IMO, the biggest play of the game.

3.  The pass down the middle to JJAW was beautiful and looked so easy.  Call me a fan of attacking skinny post and other middle-of-the-field passes. 

4.  Bryce Love.  What can you say?  Warrior. Tough.  Supremely gifted.  I still don't understand why he continually gets thrown to the dogs between the tackles (and takes a beating), but it's hard to argue the ultimate stat line.  And it did appear that TOP had the typical effect on the UW D.

5.  Okereke.  Gargankong night.  A handful of really impactful plays.  Great to see.

6.  Was actually expecting Toner to knock that FG through, but he must have chili-dipped it a bit - he has plenty of leg, but didn't strike it well enough.  Still, the guy was nails on 3 other occasions and he has been terrific all year.

7.  The Stanford D has played really well this season, especially given some roster holes (in particular, the D-Line is not partying in the backfield as the glory teams of yesteryear did).

8.  Bottom bottom line:  a tough, gritty, gutty, physical, and ultimately very rewarding W for the Good Guys. 

Congrats one and all!

P.S.  A little nervous about this week's injury report.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - CompSci87 - 11-12-2017

Good post. I sit in section 131, so that mention caught my eye. I love the guy somewhere behind me who yells "Watch the fake!" before every enemy punt regardless of how unlikely a fake would be.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - CompSci87 - 11-12-2017

Good post. I sit in section 131, so that mention caught my eye. I love the guy somewhere behind me who yells "Watch the fake!" before every enemy punt regardless of how unlikely a fake would be.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - Snorlax94 - 11-12-2017

People in section 131 can comment on this, but I have the say, I thought UW had the loudest visiting section I have heard yet.

A few teams, I think like Oregon, have loud visiting bands in that corner, but I worry the UW fans — without musical aid — might’ve been louder than the home fans in that area. Was that your experience?

The loudest I’ve heard the Stanford fans  this season was for Oregon, presumably because it was Homecoming.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - Snorlax94 - 11-12-2017

People in section 131 can comment on this, but I have the say, I thought UW had the loudest visiting section I have heard yet.

A few teams, I think like Oregon, have loud visiting bands in that corner, but I worry the UW fans — without musical aid — might’ve been louder than the home fans in that area. Was that your experience?

The loudest I’ve heard the Stanford fans  this season was for Oregon, presumably because it was Homecoming.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - JohnR34231 - 11-12-2017

Glad to hear that attending the game was such a positive experience.
Although our efforts on the road have obviously left a great deal to be desired, there is certainly nothing wrong with the way we have played at home this year.
Hopefully we'll still be able to say that after the Kal (and ND for that matter) games.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - JohnR34231 - 11-12-2017

Glad to hear that attending the game was such a positive experience.
Although our efforts on the road have obviously left a great deal to be desired, there is certainly nothing wrong with the way we have played at home this year.
Hopefully we'll still be able to say that after the Kal (and ND for that matter) games.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - winflop - 11-12-2017

(11-12-2017, 03:13 AM)Snorlax94 link Wrote:People in section 131 can comment on this, but I have the say, I thought UW had the loudest visiting section I have heard yet.

A few teams, I think like Oregon, have loud visiting bands in that corner, but I worry the UW fans — without musical aid — might’ve been louder than the home fans in that area. Was that your experience?

The loudest I’ve heard the Stanford fans  this season was for Oregon, presumably because it was Homecoming.

Also in 131. UW was the loudest this year so far, but I think the Weenies will be louder because they will have their band on top of a sizeable presence. U$¢ is typically the loudest.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - winflop - 11-12-2017

(11-12-2017, 03:13 AM)Snorlax94 link Wrote:People in section 131 can comment on this, but I have the say, I thought UW had the loudest visiting section I have heard yet.

A few teams, I think like Oregon, have loud visiting bands in that corner, but I worry the UW fans — without musical aid — might’ve been louder than the home fans in that area. Was that your experience?

The loudest I’ve heard the Stanford fans  this season was for Oregon, presumably because it was Homecoming.

Also in 131. UW was the loudest this year so far, but I think the Weenies will be louder because they will have their band on top of a sizeable presence. U$¢ is typically the loudest.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - teejers1 - 11-12-2017

UW fans loud - a hearty and well-traveling bunch.

Agree that B.ear fans will be louder.

I liked the guy in Section 131 who, after what looked like an egregious (and uncalled) penalty against UW yelled "That guy should be in a Chinese prison with LiAngelo Ball!"

Oh, wait . . .  On second thought, that guy can be too down in fan sites.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - teejers1 - 11-12-2017

UW fans loud - a hearty and well-traveling bunch.

Agree that B.ear fans will be louder.

I liked the guy in Section 131 who, after what looked like an egregious (and uncalled) penalty against UW yelled "That guy should be in a Chinese prison with LiAngelo Ball!"

Oh, wait . . .  On second thought, that guy can be too down in fan sites.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - cardcrimson - 11-12-2017

Agreed. A fantastic game all around. Congrats.

One question remains, though. I can't remember the last time Love was thrown to. Can he not catch, or is Shaw and company holding something back?

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - cardcrimson - 11-12-2017

Agreed. A fantastic game all around. Congrats.

One question remains, though. I can't remember the last time Love was thrown to. Can he not catch, or is Shaw and company holding something back?

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - stupac2 - 11-12-2017

(11-12-2017, 09:03 AM)cardcrimson link Wrote:Agreed. A fantastic game all around. Congrats.

One question remains, though. I can't remember the last time Love was thrown to. Can he not catch, or is Shaw and company holding something back?

Technically he caught a shovel pass against UW.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - stupac2 - 11-12-2017

(11-12-2017, 09:03 AM)cardcrimson link Wrote:Agreed. A fantastic game all around. Congrats.

One question remains, though. I can't remember the last time Love was thrown to. Can he not catch, or is Shaw and company holding something back?

Technically he caught a shovel pass against UW.

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - North Woods - 11-12-2017

What I don't get: in 2015 Love caught 15 passes for 250 yards -- an average of 16.7 per catch. That same year he only had 29 rushing attempts, so 1/3 of his offensive touches were receptions. I don't remember issues with drops. Now, as the featured back he's getting targeted much less than when he was a backup.

I would have thought this was strategic e.g. save his touches for running plays -- except that we saw how successful it was for us to mix things up with McCaffrey. Seems like even doing this a little would make Love a useful decoy and focus of the defense to set up other plays.

In other words I'm inferring that he *can* catch successfully on our offense but we are choosing not to use him that way. Why?

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - North Woods - 11-12-2017

What I don't get: in 2015 Love caught 15 passes for 250 yards -- an average of 16.7 per catch. That same year he only had 29 rushing attempts, so 1/3 of his offensive touches were receptions. I don't remember issues with drops. Now, as the featured back he's getting targeted much less than when he was a backup.

I would have thought this was strategic e.g. save his touches for running plays -- except that we saw how successful it was for us to mix things up with McCaffrey. Seems like even doing this a little would make Love a useful decoy and focus of the defense to set up other plays.

In other words I'm inferring that he *can* catch successfully on our offense but we are choosing not to use him that way. Why?

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - Goose - 11-12-2017

(11-12-2017, 12:19 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:Anyway, a few observations:

1.  A most impressive W that Shaw and the players should feel GREAT about.  The physicality of the play on the field was palpable in the stands, yet the Cardinal took a couple haymakers early and went toe-to-toe and bested UW straight up.  [BTW, I hope the Cardinal don't lose too many starters to injury/nicks for next week's Big Game].

2.  Real time, when UW had the short fourth and 1 and was rolling through the Stanford D like $hit through a goose, I stated out loud in Section 131 "I hope the Huskies go for it."  Which seemed crazy at the time because everybody thought UW would get it.  But there was a desperation kicking in, and it felt like Stanford needed a jolt.  Fortunately, the D was stout, stuffed the run, and kept Stanford in the game.  IMO, the biggest play of the game.

<snip>

P.S.  A little nervous about this week's injury report.
Totally agree with this post. My reaction in real time to the Huskies going for it was a bit different. I was thinking "This is stupid. Take the points. We haven't been able to stop them yet. If they stop themselves by failing here, it gives the defense some hope." I wasn't optimistic that we would stop them, but when we did, it absolutely mattered. The game turned right there, as you say.

The OL didn't quite play like men possessed, but they played by far the best we have seen this year, with some in-game lineup shuffles no less. UW defense isn't chopped liver. Love was able to get the yards he did in this game by earning all of them. Not may "pop thru and go" long runs, but he got the job done because there were enough holes available.

JJAW doesn't always get horizontal separation from the defense. However, he appears always to have vertical separation! As long as the QB puts the pass where it needs to be, it will probably be caught. It is "the Catch, repeat as needed".

KJ has some issues. BUT, he is a competitor who seems to know what he has to do and how to do it. There is probably a "bad KJ" that we will see sometime. Probably it will manifest itself by being too aggressive and throwing picks. Hopefully, we will not see that this year!

Re: Pardon if this repeats other post-game chatter . . . - Goose - 11-12-2017

(11-12-2017, 12:19 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:Anyway, a few observations:

1.  A most impressive W that Shaw and the players should feel GREAT about.  The physicality of the play on the field was palpable in the stands, yet the Cardinal took a couple haymakers early and went toe-to-toe and bested UW straight up.  [BTW, I hope the Cardinal don't lose too many starters to injury/nicks for next week's Big Game].

2.  Real time, when UW had the short fourth and 1 and was rolling through the Stanford D like $hit through a goose, I stated out loud in Section 131 "I hope the Huskies go for it."  Which seemed crazy at the time because everybody thought UW would get it.  But there was a desperation kicking in, and it felt like Stanford needed a jolt.  Fortunately, the D was stout, stuffed the run, and kept Stanford in the game.  IMO, the biggest play of the game.

<snip>

P.S.  A little nervous about this week's injury report.
Totally agree with this post. My reaction in real time to the Huskies going for it was a bit different. I was thinking "This is stupid. Take the points. We haven't been able to stop them yet. If they stop themselves by failing here, it gives the defense some hope." I wasn't optimistic that we would stop them, but when we did, it absolutely mattered. The game turned right there, as you say.

The OL didn't quite play like men possessed, but they played by far the best we have seen this year, with some in-game lineup shuffles no less. UW defense isn't chopped liver. Love was able to get the yards he did in this game by earning all of them. Not may "pop thru and go" long runs, but he got the job done because there were enough holes available.

JJAW doesn't always get horizontal separation from the defense. However, he appears always to have vertical separation! As long as the QB puts the pass where it needs to be, it will probably be caught. It is "the Catch, repeat as needed".

KJ has some issues. BUT, he is a competitor who seems to know what he has to do and how to do it. There is probably a "bad KJ" that we will see sometime. Probably it will manifest itself by being too aggressive and throwing picks. Hopefully, we will not see that this year!