Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - 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: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame (/thread-23571.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: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame (/thread-23571.html)
Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - msqueri - 10-16-2022
1. A win! Against a real team! It feels nice to finally get back in the win column and I'm very happy for the players and coaches, for whom this quite evidently came as a tremendous relief after all of the futility of the last few years. For me, the win was more bittersweet than I would like. I never ever want to be in the position of rooting against Stanford but would be lying if this win, either in real-time or now thinking about it this morning, struck me as good for the long-term health of the program. My hope is it's neutral, a nice, overdue moment of joy for people who have toiled and earned this but ultimately not something that changes anything fundamental for the program. There's a chance it's a negative if it reinforces the more complacent instincts of those who matter, but that's speculative and premature to comment on and not what we should focus on. The focus should be on enjoying the win and trying to build on it. Those of us fed up with Shaw and his staff are fed up because we care about results. Now that we've finally gotten a good result we can't begrudge those focused on building on it and continuing to get results.
2. This was the second week in a row in which we had our best game statistically in a calendar year. That's not momentum yet but it's moving in the right direction. Last night was only a 0.18 yard per play deficit for us, which is the most competitive FBS game we've had by that measure since last year's Oregon game (in which we had a slightly worse deficit) and UCLA game (somewhat better but a loss). Of course, that you have to go back to September 2021 for a game in which we were more efficient than an opponent is a good illustration of how bad the program is. Fundamentally, last night tells the same story as the Oregon State loss: we played a very good game by our standards and it still wasn't good. That's where we are, win or lose, and it's imperative celebrating the win not lose sight of this.
3. This game was won for two reasons, one that is a credit to us and one that is reflective of tremendous luck. To our credit, the defense was a revelation. Ohio State this year and Cincinnati last year are the only defenses that gave up fewer points to the Irish. Giving up 4.93 yards per play is 0.67 better than the average (and amazingly better than Ohio State did) and 1.36 better than our average. Holding a team to under five yards a play is the first time that's happened since last year's Vanderbilt game, but that's Vandy and Notre Dame is a real offense that came into the game with the #31 Offensive FEI in the nation. In my view this is Stanford's best defensive performance since at least the season opener against Northwestern in 2019, but that offense stunk so a good case can be made it's the best Stanford defensive performance since at least the 2018 Pitt game. The best defensive game in nearly four years is a big accomplishment and big deal.
4. But the other thing that won this game was sheer luck. That will go down as one of the luckiest/unluckiest (depending who you're rooting for) fumble games ever. There were five fumbles in that game and Stanford recovered four of them. We also recovered a blocked punt, an extremely lucky development to avoid a scoop and score (and Notre Dame ended up not scoring at all off that turnover). Finally, there was a pivotal play in the game in which the ruling on the field was that McKee fumbled yet inexplicably the call was overturned on replay, squelching Notre Dame's comeback. Say what you will about how close the knee down/fumble were (I thought essentially simultaneous), to overturn a call of fumble on the field based on that video cannot be explained and robbed Notre Dame. This game will go down as the Fumble Game. Nonetheless, I find it very karmically appropriate it happened this way. Just days after Shaw gave a magnanimous and wise answer about being screwed out of the Stepfan Taylor touchdown in 2012, the break goes our way. We're even, Domers. It is also good karma for our bad turnover luck earlier this season. Sometimes the bounces go your way and sometimes they don't and that's just football. A win is a win.
5. We were in a position to capitalize on the breaks we got because the defense gave such a great performance. After we recovered the punt block, the defense buckled down and made Notre Dame run eight plays to go just 27 yards, including a clutch fourth down stuff at the 5 yard line. After the fumble we recovered in the second quarter, we punted without incident and then the defense forced a three and out. Especially when you account for how the offense did when it got the ball off a turnover or lucky bounce, we did better than Notre Dame in those situations and that made the difference. But the defense was really the star. Giving up 4.41 yards per carry was our best run defense in seven games. Part of that is Notre Dame having a mediocre run game, but for us to even be average in run defense is a triumph for us. I've seen many fans talk about how bad Pyne is but that doesn't ring true for me. That was by far the worst he's done since becoming QB1. On the season he's got the #42 passer rating in the country (McKee is #57) and #64 yards per attempt (McKee is #50). Last night we held Pyne to a passer rating ten points below what even qualifies for top 100 and a yards per attempt almost a yard below that threshold. In Tommy Rees' three years as offensive coordinator, that is one of Notre Dame's four worst passing games, and 2020 Alabama and 2021 Cincinnati forced two of those. Give our guys credit. They terrorized Notre Dame's passing game, relatively speaking. Between the game plan not to let Mayer beat us, whatever else Anderson dialed up, and the effort and execution that led to six pass breakups (compared to one against Oregon State and USC and three against Washington), that was a hell of a job shutting Notre Dame's passing game down.
6. Given such good defensive performance, many players deserve special mention. McGill was having a quiet night....until he wasn't. A fourth quarter tackle for loss, pass interference (shows up as a bad play but it could have gone either way, like the game winner, and the point is he was in the mix contesting), fumble recovery, and clinching pass breakup on 4th and 7 were hero plays when we needed them. Likewise, Herron didn't make his presence known except when he did, and they were gargantuan plays, a sack to force a fumble that we recovered and a sack on 2nd and 4 on Notre Dame's attempt at a winning drive. Don't look now but Herron is #52 in America in sacks. Casey Toohill is the only Cardinal to be top 100 in the last half decade. Mangum-Farrar had easily the night of his life with about four good run stops (one on 4th and 2 near the goal-line!) and a pivotal pass breakup on 3rd and 7 when the game was in the balance. Kelly came back from injury and had two pass breakups. Bonner bounced back from his and Fields' (who again helped a lot in run defense) screw-up last week and gave great coverage, a big yardage-losing tackle for loss, and a run stop. Franklin (a few run stops, a pass batted down, and the fumble recovery) and Moi (batted a pass to force a punt, a few run stops) both had career nights. Williamson's overall grade wasn't great because he got torched for the 41 yard touchdown (which lowered Williamson's season grade enough that Bonner is actually now our top-ranked defender by PFF), but he had a tackle for loss in the red zone and a forced fumble at a crucial juncture. This was truly a team defense performance. If we played like that every week we'd be a good team. The hope to hold on to going forward is that this isn't a fluke. Maybe the defense is coming into its own to at least be mediocre. (Doesn't help Bailey may be out for a bit though.....fingers crossed on that)
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - msqueri - 10-16-2022
7. Much less good things to say about the offense. 4.75 yards per play is just over half a yard worse than Notre Dame's average and just over a yard worse than our average on offense. Yes, we were playing with some line shuffles, but Notre Dame was playing without its best corner and one of its top defensive linemen. Our run game has gone frigid. 2.31 yards per carry is the worst anybody has done against them in 16 games. This is the third time in four games we've been held under 100 yards rushing as a team and fourth straight game with less than four yards a carry. I am fond of the way Filkins knifes and squirts for extra yards to get first downs [Moving the chains (first downs) leader board: Filkins (8), Wilson (4), Higgins (4), Yurosek (3), Tremayne (3)] but his lack of ball security would be unplayable if we had an alternative (the same statement applied to Smith before his injury, which reflects very poorly on Gould). The passing game was better but mediocre, right around Notre Dame's average allowed in yards per attempt and passer rating and we were the first team this year not to have a passing touchdown on them. McKee did do a nice job spreading the ball around for a second week, with five targets who all had 3+ catches and 38+ yards. I really hope that isn't the last time I see Wilson play for Stanford.
8. Halfway into the season we need to admit we have a problem on offense. There are myriad ways I could represent this statistically but let's keep it simple: we are 81st in scoring at 26.8 points per game. That's hard to fathom for an offense with the players we have. We haven't broken 30 points against an FBS opponent since last year's Wazzu game. To put that into perspective, the average points per game in college football in recent years is always around 29 in recent years. We haven't scored an average amount for an FBS team a single time in our last ten games. This offense stinks. Most veteran offense in America and they're not even average. There's no salvaging Shawfense.
9. We've become a kicker team. Karty was one of the featured players at Tuesday's press conference and then last night got to lead the C-House chant in the locker room. He's awfully good. His made field goals of 45, 43, and 43 make him one of nine kickers nationally with at least seven attempts and no misses. As Shaw said, Karty is a weapon. That's true on kickoffs too: we are #1 in kick returns allowed on average and our incredible mark (8.71) may put us in contention for all-time records for all I know. The best mark in the last 14 years was 2021 Michigan at 12.14. We give up 10.2 kick return yards per game. Karty a big advantage for us. Sanborn is not the same kind of advantage but is above average. Aside from the blocked punt, he had net punts of 41 (to the 35), 43 (to the 40), 41 (to the 16), and 28 (to the 10). Roush had a nice tackle in punt coverage, which was nice because he has had a rough go of it so far at tight end. I favored benching Farrell for Barrow but at least so far the mediocrity with kick returns continues.
10. In-game decisions interest me less than they interest many fans as I always feel like many of the most controversial decisions are 60/40 kind of judgment calls, hindsight is 20/20, and there's a fog of war those of us on our couches can't appreciate. But there is one call I want to comment on. I think Shaw made the right call on Sanborn's last punt and all of my text chain buddies agreed, so I was flabbergasted to see how much vitriol that call engendered on the message boards. Much of the criticism strikes me as a bit hypocritical insofar as we're always bashing Shaw for not understanding how easy it is to score on Stanford's defense, and in this case Shaw made the decision one would make if you thought holding an opponent to a field goal would be unlikely. If we kicked the field goal and then gave up a game-losing touchdown drive, many fans would have asked what good a five point lead does. But more to the point, there's no guarantee we make that field goal. Yes, Karty is great, but 57 yards is really long. He's made a 53 yarder, but 57 is a very big ask. There's also far from a guarantee we convert 4th and 8. This was not a hard decision at all. It would have been risky for Shaw to do anything other than punt and those criticizing him for it make themselves look silly.
11. Game balls: Nugent, Herron, Karty, Anderson
12. Can we build on this win? In the sense of getting more wins this season, the answer is clearly yes. As far as in-season narratives go, this was a massive win to go on the road and beat a team computers still think is borderline top 25. According to those computers, the win took our expected win total from 3.29 to 4.57, a massive one week swing at this point in the season. Far more important than computers, though, is the sense of momentum we could be on the verge of developing. It's notable that two weeks in a row we've had our best game in a calendar year and now go directly into the easiest remaining game on the schedule. Given the remaining schedule it is not outrageous for the team and its fans to hold out hope for a bowl game to salvage the season. Alas, in my view snatching defeat from the jaws of victory against Oregon State likely closes off that possibility. We'll have to run the table in a slew of tossup games and/or pull off another big upset. I don't see it and think it's overwhelmingly likely we end the year with 3-5 wins. That raises the imperative of keeping in perspective the larger picture if the in-season narrative ends up in lipstick on a pig territory. Let's see how the team does with a dramatically softer second half of the season schedule. Maybe Shaw shocks me and ends up with 6-8 wins. I won't root against that but don't expect it and think anything less than that must keep those who care acknowledging that David Shaw must go.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - ADPinWDC - 10-16-2022
Hard to disagree with much of that.
Getting to 2-4 puts 6-6 back on the table... with wins over AZST, WAST, @KALSucks, and maybe BYU.
[The @UCLA, and @UTAH tiffs look much tougher.]
Suddenly our Defense is decent keeping us in more games ahead.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - 81alum - 10-16-2022
Thank you for that analysis, which I generally agree with.
I agree with you that the final punt was the right call given that inept play calling had left us at extreme field goal range.
And the three runs in a row for 0 yards does strike me as inept, given the situation. Shaw went conservative just a little too early. Those plays are what he should have called after we had one more first down, were in field goal range, and had killed a little extra clock. Wiping out Notre Dame's time outs was not helpful given the amount of clock we left for them, and the lack of time outs did not seem to play any role at all in our defense's ability to stop them. It did, however, means that once we got the stop we could do the victory formation rather than having to make a first down, so there is that.
On the luck factor: yes, we got lucky on a couple of calls, but we got unlucky on one massive non-call. The fourth down short yardage pass in which the Notre Dame defender grabbed our receiver's jersey and dragged him to the ground cost us a possession and the refs missed it completely. Was that Yurosek?
Karty is tremendous.
How many injuries, in addition to Wilson, did we suffer?
Here is what I want to know: why was the defense so much better? We can't just say "execution." What specifically were we doing that worked so much better than in prior games?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - BostonCard - 10-16-2022
Great thoughts, as always.
To build on a few things… I think the reffing evened out. We were screwed by an unreviewable pass interference non-call on 4th down. Overturning the catch on the sidelines that was ruled out of bounds was probably the right call, but, like the fumble, could have been upheld. You pointed out a PI called against McGill that was probably the right call, but could have been overlooked; the last play of the game could have been whistled but was probably a right non-call. As Dabigv posted in the in game thread, both Stanford and Notre Dame fans probably had a lot to be upset about in the reffing, but mostly because there were a lot of close calls.
On the run game, shovel passes to Fillins count as passes from a statistical purpose, but are much more like rushes, and they were probably Filkins’ most effective runs.
I think the complaints that I saw here were not about the punt, but about rushing three times with about 2 minutes left (though I grant that it was a bit hard to tell). Given that our defense was torched with a minute left and the weakness of the running game, I think we should continue to try to get first downs, passing, if necessary, until we can be sure we can burn the clock down to under 30 seconds.
The decision to punt was defensible. A 45 yard field goal kick can be made from about the 28 yard line +/- 5 yards depending on the kicker. The punt netted 28 yards, so ND would have had to march about the same net distance (about 60 yards), but if you discount the probability of Karty making the field goal (probably under 50/50) kicking the FG is definitely the wrong call. Our probability of getting a first down on 4th and 8 was really low, but would have sealed the game. 28 yards is not much, but could have been the difference.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - martyup - 10-16-2022
Silly me. I wanted Karty to be given the chance to show that he could make a 57 yarder. If he did make it, ND would have had to score a TD to win. If he missed it, ND could have won with a FG. After last week's debacle, I had no confidence that our D could avoid giving up a FG to ND, even if they started from the 10 rather than the 38. There was plenty of time left. Alas, our D got the stop. I guess I'm just a silly fool.
BTW, I'll gladly wear the Silly Old Fool moniker if msqueri will keep posting these post game remarks. Great job Sir.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - gailtate - 10-16-2022
(10-16-2022, 11:36 AM)msqueri Wrote: 7. Much less good things to say about the offense. 4.75 yards per play is just over half a yard worse than Notre Dame's average and just over a yard worse than our average on offense. Yes, we were playing with some line shuffles, but Notre Dame was playing without its best corner and one of its top defensive linemen. Our run game has gone frigid. 2.31 yards per carry is the worst anybody has done against them in 16 games. This is the third time in four games we've been held under 100 yards rushing as a team and fourth straight game with less than four yards a carry. I am fond of the way Filkins knifes and squirts for extra yards to get first downs [Moving the chains (first downs) leader board: Filkins (8), Wilson (4), Higgins (4), Yurosek (3), Tremayne (3)] but his lack of ball security would be unplayable if we had an alternative (the same statement applied to Smith before his injury, which reflects very poorly on Gould). The passing game was better but mediocre, right around Notre Dame's average allowed in yards per attempt and passer rating and we were the first team this year not to have a passing touchdown on them. McKee did do a nice job spreading the ball around for a second week, with five targets who all had 3+ catches and 38+ yards. I really hope that isn't the last time I see Wilson play for Stanford.
8. Halfway into the season we need to admit we have a problem on offense. There are myriad ways I could represent this statistically but let's keep it simple: we are 81st in scoring at 26.8 points per game. That's hard to fathom for an offense with the players we have. We haven't broken 30 points against an FBS opponent since last year's Wazzu game. To put that into perspective, the average points per game in college football in recent years is always around 29 in recent years. We haven't scored an average amount for an FBS team a single time in our last ten games. This offense stinks. Most veteran offense in America and they're not even average. There's no salvaging Shawfense.
9. We've become a kicker team. Karty was one of the featured players at Tuesday's press conference and then last night got to lead the C-House chant in the locker room. He's awfully good. His made field goals of 45, 43, and 43 make him one of nine kickers nationally with at least seven attempts and no misses. As Shaw said, Karty is a weapon. That's true on kickoffs too: we are #1 in kick returns allowed on average and our incredible mark (8.71) may put us in contention for all-time records for all I know. The best mark in the last 14 years was 2021 Michigan at 12.14. We give up 10.2 kick return yards per game. Karty a big advantage for us. Sanborn is not the same kind of advantage but is above average. Aside from the blocked punt, he had net punts of 41 (to the 35), 43 (to the 40), 41 (to the 16), and 28 (to the 10). Roush had a nice tackle in punt coverage, which was nice because he has had a rough go of it so far at tight end. I favored benching Farrell for Barrow but at least so far the mediocrity with kick returns continues.
10. In-game decisions interest me less than they interest many fans as I always feel like many of the most controversial decisions are 60/40 kind of judgment calls, hindsight is 20/20, and there's a fog of war those of us on our couches can't appreciate. But there is one call I want to comment on. I think Shaw made the right call on Sanborn's last punt and all of my text chain buddies agreed, so I was flabbergasted to see how much vitriol that call engendered on the message boards. Much of the criticism strikes me as a bit hypocritical insofar as we're always bashing Shaw for not understanding how easy it is to score on Stanford's defense, and in this case Shaw made the decision one would make if you thought holding an opponent to a field goal would be unlikely. If we kicked the field goal and then gave up a game-losing touchdown drive, many fans would have asked what good a five point lead does. But more to the point, there's no guarantee we make that field goal. Yes, Karty is great, but 57 yards is really long. He's made a 53 yarder, but 57 is a very big ask. There's also far from a guarantee we convert 4th and 8. This was not a hard decision at all. It would have been risky for Shaw to do anything other than punt and those criticizing him for it make themselves look silly.
11. Game balls: Nugent, Herron, Karty, Anderson
12. Can we build on this win? In the sense of getting more wins this season, the answer is clearly yes. As far as in-season narratives go, this was a massive win to go on the road and beat a team computers still think is borderline top 25. According to those computers, the win took our expected win total from 3.29 to 4.57, a massive one week swing at this point in the season. Far more important than computers, though, is the sense of momentum we could be on the verge of developing. It's notable that two weeks in a row we've had our best game in a calendar year and now go directly into the easiest remaining game on the schedule. Given the remaining schedule it is not outrageous for the team and its fans to hold out hope for a bowl game to salvage the season. Alas, in my view snatching defeat from the jaws of victory against Oregon State likely closes off that possibility. We'll have to run the table in a slew of tossup games and/or pull off another big upset. I don't see it and think it's overwhelmingly likely we end the year with 3-5 wins. That raises the imperative of keeping in perspective the larger picture if the in-season narrative ends up in lipstick on a pig territory. Let's see how the team does with a dramatically softer second half of the season schedule. Maybe Shaw shocks me and ends up with 6-8 wins. I won't root against that but don't expect it and think anything less than that must keep those who care acknowledging that David Shaw must go.
Thanks. Well-reasoned clearly expressed and thought-through. This is a decidedly sub-.500 team in all aspects but it is not a 1-11 outfit either, a-la 2006. Onward and, I hope, upward in 2022. But I remain Shawdoubter. Stanford football goes nowhere as long as he's in charge.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - msqueri - 10-16-2022
(10-16-2022, 12:02 PM)81alum Wrote: Thank you for that analysis, which I generally agree with.
I agree with you that the final punt was the right call given that inept play calling had left us at extreme field goal range.
And the three runs in a row for 0 yards does strike me as inept, given the situation. Shaw went conservative just a little too early. Those plays are what he should have called after we had one more first down, were in field goal range, and had killed a little extra clock. Wiping out Notre Dame's time outs was not helpful given the amount of clock we left for them, and the lack of time outs did not seem to play any role at all in our defense's ability to stop them. It did, however, means that once we got the stop we could do the victory formation rather than having to make a first down, so there is that.
On the luck factor: yes, we got lucky on a couple of calls, but we got unlucky on one massive non-call. The fourth down short yardage pass in which the Notre Dame defender grabbed our receiver's jersey and dragged him to the ground cost us a possession and the refs missed it completely. Was that Yurosek?
Karty is tremendous.
How many injuries, in addition to Wilson, did we suffer?
Here is what I want to know: why was the defense so much better? We can't just say "execution." What specifically were we doing that worked so much better than in prior games?
Yes, that 4th down non-call to turn the ball over on downs was a bad call. But in the counterfactual I think it is reasonable for a Notre Dame fan to think that cost us less than the McKee fumble call cost them. As it happened, we forced a fumble on Notre Dame's next possession and then were able to get a field goal before half. At most, the non-call cost us four points, but more likely it didn't cost us any insofar as I'd wager that if we got that interference/holding call the odds were probably less than 50 percent we would have had a 4+ point swing on Notre Dame the remainder of that half. Given the way the offense matched up with Notre Dame all night, my guess is we would have had a 3+ point swing if that call had been made correctly, which is exactly what we ended up getting. The football gods provided the right result there, thanks to the fumble. Conversely, the weird overturning of McKee's fumble kept alive a scoring drive. At the very least a 3 point swing but potentially more. On balance, I think you'd rather have our end of the officiating. In any case, you'd definitely rather have our end of the luck due to the extremely serendipitous fumble/punt block luck.
The big injuries I'm tracking are Wilson, Bailey, and Leyrer. Leyrer's is much more than erased by the supposed imminent return of Rouse, but Wilson and Bailey are two of the better players on the team and their injuries looked similar and potentially as long as season-ending. I really hope not.
Interested in others' thoughts on the defense but my hypothesis is energy. Sinclair gave an interview during the week that was kind of tellingly backhanded compliment-esque when it came to his own role on the team and the team's better performance against Oregon State, and in that interview he suggested that the defense played for the first time with the kind of energy it's been waiting for. In a more polished way, Shaw talked about the Oregon State game being more of a team defense effort than we've seen. My hypothesis is that players are having it click/playing faster/having more energy and that's making a big difference. If I had to be specific, I think the edge rushers are getting better pass rush and that's helping everybody else look better (plus, if you think about it, Herron's two sacks alone yesterday were really big plays in the game that may have significantly changed the scoreboard).
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - M T - 10-16-2022
(10-16-2022, 11:35 AM)msqueri Wrote: Finally, there was a pivotal play in the game in which the ruling on the field was that McKee fumbled yet inexplicably the call was overturned on replay, squelching Notre Dame's comeback. Say what you will about how close the knee down/fumble were (I thought essentially simultaneous), to overturn a call of fumble on the field based on that video cannot be explained and robbed Notre Dame.
The rule speaks of indisputable evidence that the call is wrong, not of how close the call is to being right. In this case, there is a frame in the replay, with the knee on the ground, one end of the ball in the the crook of his arm, and his hand holding the ball at the other end. A frame later his hand is losing contact with the ball. If his knee hit the ground 1/30th of a second later, it should have been ruled a fumble. I can certainly see how one could argue that you can't tell if you only see the play at 30 frames/second. Close in timing to a fumble, but that one frame gives indisputable evidence that his knee was down and he had control of the ball at that instant.
But, speaking of poor calls, I thought the rule was that the receiver is considered inbounds if the defender pushes him out of bounds before he can get his foot down. Am I wrong, or did the refs get the call wrong where the Stanford receiver came down with almost a full foot inbounds. The defender was carrying him out as he came down.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - JimD84 - 10-16-2022
When I saw the sequence of three running plays for no gain, I said to my wife, "Wow, the only reason to settle for that is because Shaw has already decided that he's comfortable trying the field goal from this distance. Otherwise he would have called some other plays to get positive yards". Given that, I was genuinely surprised that to see Stanford punt on the next play.
(10-16-2022, 12:45 PM)M T Wrote: But, speaking of poor calls, I thought the rule was that the receiver is considered inbounds if the defender pushes him out of bounds before he can get his foot down. Am I wrong, or did the refs get the call wrong where the Stanford receiver almost came down with a full foot inbounds. The defender was carrying him out as he came down.
I think you're thinking of the NFL, which has such a rule. AFAIK, the college game has no such provision. But, the college game only requires one foot in bounds, whereas in the pros it's two.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - gocard14 - 10-16-2022
I don’t hate the punt call instead of a 57 yard field goal, which if we miss gives them a very short field on a day where our D had been playing great except the past 2 drives.
I hate the 3 runs to burn clock that led to the 4th down. The clock was an almost non factor given ND only needed to go half the field. Throw the freakin ball, at least to give a better chance of a makable field goal. Even if you get sacked on third and long, it doesn’t effect the punt much.
TLDR. Fine with the punt. Horrible play calling before it.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - Phogge - 10-16-2022
To partially answer one of Matt's questions about defense... the young guys on the DL give a bit of hope for the future. Just need more of them. Bailey, Moi, # 92 and #94. Armitage got exposed a couple of times but he has great size on the edge and has a chance to get better. They still need a stud LB (or ILB for the non-Sam McF crowd). Blake Martinez made a lot of tackles and they haven't had close since.
Bonner made the play of the night IMO.
If you watched Sanders of OKS, Rising of Utah, Williams of SC, the kid at Tennessee and others yesterday and Mariota this morning they bring an extra that Stanford doesn't have in the extreme. Not on on designed QB runs but the ability to tuck and pick up first downs.
I kept switching between SU/ND and the Utah game. The crowd and the play made the Salt Lake game more like an X-15 while the South Bend game was running like a balsa wood model. Bama/Tenn must have been great but SC/Utah was one of the best games I've ever seen and I've been working and watching football since 1952.
At minimum Shaw must shake up the staff. Any business stuck in neutral vis a vis department heads has to bring in new blood to survive.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - BostonCard - 10-16-2022
Not on orthopedist, but Wilson’s injury sure looked like a separated shoulder. If the couch diagnosis is correct, prognosis is highly variable:
https://www.hss.edu/playbook/ac-joint-injuries-football-background-diagnosis-treatment/
Probably on the higher end for a wide receiver who has to make catches over his head. We could see Wilson back for the end of the year, or his Stanford career could be over.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - gailtate - 10-16-2022
(10-16-2022, 01:16 PM)Phogge Wrote: To partially answer one of Matt's questions about defense... the young guys on the DL give a bit of hope for the future. Just need more of them. Bailey, Moi, # 92 and #94. Armitage got exposed a couple of times but he has great size on the edge and has a chance to get better. They still need a stud LB (or ILB for the non-Sam McF crowd). Blake Martinez made a lot of tackles and they haven't had close since.
Bonner made the play of the night IMO.
If you watched Sanders of OKS, Rising of Utah, Williams of SC, the kid at Tennessee and others yesterday and Mariota this morning they bring an extra that Stanford doesn't have in the extreme. Not on on designed QB runs but the ability to tuck and pick up first downs.
I kept switching between SU/ND and the Utah game. The crowd and the play made the Salt Lake game more like an X-15 while the South Bend game was running like a balsa wood model. Bama/Tenn must have been great but SC/Utah was one of the best games I've ever seen and I've been working and watching football since 1952.
At minimum Shaw must shake up the staff. Any business stuck in neutral vis a vis department heads has to bring in new blood to survive.
You are hoping against hope for a "shake up of the staff". Shaw's arrogant stubbornness on this issue is the essence of who the man is. He would require a brain transplant and I don't think Stanford Medicine offers it.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - Beeg_Dawg - 10-16-2022
Only got to watch the first half.
By eyeball analysis, I felt the first was Stanford's best half of football in a long time.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - Phogge - 10-16-2022
(10-16-2022, 01:24 PM)gailtate Wrote:(10-16-2022, 01:16 PM)Phogge Wrote: To partially answer one of Matt's questions about defense... the young guys on the DL give a bit of hope for the future. Just need more of them. Bailey, Moi, # 92 and #94. Armitage got exposed a couple of times but he has great size on the edge and has a chance to get better. They still need a stud LB (or ILB for the non-Sam McF crowd). Blake Martinez made a lot of tackles and they haven't had close since.
Bonner made the play of the night IMO.
If you watched Sanders of OKS, Rising of Utah, Williams of SC, the kid at Tennessee and others yesterday and Mariota this morning they bring an extra that Stanford doesn't have in the extreme. Not on on designed QB runs but the ability to tuck and pick up first downs.
I kept switching between SU/ND and the Utah game. The crowd and the play made the Salt Lake game more like an X-15 while the South Bend game was running like a balsa wood model. Bama/Tenn must have been great but SC/Utah was one of the best games I've ever seen and I've been working and watching football since 1952.
At minimum Shaw must shake up the staff. Any business stuck in neutral vis a vis department heads has to bring in new blood to survive.
You are hoping against hope for a "shake up of the staff". Shaw's arrogant stubbornness on this issue is the essence of who the man is. He would require a brain transplant and I don't think Stanford Medicine offers it.
I think a great majority want Shaw out or a shakeup. I would never say stop but since none of us here seem to have the power to influence why don't we just talk politics.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - qwerty49 - 10-16-2022
Great job as usual, Matt. I appreciate that you have stats to back your points up.
I'm one of the folks who thought the ND QB was pretty terrible. The stats you point out seemingly belie this, but he also seems to have some kind of tiny tell in his pre-snap stance that telegraphs when he's going to pass. I can't put my finger on it exactly but every time I thought I saw it he did pass. I guess I'm imagining things.
Karty's 2nd FG scared me when it started to knuckle right and then spun back left right through the uprights. I wish I could make my golf balls do that, but they just keep fading right.
Wilson and Bailey, sigh. Two of the best players on the team. The NBC Domer Homers were pretty effusive about both, especially Wilson's north-south YAC.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - Phogge - 10-16-2022
Q, it's a Domer game. They just are as not subtle as Jon Miller.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - JJJ - 10-16-2022
(10-16-2022, 12:10 PM)martyup Wrote: Silly me. I wanted Karty to be given the chance to show that he could make a 57 yarder. If he did make it, ND would have had to score a TD to win. If he missed it, ND could have won with a FG. After last week's debacle, I had no confidence that our D could avoid giving up a FG to ND, even if they started from the 10 rather than the 38. There was plenty of time left. Alas, our D got the stop. I guess I'm just a silly fool.
BTW, I'll gladly wear the Silly Old Fool moniker if msqueri will keep posting these post game remarks. Great job Sir.
I was right there with you thinking silly scenarios. Happy to join the SOF club.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - BostonCard - 10-16-2022
It’s a little unfair to bring in the hypothetical counterfactual on the play that wasn’t overturned but not on the one that was uncalled. I’m not looking at yard lines, but I think the possession would have been at roughly the same spot in the field (opponents side of the field) so it would have been worth approximately the same amount. That subsequent events realized or negated the value of the call is neither here nor there. The point is that instead of a first down in Notre Dane territory Notre Dame hit the ball due to the bad call, and instead of Notre Dame getting a first down in our territory, we wound up keeping possession due to overturning the
BC