The CardBoard
Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - 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: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) (/thread-2200.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - FarmBoy - 10-29-2011

I was pleading with Shaw to go for 2 on the 2OT. I had zero faith our defense could hold U.SC and E.W. was looking a bit shaky on the kicking game (plus the announcer mentioned the Khalil has a history of blocking kicks.) Shaw and team made the calls that won the game, but I agree that not all were the right calls. But let's face it, Shaw is a first year coach. You gotta expect that he's going to make some errors like that. I remember how often I pulled out my hair over Harbaugh's play calling, even into his third year (@UA and Big Game to name a couple.)

We're pulling out the Wildcat too much. After that double revere pass to Montgomery, it's celar what they were setting up with the Wildcat, but now that they've used that play (does anyone think it will work again?) it seems like we shouldn't be using it as frequently. Keep the ball in Luck's hands.

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - JeffInCorvallis - 10-29-2011

Agreed that we've got some things to work on.  Worried that LaMichael James will run wild, that our WRs will become non-factors again (although Whalen and Montgomery had good games tonight).  Defensive speed and tackling are a problem.  But let's also remember that USC is a good team.  Barkley and Woods are great, they've got a lot of talent on that team.  They took their best shot at us in front of 92,000 and we somehow got away. 

The way these two offenses were playing and both defenses were gassed I was worried that this game could have easily gone 5 or 6 OTs.  The fumble was a gift and we were able to take advantage. 

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - FarmBoy - 10-29-2011

We gotta give credit to Gardner on that fumble. It wasn't a bobbled hand off or an unforced error. That turnover was won by Stanford. The defense needs to take that emotion and confidence from that play and build on it.

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - deepred - 10-29-2011

Agree that the wildcat on 3rd and long was a head scratcher. But kicking the point for the tie was the absolutely right thing to do. Going for two is quite a risky and still loses the game if the Trojans get a field goal (as they were almost capable of attempting, as we saw). I never think going for two when down by one is the right thing to do if there's still time left on the clock.

Good game, worried about injuries piling up.

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - washingtonismoney - 10-29-2011

(10-29-2011, 10:08 PM)garvin link Wrote:** The answer to that question is linked to a third -- what was an unheralded U.SC defensive front doing that made our juggernaut offensive line look so impotent for long stretches of the game? Luck was sacked twice and while the running backs racked up 151 yards, 35 of them came during overtime.

The same thing happened last year. My theory is threefold:

1) we fell into the 2009 Big Game trap. Our, at least, my interpretation of it. 2009 Big Game we trapped ourselves into thinking we were only a power running team and overcommitted to the run on first down, which when stuffed forced us predictably into the pass. That allows the defensive line to go all out on the pass rush, and allows the defensive staff to call much more stuff. Notice how much stunting they were calling against our offensive line? Can't do that if you think your opponent might run the ball, or might be effective with a screen. We tried doing a few screens throughout the game but this wasn't particularly effective. Fortunately we talked ourselves out of the trap and put it on #12. Look at the game play-by-play and you'll notice that starting at the first TD drive of the 3rd quarter, Stanford either throws it almost every time on first down, or calls a running play that counters the typical power stuff. Unfortunately we never called a play action on first down that I can recall.

2) the giving-a-shit theory. I've watched a fair number of 'SCs games this season, and I can't recall SC looking this good. The same thing was true last year. I think SC just gives more of a shit against us than they do against everyone else, and there's good reason--they always had trouble motivating their players consistently even during the glory days, so naturally motivation is hard to come by most of the time when they have literally nothing to play for.

3) field position. As a cause of Williamson's late scratch, we were consistently poor on kickoffs, which often meant we started possession behind our twenty. We had 6 of 13 drives start behind our 20 yard line. That obviously redounds to the defense's advantage. Recall that the sack/fumble happened behind our own twenty. Of course, this raises questions as to why our backup couldn't even make even decent kickoffs, but thus far Polian's escaped scrutiny for nearly everything else, so *shrug*.

Lastly, while the win might not exactly inspire confidence, recall that nearly every recent title-appearing team has had shaky moments. In 2008 Florida and Oklahoma both had a loss, so there you go. In 2009 'Bama made it because they got a nice block from Terrence Cody; Texas was oh-so-close to losing to a mediocre Nebraska team in the Big 12 Championship game. In 2010 Auburn's picaresque was pretty well-chronicled, and Oregon had close calls against us and, in particular, against 59ers and their wayward extra-point kicker. So, you know, deep breaths.

If it makes you all feel better, we held Barkley nearly a yard-and-a-half below his yards per attempt average at home.

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - 81alum - 10-29-2011

Yes, I'm terribly worried about all the injuries tonight, plus the fact that SC has exposed weaknesses in our defense.  What is the total tally of injuries?

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - Leftcoast - 10-29-2011

With our red zone offense we are a team BUILT for overtime.  I had no problem with the PAT conversion.  Three OT possessions - three TDs.  US.C was sure to blink eventually.

Still, they stared Stanford down eye to eye for most of the night.  I think they have a shot against Oregon.

Many observers, on second look... - Redrum - 10-29-2011

giving NT Terrence Stephens the credit for knocking the ball loose.

ESPN3  hosed up a couple of times for me.  Some conflict between Flash Player and some site scripts running.  So I missed the whatever it was play with the pass from Luck at WR  to  a real wide receiver.  Looks like Ty Montgomery is going to have to grow up quick.  Owusu has paid his dues.  Was there a flag on that hit?

Good to see the team can do more than play with a near unassailable cushion.  Builds character to come back.  Despite the int,  Luck did himself some favors in the Voldemort derby.  Carried the team in the late stages, with a LOT of people seeing him do more than slowly squeeze the life out of overmatched opponents.

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - socalstanfan1 - 10-29-2011

I haven't heard anything on the injury front, so that has me worried about this game.  But otherwise, I think this was a great victory for the program.  I think we underestimated a young USC team (particularly on defense) that is very athletic and improving each game.  Monte Kiffin's defense clearly had a bad year last season, but the guy is an NFL legend and his players this year are improving quickly.  To go into SoCal, in a game that was clearly like a bowl game for USC (I listened to a lot of their pre-game chatter here in LA, and as big as this game was for us, it was brobdingnagian for them, with everyone saying how it would announce that they were back to being nationally significant, even if they can't play in a bowl), and pull out a victory, was outstanding.  Their skill position players were a lot more athletic than our defenders, and that doesn't bode well for stopping Oregon, but I don't think we will see any defense anywhere near USC's level, unless we meet ASU in the Pac-12 championship game, or an SEC team in a bowl.  We may just have to outscore Oregon, but at least we get them in Palo Alto.

On the other hand, I was very happy to see Montgomery getting significant time on the field.  The guy should be a big part of our future at WR, so I'm ready for the future to arrive NOW.  And I think whenever you are tested, you learn more about yourself, find weaknesses, get to address them.  Injuries aside, I think the team will emerge much stronger than it was when the game started.



Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - bazza97 - 10-29-2011

(10-29-2011, 10:53 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Owusu has paid his dues.  Was there a flag on that hit?

Yes, there was a 15 yard penalty called.  With his history of concussions, that was brutal to see.  Did he come back in the game afterwards?

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - OutsiderFan - 10-29-2011

USC is one of the best teams in the country.  Barkley is a great QB.  USC has the best WRs in the country, and it really isn't even close.  USC also has a very good OL and TEs.  They have some of the best DL in the country as well.

Stanford is not going to play a more talented offensive team all year.  Even if they play LSU or Alabama, neither team has a QB as good as Barkley, or WRs as good as Woods and Lee. 

If LSU and Alabama played this game people would be saying how great those two teams are.  When it's Stanford, it's "they struggled on defense."  I'm not saying Stanford is elite on defense, but they don't have to be because the offense is so good. 

To me, the game turned on the questionable holding on Hewitt on the long Wilkerson run.  Had Stanford scored a TD on that drive, it would have been 14-3 and I think Stanford would have pretty much won convincingly.  It was a little bit like the OPI on Baldwin last year at Oregon.  Just like Oregon did, USC took advantage and scored a TD to take the lead after that drive stalled in part because of that penalty. 

But unlike at Oregon last year, Stanford didn't fall apart after USC took the lead.  They showed a lot coming back down 10 in the second half, and to me, they proved they are worthy of being no worse than #4.  If they can beat Oregon, they will deserve to be #2, IMO.  Luck showed me more tonight coming back after the pick 6 than he has shown in any blowout win.

Truly epic game for the ages tonight, and a GREAT showcase for the Pac-12 for a mostly national ABC audience.  Even those that saw the Clemson game got to see Stanford and USC in overtime.



Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - deepred - 10-29-2011

I just love that even when down 10 in the 3rd or down 7 with 3 minutes left, I can still be confident the team will pull through. I've never had this luxury with Stanford teams of the past. I contrast this to the days when I'd dread a loss even while we were up (see being up by 1 against Notre Dame in the last game at the old stadium, if I recall correctly). What a remarkable turnaround!

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - FarmBoy - 10-30-2011

Granted, Stanford defense wasn't great tonight, but consider that after U.SC scored a TD early in the 4th quarter to go up 27-24, USC went 3 and out, 4 and out, were stopped on that last 4th quarter drive, and finally forced a fumble in OT. All things consider, this is still far and away the best defense we've had in many years.

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - Hurlburt88 - 10-30-2011

My view was that Stephens caused the fumble.  On the WR front, I thought Montgomery looked good, and Terrell was looking good also.  Hopefully they will keep pushing, because their speed on the outside could really pay off!!!!!!!!!

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - needle - 10-30-2011

Wow. 56-48.

If someone had told me before the game that Stanford would have zero sacks on Barkley and score less than 30 in regulation, I would have surely predicted a loss.

But as much as we can all see the difficulty this defense has with certain things (LBs shedding blocks, secondary struggling to tackle large and athletic guys past the line of scrimmage, our best cover guys consistenly a half-step to a full step slower than the best Pac-12 wideouts), it's time to praise the defense for being a high-effort, opportunistic bunch. We'll see how much of a difference Howell makes if he starts against Oregon. I'm optimistic he can do a lot to stop those plays of 20+ yards.

As a fan, I had steeled myself for defeat when Luck threw the INT returned for a TD. I thought, well, if USC gets this one, they will have earned it. On the last play, I smiled, sure, but it wasn't until I saw the guys running around and jumping for joy that I realized I was being a grump. This is a great victory in a gutty game won by a bunch of guys who overcame various injuries at times and certainly fatigue (both mental and physical) to outlast a determined opponent.

*I give Shaw a C on time management, which is always one of those great unknowns for a first-year coach. Circumstances worked out well for the team on Stanford's final drive in regulation, but he had already burned a timeout while considering the 4th down decision earlier in the game. Kiffin gets a D, however, for running out of time on SC's final drive while still having one timeout to burn (no, you can't count on getting the benefit of the doubt when you're trying to call a timeout with one second left on the clock, and you were wrong to call such a slow-developing play at the end).

*Chris Owusu, this game has been terribly unkind to you. All Stanford fans want you to have a healthy and normal life far more than score another TD or make an electric kickoff return. It's time to think wisely about the future, but you have sacrificed plenty. Maybe I'm making too much of things...but maybe I'm not.

*Ty Montgomery is a MAN. This kid is going to be a good one. Whalen looked pretty good to me, as well. It's a solid group, with or without Owusu.

*Watching Toilolo and Fleener in OT, it was just men vs. boys.

*I liked the playcalling by Shaw, overall (I missed most of the first half). The trick stuff generally worked, and that's a great credit to the players for executing.

*Let's give our backup FG kicker some CREDIT. 2-2 on FGs, perfect on six PATs in a very intense, pressure-packed game in a hostile environment.

*Both Barkley and Luck had some throws I'm sure they'd like to have back, but Luck was great on the last drive in regulation and

All in all, after Washington I was down on our chances against Ore. because of poor tackling. Someone posted this game was played with house money as far as the Rose Bowl goal, and I think that's the proper view. But anytime a team (and a coach) can keep their head and come back from 10 points down in the second half to win on the road against a good opponent, you should think more highly of them than before.

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - Farm93 - 10-30-2011

Yeeeeeeee!

Oh, what a game.  56 points, and they were all important this time.  My tickets were in the same SC section that I "enjoyed" in 2009.  So I tried hard to avoid getting in trouble, like I managed to do in 2009.  Only occasionally did I say anything during the play (Luck scrambles were hard for me not to yell my RUN.  Habit, I guess)  Ugh, staying that quiet and reserved was hard.

And yet it all paid off because every OT was played at that end.  Sorry, Stanford sections because you all were far from the action.  My section literally ends right at that endzone.  One of those "goal line" type sections.  And this was a beautiful thing.  When the ball came loose I was screaming fumble as the ball stumbled into the end zone.  *Yes, I was that quick.  No one else in my section was nearly as excited, or aware.  And as it was becoming clear Stanford would recover I was squealing with pure delight. The people in the rest of the section, and that entire end of the stadium, were stunningly quiet.  ;D

I turned into a crazy play-by-play announcer as the Stanford team jumped on the ball.  They all had a sad look and clearly wanted me to be quiet, but it really did not matter....because....THE GAME WAS OVER!  Yes!  Three in a row. 

2011 - Win
2009 - Win
2007 - Win
2005 - Vacated  ;)
2003 - Loss
2001 - Win
1999 - Win


Now, are we sure SC is that good at this game.  :o

Who's house?  Apparently "Our House"

For those that have not been going to the Coliseum you have really missed out.

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - estephan500 - 10-30-2011

They stick ALL the 25 yard OT possessions at the same end of the stadium?

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - Roberton3 - 10-30-2011

I'm pretty sure it was Gardner who caused the fumble, not Stephens.

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - Farm93 - 10-30-2011

(10-30-2011, 08:12 AM)estephan link Wrote:They stick ALL the 25 yard OT possessions at the same end of the stadium?

No!  Each "inning" the team that plays Offense first gets to pick the end.  Stanford wanted to go away from the SC Students and the Band.  Normally that would mean the home team would want to go to the SC Students and the Band.

Ironically, SC also wanted to go to the Closed end.  So both teams elected to play in the same end when given the option.

Put it a different way...When it is really crunch time, even the SC staff avoids their annoying and repetitive band.  ;)

Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - GoodGrief - 10-30-2011

(10-30-2011, 08:28 AM)Roberton3 link Wrote:I'm pretty sure it was Gardner who caused the fumble, not Stephens.

It definitely was Terrence Stephens who caused the fumble, and he did it in HEROIC fashion. Stephens was prone, buried in the pile of linemen, and somehow as the the University of South Central player ran past him, Stephens managed to reach out his left arm and pull the football away. Just an incredible, heads-up, all-out effort by him on the play. It's a shame that Kirk Herbstreit wrongly gave Gardner credit for the fumble; the slo-mo replay clearly shows it was 100% Stephens. Damn, I want to hug that man.