The CardBoard
How in the hell? - 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: How in the hell? (/thread-18538.html)

Pages: 1 2

How in the hell? - OutsiderFan - 11-17-2019

I didn't watch or hear any documentation of Stanford playing football in Pullman yesterday, but WTF?

HOW the hell do you rack up over 500 yards and only score 22 points!?!?!? Can someone who witnessed the terrible exhibition of soft football Stanford seems to have played yesterday, explain what happened?  ESPN stats reported Mills threw for 500 yards, and again, only 22 points?

I get the defense gave up the store, but I understand playing with walk-on LBs and a depleted secondary would make that a reality.

And ELEVEN rushing attempts the whole game? What the hell went on up there?  I'd appreciate an explanation.

RE: How in the hell? - Mick - 11-17-2019

(11-17-2019, 04:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  What the hell went on up there?  I'd appreciate an explanation.

They good, we bad.

RE: How in the hell? - OutsiderFan - 11-17-2019

(11-17-2019, 05:43 AM)Mick Wrote:  
(11-17-2019, 04:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  What the hell went on up there?  I'd appreciate an explanation.

They good, we bad.

Truly bad teams don't put up 500 yards of offense.  I mean it takes talent to do that.  Ole Miss racked up 400 yards rushing and over 500 total on LSU, which meant they had some talented players playing.  But they also scored 37.

RE: How in the hell? - JohnR34231 - 11-17-2019

(11-17-2019, 04:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  I didn't watch or hear any documentation of Stanford playing football in Pullman yesterday, but WTF?

HOW the hell do you rack up over 500 yards and only score 22 points!?!?!? Can someone who witnessed the terrible exhibition of soft football Stanford seems to have played yesterday, explain what happened?  ESPN stats reported Mills threw for 500 yards, and again, only 22 points?

I get the defense gave up the store, but I understand playing with walk-on LBs and a depleted secondary would make that a reality.

And ELEVEN rushing attempts the whole game? What the hell went on up there?  I'd appreciate an explanation.

I didn't see it either, but I assume the problem was we had trouble finishing drives, just like we did against Colorado. We were 4-11 on third down conversions.
As far as running the ball is concerned, we got behind 19-0 pretty quickly. When you get in that situation you feel you have to pass.

RE: How in the hell? - OutsiderFan - 11-17-2019

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/wsu-49-...e-thoughts

There is some not so veiled criticism at the head coach here.  Explains a lot. Lack of situational awareness and urgency is David Shaw's brand.  Until this changes, Stanford isn't going to be competing for Pac-12 championships again, even when the injury attrition isn't catastrophic.

RE: How in the hell? - Phogge - 11-17-2019

OF nine in the box. They don’t have a Marecic, Ward or Marx anymore. Nor a Toby.

On defense they have two players with NFL potential, Toohill and Booker. Maybe Adebo but he will be a project because he is a poor tackler. They are playing guys who play hard but can’t tackle and guys who try hard and can’t cover because there is no rush and frankly can’t cover anyway.

There are no Skovs, no Murphys, no DeCastros, no Ertz.

Few targets, few offers, plenty of injuries. We may never know how good some of the injured kids are (Bonner, Miezan, Mangum Farrar, for example).

Army and Navy have been in double wing option mode for twenty years because of recruiting limitations. Their kids however are very tough. Hard to tell how tough Stanford is right now for various reasons including two years of M*A*S*H* football.

I would like to see a dual threat guy running this team in a couple of years. I love the way Lincoln Riley attacks teams. Is it possible that Stanford can adapt? Nobody ever thought that Stanford men could make the Final Four. Stay tuned.

RE: How in the hell? - JohnR34231 - 11-17-2019

I realize Shaw made some questionable coaching decisions in the first half, but that doesn't explain why after we closed to 25-22 in the third quarter, we were held scoreless the rest of the game by the depleted Coug defense.

RE: How in the hell? - cardcrimson - 11-17-2019

(11-17-2019, 04:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  I didn't watch or hear any documentation of Stanford playing football in Pullman yesterday, but WTF?

HOW the hell do you rack up over 500 yards and only score 22 points!?!?!? Can someone who witnessed the terrible exhibition of soft football Stanford seems to have played yesterday, explain what happened?  ESPN stats reported Mills threw for 500 yards, and again, only 22 points?

I get the defense gave up the store, but I understand playing with walk-on LBs and a depleted secondary would make that a reality.

And ELEVEN rushing attempts the whole game? What the hell went on up there?  I'd appreciate an explanation.

I believe it was only 494 yards. Those last 6 would have made all the difference in the world.

I read on another thread someone extolling the prowess of the passing game, so we must be great. Points don't matter, orange slices for all!

RE: How in the hell? - BobK - 11-17-2019

It was 504 yards passing. Shuttle passes are passes ya know. Stats corrected to include the shuttle.

Just to be accurate here :)

RE: How in the hell? - cardcrimson - 11-17-2019

(11-17-2019, 09:35 AM)BobK Wrote:  It was 504 yards passing.  Shuttle passes are passes ya know. Stats corrected to include the shuttle.

Just to be accurate here :)
I stand corrected. Even gaining 10 yards after the game didn't earn us any points. What a bummer. . . .

So I guess that took 10 yards off our rushing effort. I see we now totaled 6 yards for the game. Impressive! And Osiris average 8 yards a carry, too!

RE: How in the hell? - GK3 - 11-17-2019

(11-17-2019, 09:41 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:  
(11-17-2019, 09:35 AM)BobK Wrote:  It was 504 yards passing.  Shuttle passes are passes ya know. Stats corrected to include the shuttle.

Just to be accurate here :)
I stand corrected. Even gaining 10 yards after the game didn't earn us any points. What a bummer. . . .

So I guess that took 10 yards off our rushing effort. I see we now totaled 6 yards for the game. Impressive! And Osiris average 8 yards a carry, too!

Biggest problem is our defense.  We simply cannot figure out to handle WSU offense.  They have run up about 450 yards a game the last 4 years and nothing changes.  We rush three guys, they have 5 receivers and our 8 can't cover their 5 since they have 30 seconds to throw the ball.  If the other team is going to score on every possession you are going to lose most of your games.   Did we look at the film of the Utah and Cal games?  I don't think either team has that much more talent on defense than we do.  The lack of a running game also makes it hard for us to play keep away and rest the guys on defense.  While I don't like a lot of the offensive stuff, I think our biggest problem is defense.  Scheme, Talent, coaching, or all of the above?

RE: How in the hell? - winflop - 11-17-2019

(11-17-2019, 10:16 AM)GK3 Wrote:  
(11-17-2019, 09:41 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:  
(11-17-2019, 09:35 AM)BobK Wrote:  It was 504 yards passing.  Shuttle passes are passes ya know. Stats corrected to include the shuttle.

Just to be accurate here :)
I stand corrected. Even gaining 10 yards after the game didn't earn us any points. What a bummer. . . .

So I guess that took 10 yards off our rushing effort. I see we now totaled 6 yards for the game. Impressive! And Osiris average 8 yards a carry, too!

Biggest problem is our defense.  We simply cannot figure out to handle WSU offense.  They have run up about 450 yards a game the last 4 years and nothing changes.  We rush three guys, they have 5 receivers and our 8 can't cover their 5 since they have 30 seconds to throw the ball.  If the other team is going to score on every possession you are going to lose most of your games.   Did we look at the film of the Utah and Cal games?  I don't think either team has that much more talent on defense than we do.  The lack of a running game also makes it hard for us to play keep away and rest the guys on defense.  While I don't like a lot of the offensive stuff, I think our biggest problem is defense.  Scheme, Talent, coaching, or all of the above?

The defense is decimated. It wasn't deep to begin with, and ILB and safety were concerns going into the season that have come to fruition early and often.

The problem yesterday was on defense, but the problem this season has been the offense.

RE: How in the hell? - AlbanyCardinal - 11-17-2019

(11-17-2019, 06:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  https://stanford.rivals.com/news/wsu-49-...e-thoughts

There is some not so veiled criticism at the head coach here.  Explains a lot. Lack of situational awareness and urgency is David Shaw's brand.  Until this changes, Stanford isn't going to be competing for Pac-12 championships again, even when the injury attrition isn't catastrophic.

I turned it off at the half. Call me a fair-weather fan, but I have my sanity and blood pressure to think about. I was shaking my head at the two punts in Cougar territory, especially the one on the 30-something. My dog understood that to punt in those situations was to concede -- not in a reckless, roll-the-dice kind of way, but in a staring-reality-in-the-face kind of way. Then not taking a timeout (with two TOs left) after Parkinson (I think it was) made that catch near the 50 yard line? Taking an unused TO to the half? Casually, ignorantly throwing away a shot at three points, down however many, in a game that, best-case scenario, would be a shoot-out? 

You said it best: "Lack of situational awareness and urgency." It's not just a "conservative" or turtling mindset. It's not understanding situations and time clock management and game flow. Shaw needs a lot of healthy, deep talent (coaches and players) around him to overcome these lapses, imo. 

RE: How in the hell? - JohnR34231 - 11-17-2019

(11-17-2019, 11:24 AM)winflop Wrote:  
(11-17-2019, 10:16 AM)GK3 Wrote:  
(11-17-2019, 09:41 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:  
(11-17-2019, 09:35 AM)BobK Wrote:  It was 504 yards passing.  Shuttle passes are passes ya know. Stats corrected to include the shuttle.

Just to be accurate here :)
I stand corrected. Even gaining 10 yards after the game didn't earn us any points. What a bummer. . . .

So I guess that took 10 yards off our rushing effort. I see we now totaled 6 yards for the game. Impressive! And Osiris average 8 yards a carry, too!

Biggest problem is our defense.  We simply cannot figure out to handle WSU offense.  They have run up about 450 yards a game the last 4 years and nothing changes.  We rush three guys, they have 5 receivers and our 8 can't cover their 5 since they have 30 seconds to throw the ball.  If the other team is going to score on every possession you are going to lose most of your games.   Did we look at the film of the Utah and Cal games?  I don't think either team has that much more talent on defense than we do.  The lack of a running game also makes it hard for us to play keep away and rest the guys on defense.  While I don't like a lot of the offensive stuff, I think our biggest problem is defense.  Scheme, Talent, coaching, or all of the above?

The defense is decimated. It wasn't deep to begin with, and ILB and safety were concerns going into the season that have come to fruition early and often.

The problem yesterday was on defense, but the problem this season has been the offense.

It seems to me they have taken their turns being the problem. The defense was a problem against U$C, UCF and Wazzu, the offense against Colorado and Oregon (and NW, even though we won).
They both teamed up being the problem against the Bruins.

RE: How in the hell? - winflop - 11-17-2019

(11-17-2019, 06:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  https://stanford.rivals.com/news/wsu-49-...e-thoughts

There is some not so veiled criticism at the head coach here.  Explains a lot. Lack of situational awareness and urgency is David Shaw's brand.  Until this changes, Stanford isn't going to be competing for Pac-12 championships again, even when the injury attrition isn't catastrophic.

Well-deserved criticism. It's about time someone from the Stanford media started getting on Shaw's case. Now if they only had the guts to do it to his face at Tuesday's presser.

Your point about situational awareness and urgency is spot on. For multiple reasons, Stanford is no longer in a position to dictate game flow to the opponent. You have to go to battle with the army you have, not the one you want. Absolutely shameful decision-making.

RE: How in the hell? - fullmetal - 11-17-2019

To the offensive playcalling's credit, they didn't try to force *more* rushing attempts.  Silver linings...

RE: How in the hell? - OutsiderFan - 11-18-2019

I'm not sure anyone has quite illustrated why so few points were scored given the amount of yards racked up. It is astonishing Stanford only had one 4th down attempt in a game it lost by 27.

RE: How in the hell? - martyup - 11-18-2019

(11-18-2019, 05:49 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  I'm not sure anyone has quite illustrated why so few points were scored given the amount of yards racked up. It is astonishing Stanford only had one 4th down attempt in a game it lost by 27.

Two INTs, missed FG, several punts, and IIRC one turnover on downs.  Our red zone offense continued to struggle.

RE: How in the hell? - OutsiderFan - 11-18-2019

(11-18-2019, 08:40 AM)martyup Wrote:  
(11-18-2019, 05:49 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  I'm not sure anyone has quite illustrated why so few points were scored given the amount of yards racked up. It is astonishing Stanford only had one 4th down attempt in a game it lost by 27.

Two INTs, missed FG, several punts, and IIRC one turnover on downs.  Our red zone offense continued to struggle.

How many jump balls to receivers in the EZ were tried?  Few things demonstrate the lack of imagination in the offensive coaching ranks than relying on fades and jump balls as the preponderance of the Red Zone passing offense.

RE: How in the hell? - Mick - 11-18-2019

I wish Shaw or someone would go to the 49ers for some help.  They're second in the NFL in points scored with 295.