Is it acceptable to post some positives

Is it acceptable to post some positives - 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: Is it acceptable to post some positives (/thread-20993.html)

Pages: 1 2

Is it acceptable to post some positives - lex24 - 11-28-2020

I know it’s hard, but:

1. Defensive scheme. Much more attacking after first drive. Blitzed, stunted. 4 sacks, I believe. Got more people to the ball. Tackling poor again. But at leadt they often had several defenders at the ball.
2. Secondary played well. Cal had no downfield passing game.
3. Offensive line was much more physical second half. Inside running game significantly better.
4. Jones. I ragged on him early. He showed well in second half. Much more decisive and he had more yards after contact.
5. Wedington. He’s gonna be a slot receiver in NFL. Wilson did some good things. But another key drop.
6. No turnovers.
7. Special teams. Focus on how bad Cal’s were but how bout how well Stanford’s played. Not just the blocks and fumble recovery. They punted well. Pinned Cal inside 10 3 times

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - qwerty49 - 11-28-2020

None of our punts were blocked.

OL did assert itself in the 2nd half.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - Farm93 - 11-28-2020

Watch some of the lower profile Power 5 games, and y'all will feel a lot better.

Here I am watching Vanderbilt and Missouri eager to see the Vandy women's soccer keeper kick. I thought it would just take a few minutes since Vandy got the ball to start the game.

Missouri is not great. They certainly don't help the SEC, best conference in college football, brand. That noted, Vanderbilt is awful. It has become clear that Vandy didn't really need her to suit up because they aren't going to come close to scoring.

Penn State vs Michigan is on TV too, and those teams don't look great either. Commentary there seems to focus on Harbaugh going to the NFL which makes sense since his EUTM kool-aid is apparently not great for a program's long-term health. Actual game play is comparable to what we saw for Big Game, at best.

Oh, and at least Stanford does not have Florida State's issues. You can't even see Florida State on TV any more since they keep cancelling games moments before kickoff.

Crazy year - I just hope the Stanford players can stay healthy so that after they get vaccinated they will be ready for a great 2021.

Getting the Axe back in 2020 - Works for me!

FWIW - Can we cancel the rest of the Pac-12 games now?
With Oregon losing, USC in quarantine, and most West Coast bowls called off, it seems like the Pac-12 season is essentially OVER at this point.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - BobK - 11-28-2020

Great points Lex. Talking to a friend we agreed and discussed most of what you said.
Thanks for being positive.

Aggressive on D was the key to lack of down field completions for cal

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - OutsiderFan - 11-28-2020

My only three positives:

- No injuries on either team from what I could gather

- Curtis Robinson played best game I've ever seen him play

- Myles Hinton (the holding call on him that wiped out game clinching first down was total B.S.)

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - BostonCard - 11-28-2020

4 sacks; 2 by Schaffer. Nice to know that we didn’t take social distancing literally in the game.

BTW, the Vandy kicker did kick off the second half, becoming the first woman to play in a P5 game. Congratulations to her and Vandy.

BC

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - teejers1 - 11-28-2020

(11-28-2020, 10:35 AM)lex24 Wrote: I know it’s hard, but:

1. Defensive scheme. Much more attacking after first drive. Blitzed, stunted. 4 sacks, I believe. Got more people to the ball. Tackling poor again. But at leadt they often had several defenders at the ball.

AGREE 100%. When you don't have the horses to play straight up, you have to take chances (see Fangio D at Stanford).
I also agree with OF that Robinson played his best game. It wasn't just that he made some plays at/behind the LOS, but he did so emphatically. He rag-dolled one ball carrier. That D needs some "nasty" circa Mauro, Anderson, et al.

2. Secondary played well. Cal had no downfield passing game.

Secondary played reasonably well (for them). The truth is that Garbers missed some passes that better QBs will not (though I love Garbers' gamer-ness).

3. Offensive line was much more physical second half. Inside running game significantly better. Yep.

4. Jones. I ragged on him early. He showed well in second half. Much more decisive and he had more yards after contact. Yep. And Peat showed a little something, too.

5. Wedington. He’s gonna be a slot receiver in NFL. Wilson did some good things. But another key drop.

Stanford's WR corps is just fine. (Did Humphreys play more than the one reception?).  They're not the problem. The route trees and inability to scheme anything open is the real culprit to underperformance (though Mills was clearly off his game yesterday).

6. No turnovers.

7. Special teams. Focus on how bad Cal’s were but how bout how well Stanford’s played. Not just the blocks and fumble recovery. They punted well. Pinned Cal inside 10 3 times

Special teams won the game for Stanford. And Cal must feel terrible today for essentially giving Stanford the game.

Farm93, I think you may be underestimating how bad Cal and Stanford are as P5 teams. Neither is good. At all.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - GK3 - 11-28-2020

(11-28-2020, 12:47 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(11-28-2020, 10:35 AM)lex24 Wrote: I know it’s hard, but:

1. Defensive scheme. Much more attacking after first drive. Blitzed, stunted. 4 sacks, I believe. Got more people to the ball. Tackling poor again. But at leadt they often had several defenders at the ball.

AGREE 100%. When you don't have the horses to play straight up, you have to take chances (see Fangio D at Stanford).
I also agree with OF that Robinson played his best game. It wasn't just that he made some plays at/behind the LOS, but he did so emphatically. He rag-dolled one ball carrier. That D needs some "nasty" circa Mauro, Anderson, et al.

2. Secondary played well. Cal had no downfield passing game.

Secondary played reasonably well (for them). The truth is that Garbers missed some passes that better QBs will not (though I love Garbers' gamer-ness).

3. Offensive line was much more physical second half. Inside running game significantly better. Yep.

4. Jones. I ragged on him early. He showed well in second half. Much more decisive and he had more yards after contact. Yep. And Peat showed a little something, too.

5. Wedington. He’s gonna be a slot receiver in NFL. Wilson did some good things. But another key drop.

Stanford's WR corps is just fine. (Did Humphreys play more than the one reception?).  They're not the problem. The route trees and inability to scheme anything open is the real culprit to underperformance (though Mills was clearly off his game yesterday).

6. No turnovers.

7. Special teams. Focus on how bad Cal’s were but how bout how well Stanford’s played. Not just the blocks and fumble recovery. They punted well. Pinned Cal inside 10 3 times

Special teams won the game for Stanford. And Cal must feel terrible today for essentially giving Stanford the game.

Farm93, I think you may be underestimating how bad Cal and Stanford are as P5 teams. Neither is good. At all.

I do not think your last point needs too much emphasis. The fact we are not a good team has been fairly clear from early on.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - JohnR34231 - 11-28-2020

(11-28-2020, 01:50 PM)GK3 Wrote:
(11-28-2020, 12:47 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(11-28-2020, 10:35 AM)lex24 Wrote: I know it’s hard, but:

1. Defensive scheme. Much more attacking after first drive. Blitzed, stunted. 4 sacks, I believe. Got more people to the ball. Tackling poor again. But at leadt they often had several defenders at the ball.

AGREE 100%. When you don't have the horses to play straight up, you have to take chances (see Fangio D at Stanford).
I also agree with OF that Robinson played his best game. It wasn't just that he made some plays at/behind the LOS, but he did so emphatically. He rag-dolled one ball carrier. That D needs some "nasty" circa Mauro, Anderson, et al.

2. Secondary played well. Cal had no downfield passing game.

Secondary played reasonably well (for them). The truth is that Garbers missed some passes that better QBs will not (though I love Garbers' gamer-ness).

3. Offensive line was much more physical second half. Inside running game significantly better. Yep.

4. Jones. I ragged on him early. He showed well in second half. Much more decisive and he had more yards after contact. Yep. And Peat showed a little something, too.

5. Wedington. He’s gonna be a slot receiver in NFL. Wilson did some good things. But another key drop.

Stanford's WR corps is just fine. (Did Humphreys play more than the one reception?).  They're not the problem. The route trees and inability to scheme anything open is the real culprit to underperformance (though Mills was clearly off his game yesterday).

6. No turnovers.

7. Special teams. Focus on how bad Cal’s were but how bout how well Stanford’s played. Not just the blocks and fumble recovery. They punted well. Pinned Cal inside 10 3 times

Special teams won the game for Stanford. And Cal must feel terrible today for essentially giving Stanford the game.

Farm93, I think you may be underestimating how bad Cal and Stanford are as P5 teams. Neither is good. At all.

I do not think your last point needs too much emphasis. The fact we are not a good team has been fairly clear from early on.

I didn't expect too much out of the defense. However, I expected our offense to be excellent. Early on the excuse was Mills testing positive and not playing/being rusty. Now we are starting to run out of them.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - Row80Critic - 11-28-2020

Both teams were desperately looking for ways to lose this game. Kal just wanted it more. Stanford's special teams won it (or Kal's lost it.)

I was worried 2020 could be Stanford's first no-win season in my lifetime, so am grateful to avoid that. I think they have the on-field talent to be 3-0 right now, or at least 2-1. Sideline talent is the issue. :( Wildcat with cold players yet again on crucial plays? I think they got one 3rd and 1 with it yesterday, if barely, but doing that (repeatedly, without particular success) speaks volumes about the mindset I'd say.

lex24 - lex24 - 11-28-2020

Seasons probably over. At least they finish with a win.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - CompSci87 - 11-28-2020

(11-28-2020, 02:01 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: Both teams were desperately looking for ways to lose this game. Kal just wanted it more. Stanford's special teams won it (or Kal's lost it.)

I was worried 2020 could be Stanford's first no-win season in my lifetime, so am grateful to avoid that. I think they have the on-field talent to be 3-0 right now, or at least 2-1. Sideline talent is the issue. :( Wildcat with cold players yet again on crucial plays? I think they got one 3rd and 1 with it yesterday, if barely, but doing that (repeatedly, without particular success) speaks volumes about the mindset I'd say.

The "wildcat" had a real QB who can pass, and it was 2-2 at getting the first down yesterday, with the QB handing off both times. So it wasn't really a wildcat; it was bringing in a different QB on short yardage who is more of a running threat. Lots of teams do that.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - cardcrimson - 11-28-2020

(11-28-2020, 03:35 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:
(11-28-2020, 02:01 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: Both teams were desperately looking for ways to lose this game. Kal just wanted it more. Stanford's special teams won it (or Kal's lost it.)

I was worried 2020 could be Stanford's first no-win season in my lifetime, so am grateful to avoid that. I think they have the on-field talent to be 3-0 right now, or at least 2-1. Sideline talent is the issue. :( Wildcat with cold players yet again on crucial plays? I think they got one 3rd and 1 with it yesterday, if barely, but doing that (repeatedly, without particular success) speaks volumes about the mindset I'd say.

The "wildcat" had a real QB who can pass, and it was 2-2 at getting the first down yesterday, with the QB handing off both times. So it wasn't really a wildcat; it was bringing in a different QB on short yardage who is more of a running threat. Lots of teams do that.

Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that he wasn't competent enough to hand off in the red zone?

And yes, there were lots of positives yesterday, and that's okay.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - CompSci87 - 11-28-2020

(11-28-2020, 03:38 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(11-28-2020, 03:35 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:
(11-28-2020, 02:01 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: Both teams were desperately looking for ways to lose this game. Kal just wanted it more. Stanford's special teams won it (or Kal's lost it.)

I was worried 2020 could be Stanford's first no-win season in my lifetime, so am grateful to avoid that. I think they have the on-field talent to be 3-0 right now, or at least 2-1. Sideline talent is the issue. :( Wildcat with cold players yet again on crucial plays? I think they got one 3rd and 1 with it yesterday, if barely, but doing that (repeatedly, without particular success) speaks volumes about the mindset I'd say.

The "wildcat" had a real QB who can pass, and it was 2-2 at getting the first down yesterday, with the QB handing off both times. So it wasn't really a wildcat; it was bringing in a different QB on short yardage who is more of a running threat. Lots of teams do that.

Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that he wasn't competent enough to hand off in the red zone?

And yes, there were lots of positives yesterday, and that's okay.

It was McKee who supposedly had to pass because he wasn't trusted to hand off (eye roll).

They did have play clock trouble when they brought in Sanders on short yardage in a previous game. That wasn't a reason to never do it again.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - martyup - 11-28-2020

I don't recall one delay of game penalty called on us in Big Game. Major improvement there.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - Langdude - 11-28-2020

(11-28-2020, 04:54 PM)martyup Wrote: I don't recall one delay of game penalty called on us in Big Game. Major improvement there.

Great point! I didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing it out!

Mills seemed to handle the audibles well, too.

-m.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - magnus - 11-28-2020

(11-28-2020, 03:47 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: They did have play clock trouble when they brought in Sanders on short yardage in a previous game. That wasn't a reason to never do it again.

We have play clock trouble regardless of who is back there.

(11-28-2020, 04:54 PM)martyup Wrote: I don't recall one delay of game penalty called on us in Big Game. Major improvement there.

Indeed!

We hit near zero multiple times though. I don't know why we love to "kill" with 6 seconds left on the play clock.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - French Rage - 11-28-2020

Jet Toner had a perfect game. I mean, not a lot was asked of him this game, but in a game where every point counted I prefer the guy who didn't have two kicks blocked.

Another positive is they got the game off yesterday, given that further games may be iffy.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - Langdude - 11-28-2020

(11-28-2020, 07:17 PM)French Rage Wrote: Jet Toner had a perfect game. I mean, not a lot was asked of him this game, but in a game where every point counted I prefer the guy who didn't have two kicks blocked.

Another positive is they got the game off yesterday, given that further games may be iffy.

Kickoffs were good, too.

-m.

RE: Is it acceptable to post some positives - BostonCard - 11-28-2020

Special teams as a whole was the difference. I mean, I’m glad I’m not here complaining about a blocked FG, blocked XP, and muffed punt. Plus, wisdom of the decision to punt aside, Sanborne dropped all the kicks from the Cal side of the field inside the 10 without any touchbacks.

BC