Randoms - 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: Randoms (/thread-14975.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: Randoms (/thread-14975.html)
Pages:
1
2
Randoms - teejers1 - 11-19-2017
1. UW did not look good against Utah . . . and that was in Seattle. Hard to see them beating WSU, but it's a rivalry game, so anything is possible, right? [Vegas seems WAY off on this one].
2. Does anyone think Cal's roster is better than Stanford's? Were they better at any position or position group last night? If you think you have the better roster and players, remind me again what the advantages are of slowing down the game, fewer possessions, etc. But hey, it's a W - Stanford retains the Axe, and that's all good. It was just hard to see a lot of joy post game in CTG, other than the perfunctory "We kept the Axe. Woo-hoo."
3. Congrats to Coach Shaw as winningest coach in Stanford football history; I just hope he isn't the one who presides over the program fading to oblivion. And no, BC, it won't happen overnight, or in the next 3 years. But that's as far as I'd extend that window.
4. Agree that Wilcox had his team ready to play and they looked good, especially considering that roster. Hope Wilcox gets a better offer and leaves Berkeley sooner rather than later.
5. You have to sit Love against ND. And I think there is a possible silver lining there: the brain trust will have to come up with a different game plan (presumably), with Love out. The running game with Love on the field is night and day than when he is on the sidelines. Yes, the grinding last drive was vintage Shaw and Scarlett did well - but does anyone think you can build an offense for an entire game around that approach? Heaven help us if we do. [BTW, how many times do you think Costello pitched the ball back to the RB for a run between the tackles last night? And then add on that the straight handoffs between the tackles. What do you think that total was last night?]. Another possible silver lining: ND may not be that good this year. I still think they'll have too much to lose to a Love-less Stanford team, but the Cardinal can make it competitive.
6. I've seen people here say that we're not playing for bowl positioning against ND. Is that right? Doesn't 9-3 make Stanford WAY more attractive to bowl hosts than an 8-4 team? Also, isn't there a 1-game wiggle room limiting host bowls to "reach down" - or does that only apply to conference record? I've still got a queasy feeling that the FF Bowls may be in Stanford's future. If they're taking requests: here's a vote for (i) Fiesta (long shot), (ii) Holiday, and then . . . (iii) Vegas!
7. Lex, you're 100% correct on unfair advantage SC has heading into the CC Game. It's strange that SC received that bye, given they can't like it and the league must recognize that fairness is at issue if a team has a bye pre-CCG.
8. Too bad about Mora. The Chipster may find LA more appealing than Gainesville strictly on geography grounds. I'd rather he go to Florida. For some reason, Sumlin doesn't instill the same trepidation as Chip does.
Re: Randoms - Goose - 11-19-2017
(11-19-2017, 11:04 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Yes, the grinding last drive was vintage Shaw and Scarlett did well - but does anyone think you can build an offense for an entire game around that approach? Heaven help us if we do.Well, yes. We know you can. We did it for years with Toby. Now, that was never all there was, but it was mostly that. Can this team do it against ND? No, but that is a different question.
Re: Randoms - qwerty49 - 11-19-2017
(11-19-2017, 11:10 PM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18094.msg213859#msg213859 date=1511157880]Well, yes. We know you can. We did it for years with Toby. Now, that was never all there was, but it was mostly that. Can this team do it against ND? No, but that is a different question.
Yes, the grinding last drive was vintage Shaw and Scarlett did well - but does anyone think you can build an offense for an entire game around that approach? Heaven help us if we do.
[/quote]
Yeah, but....Toby and Scarlett are like night and day. Toby never went down on first contact. I am hard pressed to recall when Scarlett hasn't.
Re: Randoms - lex24 - 11-19-2017
Matchups. Utah and Stanford are very different matchups than WSU. Plus what happened last week is irrelevant to next week. Just look at Stan- WSU and Stan- Wash. I like the matchup. But its a toss up.
As for the slowing things down - that is simply what they do. You dont change your philosophy depending on opponent. Its been tremendously successful in the W-L column. The difference this year frankly has been that some teams they have played have done to Stanford with Stanford has made a living doing to opponents. SC, San Diego State, and Cal all had a lot of sustained drives. And ate clock.
ND Sure in a vacuum nine and three get you a better bowl than than 8-4. But the thought is if Washington wins your playing for the Pac 12 championship and that takes precedence. Win that game youre going to the Fiesta Bowl.
(11-19-2017, 11:04 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:1. UW did not look good against Utah . . . and that was in Seattle. Hard to see them beating WSU, but it's a rivalry game, so anything is possible, right? [Vegas seems WAY off on this one].
2. Does anyone think ×ÉÉ's roster is better than Stanford's? Were they better at any position or position group last night? If you think you have the better roster and players, remind me again what the advantages are of slowing down the game, fewer possessions, etc. But hey, it's a W - Stanford retains the Axe, and that's all good. It was just hard to see a lot of joy post game in CTG, other than the perfunctory "We kept the Axe. Woo-hoo."
3. Congrats to Coach Shaw as winningest coach in Stanford football history; I just hope he isn't the one who presides over the program fading to oblivion. And no, BC, it won't happen overnight, or in the next 3 years. But that's as far as I'd extend that window.
4. Agree that Wilcox had his team ready to play and they looked good, especially considering that roster. Hope Wilcox gets a better offer and leaves Berkeley sooner rather than later.
5. You have to sit Love against ND. And I think there is a possible silver lining there: the brain trust will have to come up with a different game plan (presumably), with Love out. The running game with Love on the field is night and day than when he is on the sidelines. Yes, the grinding last drive was vintage Shaw and Scarlett did well - but does anyone think you can build an offense for an entire game around that approach? Heaven help us if we do. [BTW, how many times do you think Costello pitched the ball back to the RB for a run between the tackles last night? And then add on that the straight handoffs between the tackles. What do you think that total was last night?]. Another possible silver lining: ND may not be that good this year. I still think they'll have too much to lose to a Love-less Stanford team, but the Cardinal can make it competitive.
6. I've seen people here say that we're not playing for bowl positioning against ND. Is that right? Doesn't 9-3 make Stanford WAY more attractive to bowl hosts than an 8-4 team? Also, isn't there a 1-game wiggle room limiting host bowls to "reach down" - or does that only apply to conference record? I've still got a queasy feeling that the FF Bowls may be in Stanford's future. If they're taking requests: here's a vote for (i) Fiesta (long shot), (ii) Holiday, and then . . . (iii) Vegas!
7. Lex, you're 100% correct on unfair advantage SC has heading into the CC Game. It's strange that SC received that bye, given they can't like it and the league must recognize that fairness is at issue if a team has a bye pre-CCG.
8. Too bad about Mora. The Chipster may find LA more appealing than Gainesville strictly on geography grounds. I'd rather he go to Florida. For some reason, Sumlin doesn't instill the same trepidation as Chip does.
Re: Randoms - JohnR34231 - 11-20-2017
There are certainly two ways of looking at last Saturday's game.
Glass is half full: We won the game, our eighth straight Big Game victory. Shaw now has the most wins of any coach in Stanford history.
Glass is half empty: We struggled at home to beat a team that was 2-5 in Pac-12 play going in. We scored fewer points against them than all but one of their Pac-12 opponents.
Which one do you adopt? Well. obviously that's a personal choice, but I prefer the former.
Re: Randoms - gocard14 - 11-20-2017
Going by the numbers, not just the final score, this was an extremely short game in that we had 5 drives that the half didnt end during. Given that, we had 2 TDs, 1 fg, 1 missed fg at a makeable distance despite a stupid personal foul, and 1 punt. Thats a pretty darn good offensive output, despite the fact that it only ended in 17 points. Even with the missed field goal, that is 3.4 points per offensive drive, which would rank 4th in the country.
Of the other two drives, one was a successful game ending drive, and one was an ugly drive to get points at the end of the half. On the whole, the offense gets an A- in my book.
The defense on the other hand didnt play that well. On 6 drives we gave up 1TD, 2fgs, one missed fg, one punt, one int. That comes to about 2.4 ppd which would be somewhere in the 80s for rank. We couldnt get off the field on D, which is partly why the game was so short. We did a poor job of keying on Laird when it was obvious they were trying to feed him the ball whenever possible. He frequently came out of the backfield uncovered. I also think we needed to play a lot more press coverage, as their QB has great timing and accuracy, but a poor arm and deep ball. That means we need to disrupt their timing with jams and dare them to beat us over the top, which he showed he was not capable of doing.
Re: Randoms - JohnR34231 - 11-20-2017
Frankly, I didn't think either the offense or the defense played particularly well, but the key thing was they were tough when they had to be, when the game was on the line in the 4th quarter. The defense with the turnover; the offense with the long, time consuming drive that closed the game out.
Re: Randoms - Mick - 11-20-2017
(11-19-2017, 11:04 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:3. Congrats to Coach Shaw as winningest coach in Stanford football history; I just hope he isn't the one who presides over the program fading to oblivion. And no, BC, it won't happen overnight, or in the next 3 years. But that's as far as I'd extend that window.
I think that's more up to the next Director of Admissions rather than the football coach. But I get your point.
Quote:4. Agree that Wilcox had his team ready to play and they looked good, especially considering that roster. Hope Wilcox gets a better offer and leaves Berkeley sooner rather than later.
He definitely looks like he knows what he's doing. Future matchups will be tough, assuming he can recruit.
Quote:6. I've seen people here say that we're not playing for bowl positioning against ND. Is that right? Doesn't 9-3 make Stanford WAY more attractive to bowl hosts than an 8-4 team? Also, isn't there a 1-game wiggle room limiting host bowls to "reach down" - or does that only apply to conference record? I've still got a queasy feeling that the FF Bowls may be in Stanford's future. If they're taking requests: here's a vote for (i) Fiesta (long shot), (ii) Holiday, and then . . . (iii) Vegas!
Holiday for me, although any of the three would be fine. They're all exhibitions anyway, or so I'm told. Essentially meaningless practices, really.
Quote:8. Too bad about Mora. The Chipster may find LA more appealing than Gainesville strictly on geography grounds. I'd rather he go to Florida. For some reason, Sumlin doesn't instill the same trepidation as Chip does.
I'm a little surprised they got rid of him. They sure do owe him a lot of money.
Re: Randoms - Goose - 11-20-2017
(11-19-2017, 11:18 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=18094.msg213862#msg213862 date=1511158249]Well, yes. We know you can. We did it for years with Toby. Now, that was never all there was, but it was mostly that. Can this team do it against ND? No, but that is a different question.
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18094.msg213859#msg213859 date=1511157880]
Yes, the grinding last drive was vintage Shaw and Scarlett did well - but does anyone think you can build an offense for an entire game around that approach? Heaven help us if we do.
[/quote]
Yeah, but....Toby and Scarlett are like night and day. Toby never went down on first contact. I am hard pressed to recall when Scarlett hasn't.
[/quote]
I would say more like night and twilight. :) If you want to see 22 not go down on first contact, just look at the replay of the final drive of the Cal game. Mostly running through arm tackles, but still YAC. No way is he Toby, but he does have a bit more heft than our other backs (listed at 213). Next year, that may not be true, as we get a "big" back returning from a mission.
Re: Randoms - washingtonismoney - 11-20-2017
Lund isnt on his mission, hes on-campus. But redshirting because of injury.
Re: Randoms - Goose - 11-20-2017
(11-20-2017, 08:30 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Lund isnt on his mission, hes on-campus. But redshirting because of injury.I was wondering about that, as I thought this year was his return date. Hopefully he is doing well and will be fine. I guess there is some discussion about whether he will end up at fullback, but as I understand it, he was recruited as a running back. Next year, especially if Love stays, we could have a log jam of good backs. Nice problem to have.
Re: Randoms - lex24 - 11-20-2017
Watch the last drive. Scarlett showed some vision, a decent burst and gained yards after contact. Hes had a solid year as the backup. Hes also been a decent kick returner. Can he be the guy. Dunno. Hes much better this year than last. My guess is Speights will be the lead back next year. But Scarlett has been a valuable piece this year.
(11-19-2017, 11:18 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=18094.msg213862#msg213862 date=1511158249]Well, yes. We know you can. We did it for years with Toby. Now, that was never all there was, but it was mostly that. Can this team do it against ND? No, but that is a different question.
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18094.msg213859#msg213859 date=1511157880]
Yes, the grinding last drive was vintage Shaw and Scarlett did well - but does anyone think you can build an offense for an entire game around that approach? Heaven help us if we do.
[/quote]
Yeah, but....Toby and Scarlett are like night and day. Toby never went down on first contact. I am hard pressed to recall when Scarlett hasn't.
[/quote]
Re: Randoms - Goose - 11-20-2017
(11-20-2017, 08:39 AM)lex24 link Wrote:Watch the last drive. Scarlett showed some vision, a decent burst and gained yards after contact. Hes had a solid year as the backup. Hes also been a decent kick returner. Can he be the guy. Dunno. Hes much better this year than last. My guess is Speights will be the lead back next year. But Scarlett has been a valuable piece this year.There is some hope that BL will still be here. Lund may have something to say about this as well. I am not sold on Speights as the feature back. He appears to be very quick but not real strong. He did look good in the spring game last year. We should have three or four guys that bring something to the table next year. Could end up as a committee.
Re: Randoms - lex24 - 11-20-2017
Ugh. I hope not. Dont like committees. That generally means a whole lot of average.
(11-20-2017, 08:46 AM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18094.msg213896#msg213896 date=1511192381]There is some hope that BL will still be here. Lund may have something to say about this as well. I am not sold on Speights as the feature back. He appears to be very quick but not real strong. He did look good in the spring game last year. We should have three or four guys that bring something to the table next year. Could end up as a committee.
Watch the last drive. Scarlett showed some vision, a decent burst and gained yards after contact. Hes had a solid year as the backup. Hes also been a decent kick returner. Can he be the guy. Dunno. Hes much better this year than last. My guess is Speights will be the lead back next year. But Scarlett has been a valuable piece this year.
[/quote]
Re: Randoms - stupac2 - 11-20-2017
(11-20-2017, 05:48 AM)gocard14 link Wrote:Going by the numbers, not just the final score, this was an extremely short game in that we had 5 drives that the half didnt end during. Given that, we had 2 TDs, 1 fg, 1 missed fg at a makeable distance despite a stupid personal foul, and 1 punt. Thats a pretty darn good offensive output, despite the fact that it only ended in 17 points. Even with the missed field goal, that is 3.4 points per offensive drive, which would rank 4th in the country.
Of the other two drives, one was a successful game ending drive, and one was an ugly drive to get points at the end of the half. On the whole, the offense gets an A- in my book.
The defense on the other hand didnt play that well. On 6 drives we gave up 1TD, 2fgs, one missed fg, one punt, one int. That comes to about 2.4 ppd which would be somewhere in the 80s for rank. We couldnt get off the field on D, which is partly why the game was so short. We did a poor job of keying on Laird when it was obvious they were trying to feed him the ball whenever possible. He frequently came out of the backfield uncovered. I also think we needed to play a lot more press coverage, as their QB has great timing and accuracy, but a poor arm and deep ball. That means we need to disrupt their timing with jams and dare them to beat us over the top, which he showed he was not capable of doing.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that so many people seem to have come away from that game thinking the problem was with the offense, when going through the analysis you did is not hard and pretty convincing. The offense played fine! The defense did not, although at least they had one great play (the interception that ended up sealing the game).
Re: Randoms - Langdude - 11-20-2017
I did not think that our INT was a "great play." It was a stupid throw.
-m.
Re: Randoms - shinsengumi - 11-20-2017
(11-20-2017, 05:48 AM)gocard14 link Wrote:Going by the numbers, not just the final score, this was an extremely short game in that we had 5 drives that the half didnt end during.
I agree with you overall that the offense was less of an issue than the defense.
A couple of random thoughts:
1. Don't think we can throw out the first half ending drive from the denominator. And technically it ended on an INT. We got the ball with 2 mins on the clock, and that was a pretty shoddy effort at a 2-minute drive. OTOH, if we really wanted, we could've scored on the final drive. So your analysis probably balances out.
2. Cal did pull out a couple of rabbits out of their bag on offense. A few 3rd and really long conversions and of course the fake punt.
Finally, how is this not a thing of beauty? I'm surprised we, as Stanford fans, have not been indulging in more chest-thumping about that final drive.
Quote:14 plays, 46 yards, 7:25 - while forcing Cal to use all their timeouts
TIME DOWN PLAY
4thâ7:25 1st and 10 Cameron Scarlett rush left for 2 yards to the STAN 37.
4thâ6:43 2nd and 8 Cameron Scarlett rush left for 12 yards to the STAN 49.
4thâ6:09 1st and 10 Cameron Scarlett rush for 3 yards to the CAL 48.
4thâ5:24 2nd and 7 Cameron Scarlett rush middle for 9 yards to the CAL 39.
4thâ4:43 1st and 10 Cameron Scarlett rush middle for 5 yards to the CAL 34.
4thâ3:58 2nd and 5 Cameron Scarlett rush middle for 3 yards to the CAL 31.
4thâ3:51 - California time out.
4thâ3:51 3rd and 2 Trevor Speights rush left for 4 yards to the CAL 27.
4thâ3:19 1st and 10 Cameron Scarlett rush for 3 yards to the CAL 24.
4thâ3:11 - California time out.
4thâ3:11 2nd and 7 Cameron Scarlett rush middle for 1 yard to the CAL 23.
4thâ3:06 - California time out.
4thâ3:06 3rd and 6 Cameron Scarlett rush right for 5 yards to the CAL 18.
4thâ2:20 - Stanford time out.
4thâ2:20 4th and 1 Cameron Scarlett rush middle for 2 yards to the CAL 16.
4thâ1:59 1st and 10 TEAM rush for -1 yard to the CAL 17.
4thâ1:21 2nd and 11 TEAM rush for -1 yard to the CAL 18.
4thâ0:39 3rd and 12 TEAM rush for -1 yard to the CAL 19.
Re: Randoms - washingtonismoney - 11-20-2017
I think teejers has a point. If you play at a very slow pace youre more vulnerable to random bad plays. While I think Stanford solidly outplayed kal, it is true that if the ball bouces differently on a couple plays its a bare win.
Now, it may be over time that Stanford gets some benefits out of the pace (protecting the defense, preparing players for NFL, playing distinctive style, etc.) But I think big game showed some of the vulnerabilities of the style even in the context of a solid performance overall. I think Stanford could stand to speed up marginally not to speed merchant levels, but the pace the team achieved in 2011-12.
Re: Randoms - Farm93 - 11-20-2017
The team is 8-3. If Stanford does not win the Pac-12 North, they will have scored more points on UCB than the Pac-12 North champs.
Those dreaming of pass to open the run type offenses can go to the Rose Bowl and watch Rosen and his team without a coach. They also have more talent than UCB, but I suspect UCB might win that game.
The team won the way they win. And the 4th quarter was perfect. A team without their star RB finds a way to just completely grind out the clock. I found if funny that the FOX crew tried to imply the UCB missed FG was in some way the big missed opportunity when there were ~4 minutes left in the game. If the score was really 17-17 then Stanford wins that game 20-17 with a game ending FG.
Re: Randoms - Phogge - 11-20-2017
They are 8-3 with only one explosive player on offense. And he's played on one leg for weeks. Irwin is solid and Whiteside is a talented mid range target. Next year they get St. Brown who if he's like his brothers will stretch the field. Amon Ra seems to be the most exciting if the comments from the Peter Berg digital crew following the 6'4" soph Bosco QB can be believed. So hopes for Osiris. Smith could be an Ertz-type, Parkinson needs to be thrown to and Harrington could be the blocking TE.
There are a bunch of ways to adjust to the coming loss of Love including Costello/Mills running a bit. Includes Wedington in maybe a hybrid runner/receiver role. Can Shawgrentavita adjust? Going to be fun.