Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - 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 - Louisville (/thread-25283.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 - Louisville (/thread-25283.html)
Pages:
1
2
Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - msqueri - 11-17-2024
1. We needed that! Just when we thought there was no joy in Mudville and the team was at risk of mutiny, the good guys go out and win not only a home game but one against a ranked opponent playing for an outside shot at the playoff. It is Stanford's first win against a ranked opponent since the 2021 Oregon game (2022 Notre Dame played well enough after losing to us to become ranked but was not ranked at the time we beat them) and first such win this late in a season since the 2017 Notre Dame game. We just don't knock off real contenders like this. Thrilling, to say the least. It's especially sweet to break the appalling drought at home against legitimate opposition, and on Senior Day at that. This is the first home win against an FBS opponent since the Arizona State game in 2022 more than two years ago and only the third in the last 1,847 days, a more than five year stretch. Winning on a walk-off kick after a dramatic comeback from 14 points down is the height of catharsis, most of all for the players who have toiled in such futility for so long but also for the few fans who continue to support the program, especially those who made it out to the game. We shouldn't be under any illusions that this is anything but a terrible team or that one day turned things around - we are now Sagarin #104 and SP+ #103, still in the running as one of the worst teams in Stanford history, and we still have not had a game playing like a top 25 team (our games this year have been befitting the #76, #66, #28, #113, #158, #147, #165, #113, #204, and #30 teams in the nation) - but that is a great win considering opponent, fashion, occasion, and impact on morale.
2. In thinking about the much-needed and much-appreciated boost to morale, my mind immediately goes to how credibly the coaches can sell this to players hungry for belief as not only reward for hard work but also as a reflection of team-wide contributions. There were failings in each phase, to be sure (more on that below), but much more salient in a win is that there were major contributions in each phase. On some level, this game was won on the backs of individual performances such as those that get the game balls but even still it wasn't a case where it's hard to identify a standout or two in any phase. Each unit did something to chip in. Most importantly, the win came down to battling with a superior opponent grittily and consistently enough to be in a position to capitalize when that opponent made self-defeating mistakes. When we hear about teams learning how to win this is what that means. And to the extent Taylor is selling/spinning a narrative that the team's level of performance flies in the face of serious adversity, pulling this off on a day without numerous starters, including Wright and Sinclair, helps build belief in the narrative.
3. In my view, this game came down to four things: penalties, time of possession, fourth down brilliance, and remarkable individual performances. There was a brobdingnagian discrepancy between the undisciplined Cardinals committing 13 penalties for 102 yards compared to the disciplined Cardinal committing 3 penalties for 30 yards. As Taylor noted in the post-game press conference in classily declining to pile on to Brohm's end-of-game management, the reason the sequence doomed Louisville is because they subsequently committed multiple (idiotic) penalties that gave us a chance on the game-winning field goal. We wouldn't have won without Louisville's lack of discipline throughout the game and especially late. The stats are reflective of Louisville having the edge on us aside from penalties. Nonetheless, one of the big stories of the game in my view is that it was an edge for Louisville, not a dramatic advantage, and we smartly neutralized that edge by dominating time of possession (35+ minutes, an extra drive than Louisville had, and 71 plays, which were five more than both Louisville in this game and our season average in 2024). Against all odds (seriously, oddsmakers had this one as a no-hoper for us and in fact more moneyline bets were placed on Louisville than any other team in the country this week), we kept this one to an edge for Louisville rather than a dramatic advantage because of stellar execution on fourth downs and standout performances by a few individuals. On defense, we had a third quarter turnover on downs due to buckling down on 2nd and 2 and connecting three consecutive good plays. On offense, we were three for three in insanely high-leverage fourth down situations: 4th down from our own 34 on the first drive of the game, the back of the endzone touchdown on 4th and goal from the 4, and the play of the game with the game-tying touchdown on 4th and 1 from the 25 (shades of Pritchard to Sherman for me). And ultimately, as true as all of the above is, a top 30 team lost to a not-top 100 team in no small part due to individual brilliance that will get their flowers below.
4. Offense and defense both competed quite credibly given the level of opponent. Both the Stanford offense and the Louisville offense scored 2.92 points per drive, a result I will take any time against this opponent. The Stanford offense's effort made the #82 points per drive defense look like the #112 points per drive defense while the Stanford defense's effort made the #23 points per drive offense look like the #20 points per drive offense. Our offense averaged 5.72 yards per play, the best we've done against an FBS opponent other than NC State and above average compared to Louisville's opponents (SMU, Miami, and Georgia Tech did better). A good case can be made that this is the best we've done on offense against a competent defense in the Taylor era. The defense held its own against Louisville, the best yards per play offense on our schedule. We played them tough enough for it to be a middling performance by our yards per play defense and a good one compared to their schedule, holding them to .31 yards per play under their season average (Notre Dame, Clemson, and Miami did better).
5. We did better in the passing phases than the running phases. On offense, this was our highest FBS game passer rating and second highest yards per attempt of the season and the highest passer rating Louisville has given up and fourth highest yards per attempt. Louisville doesn't have a good pass defense but we've faced worse (Syracuse, Wake) and this was a good performance both by our standards and compared to how others do. In contrast, our run game was pitiful, the worst we've done aside from SMU but at least SMU has an elite run defense. Can't say the same for Louisville. We rushed for 56.5 yards and 1.55 yards per carry less than the Louisville norm allowed, the worst any non-Austin Peay team has done this year. It is hard to square this with it being such a good offensive performance for us overall, especially since it's not like we abandoned the run. In fact, 37 rushes is just about exactly (slightly higher even) our season average of 36.5 rushes per game. I am left thinking the standout individual offensive performance really goes an enormous part of the way in explaining the offensive success (I know, I am leaving you all in such suspense on whose performance that was).
6. Defense gave us the stat of the week: yesterday was the best we've done in passer rating allowed or yards per attempt allowed even including Cal Poly. Among Louisville's opponents, only Clemson did clearly better than us in pass defense and we were roughly comparable to how Notre Dame, Virginia, and Miami did. Shough is a top 20 percent QB nationally (#25 in America) and we made him look not quite that good (top 36 percent). This all happened with our best cover guy (Wright) out and no sacks (and an insanely pathetic eight pressures total, the lowest we've had all season and a number that beggars belief). Plus PFF didn't even grade our coverage as doing well, and Louisville had two 100+ yard receivers. Very hard to make sense of how our pass efficiency defense stats were so good (certainly it made a big difference to only give up one passing touchdown, but we were good on YPA too). It seems inescapable to me that the defensive coaches get a gold star for dialing this up with Wright, Sinclair, and Manley out. Run defense did not do as well statistically and this one will not go in the column of games where our run defense did better than the opponent norm, though the stats are skewed by giving up a 68 yard touchdown, 42 percent of Louisville's rushing output on the game. Still, we gave up a 68 yard rushing touchdown and that's bad. Nonetheless, I do consider it a bounce back from the run defense, especially considering Sinclair and Wright were out. For what it's worth, we are now all the way down to #90 in yards per carry allowed, still the best of our four main phases but now bad enough that we can't credibly say this team has any strengths.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - msqueri - 11-17-2024
7. Ok, enough suspense on player of the game. What a game by Mosley. Multiple true freshman school records (though with Ayomanor's redshirt freshman explosion last year we're somewhat limited in other historical superlatives). The only Stanford players to have 18 points in a game since 2016 are Ayomanor against Colorado last year, Fehoko against UCLA in 2020, Parkinson against Oregon State in 2018 (24 points!), Arcega-Whiteside against San Diego State in 2018 (20), Arcega-Whiteside against UCLA in 2018, Scarlett against Rice in 2017, Scarlett against UCLA in 2017, Arcega-Whiteside in the Alamo Bowl against TCU in 2017, Love against Arizona State in 2017, Love against Washington in 2017, McCaffrey against Arizona in 2016, McCaffrey against Oregon in 2016, and McCaffrey against Cal in 2016. (Ok, not THAT rare, but only the second time post-pandemic). Mosley moving the chains a ridiculous nine times matches Ayomanor's Colorado performance in that respect. [Moving the chains (first down) leader board: Mosley (9), Tabb (2), Ayomanor (2), Daniels, Roush, Lamson, Cisse, Bachmeier, Davis] A 62 yard touchdown is needless to say a massive explosive play. In short, this was a coming out party. We will see how the next few weeks go, but Mosley is in the mix to potentially lead ACC freshmen in receiving yards per game. Looking at the historical sweep of Stanford freshmen, Mosley is currently accounting for 19 percent of our passing offense (and keep in mind that is after missing the first three games of the season), which if he stays at that level or above will rank with Ayomanor, Sherman, Bradford, and Yurosek as the most impactful receiving freshmen for Stanford in the 23 years I've tracked that stat. I think it is safe to say, especially since the early games were returning from injury, that this performance is a validating one for the hype Mosley was getting in the off-season. We have an absurdly good WR duo for a team of our quality. (Speaking of which, Ayomanor mostly had a quiet game and the "interception" was a bad mistake by him, but his two big plays in this game were very, very big)
8. I think Mosley made Daniels look good more than Daniels made Mosley look good but fundamentally it does take two to tango and this was a good game by Daniels. Daniels' second half of the season improvement and regression to a more competitive level of play continued, with his Total QBR ranking 62nd of 111 QBs nationally this week, which likely undervalues his level of play as the interception was a big mark against him that I think most of us put on Ayomanor and would have rather seen ruled a fumble. On the year, Daniels is now up to the #90 QB in America, with nine Power Four guys worse. Much more respectable than he was looking earlier in the year. In fact, with a good close to the season he has a chance of besting his ranking from last year (#85) and perhaps McKee's from the year before that (#79). I still think Daniels holds us back, but on a team where that is true in so many places we do have to credit him from the grit and contributions that give us a chance. He's got a chance to remain QB1 for a third year. Let's see how the next few weeks go.
9. I think it's becoming clear that whatever one thinks of Daniels, OL holds us back even more. This is bad, folks. Sacks are partly a QB stat, but six sacks allowed against a team that averages 2.50 is not good. The run game stats I mentioned above are not good. Being ten games into a season and having none of your currently starting OL be among the top 600 OL in the country (SIX MOTHER FREAKING HUNDRED) is not good. [One backup is top 400 and one currently injured player is top 500] This situation is so catastrophically bad at OL that I am loath to single out any one individual (if I did House having the second worst season ever recorded for a Stanford guy would be something to highlight) but just as an explanation of why I am despondent about it, so much of our theory of the case, to the extent that we have one, is that we have young OL who will get better and yet our young OL are not showing signs of getting better, having a baseline that is particularly promising, or sticking around for the long haul (especially considering they burned redshirts). I think we need to expect major changes in the off-season to provide an indication we are trying to fix this debilitating weakness, for instance in the form of both a shuffle on the coaching staff and an insistence that we bring in significant transfers.
10. When I refer to a team effort and contributions across the phases, a fair amount of that on defense has to do with a few players really showing up. It's not as stark as the singular importance Mosley had on the offense, but a few guys stood out more than the others on defense. On a day when only 6-7 defenders had multiple plays that showed up positively in the box score (Bailey, Bernadel, Rose, Staples, Edwards, and Franklin, plus Cooper had one such play but was not credited with a tackle for loss or forced fumble on the play where he set the edge and the back fumbled and fell on it), Bailey and Bernadel each uncorked six positive plays while Rose and Staples each had four, though in Staples' case two were QB hurries where good plays by Shough made it ultimately a better play for Louisville than for Stanford. Bailey stands out to me above all not only for the number of helpful plays but that two of them came in fourth quarter crunch time, including a third down hurry. As usual disappointed not to have more impact from the DL but have to shout out Rowell getting hands up and causing the interception that went to Bernadel, who in addition to the interception was productive in run defense and stepped up nicely in Sinclair's absence. I wish Tafiti and Phillips (hate to say it but I don't think Stanford will miss Phillips much when he's gone) would have built on recent quality performances and that Morris and Nicholson hadn't regressed toward the mean the last two games.
11. Special teams was a story of Kenney, obviously. Made field goals of 41, 24, and 52 (game-winner!) were big contributions. Fun quote from Kenney to Taylor about how Kenney was prepared to nail the initial try before the Louisville offsides, but I sure am glad we got the offsides. Again, I don't think we win without Louisville shooting themselves in the foot. Will take it any day though! Flintoft had net punts of 37 to the 13 (solid), 31 to the 47 (bad due to the return), 31 to the 15 (less than ideal), and 38 to the 32 (remarkably ok result on a blocked punt). Bachmeier had punt returns of 3 and 6 yards and kick returns of 12 to the 20, 22 to the 26, and 13 to the 20. He's a very mediocre returner in both jobs. I hope we can upgrade that going forward but for now am grateful for basic competence. While Kenney will of course get the game ball for walking off the second time this season, it's a mixed bag on kickoffs, in this one getting good starting position due to a holding call and otherwise letting Louisville start on the 42 on an ill-advised pooch, 35 on the always aggravating kick out of bounds, 22 (shout out to Butler and Dubre in coverage), 23 (shout out to Leigber in coverage), and 19 (shout out to Kasemervisz and Mattingly in coverage in crunch time). Our special teams is ok but not an advantage. By the way, our five most relied upon special teams players all participated in Senior Day (Dubre, Raines, Evan Jackson, Shield Taylor, Kasemervisz), so we are losing a ton from special teams. However, Gregory has spoken to relying on veterans (and, implicitly, backups) for special teams, so one can imagine we can cycle new guys into these roles fairly easily next year).
12. Speaking of Senior Day tea leaves, the group photo of the Senior Day participants included, from left to right, Sinclair, Leigber, Dubre, Shield Taylor, Bernadel, Franklin, Evan Jackson, Aristotle Taylor, Raines, Lucas, Kenney, Leyrer, Uke, Buckey, Weselman, Lamson, and Kasemervisz. Among those who have eligibility remaining, Leigber, Franklin, and Leyrer are starters while Lamson is a key contributor. I think it would probably be preferable for Franklin and Leyrer to come back, but neither plays at a level that it moves the needle. Ultimately, this Senior Day group cycling out is a benefit to the program. In terms of participation, it is odd that Sinclair would be the only super senior to participate, with Patterson, Phillips, Bryce Farrell, Ungar, Rogers, McLaughlin, and Porter all not in the photo. I wonder if the photo wasn't everybody or if those players' absence indicates anything about the possibility some of those guys may come back. Aybar and Mayberry were the only other seniors not in the photo. My two cents are that Leigber, Franklin, Patterson, Phillips, Rogers (though he wouldn't seem to have eligibility left, making non-participation more mysterious), McLaughlin, and Aybar are the only ones that should be invited back and/or considered for enticements to stay via revenue sharing or NIL.
13. Game balls: Mosley, Bailey, Kenney, Taylor
14. It's premature to say this game salvaged the season but happily it at least gives us some hope. Having two more games like this and ending the season 5-7 would undoubtedly feel like progress. The season would then take on a totally different feel than where we've been most of this fall. One can also imagine scenarios in which effective salesmanship/spin makes a four win season feel like something we can build on. After yesterday, it now feels much more reasonable to hope these last two games can be something worth rooting for. For now, all that is before is Big Game and a pretty classic (for this rivalry) matchup of a mediocre team trying to make a bowl against a bad team with a puncher's chance of ruining the party. Let's get the Axe!
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - BostonCard - 11-17-2024
As much as Daniels was hurt by an interception that was really more of a fumble and not his fault, it is worth noting that he was also bailed out twice on interceptions that were called back due to penalties, so still kind of a mixed bag.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - msqueri - 11-17-2024
(11-17-2024, 02:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: As much as Daniels was hurt by an interception that was really more of a fumble and not his fault, it is worth noting that he was also bailed out twice on interceptions that were called back due to penalties, so still kind of a mixed bag.
BC
Sort of. At least one I am pretty sure he saw the defensive holding and treated it like a free play. And in general when there is a defensive penalty on a turnover there is a non-trivial chance the penalty contributed to the turnover. But yes, mixed bag and as usual I think Total QBR does a fair job of approximating performance.
The broader story on Daniels is that in September he was a thoroughly non-major college football player and just absolutely horrendous and since then has been very mediocre. We can compete with mediocre. If he plays these next two weeks like he has post-September I think it puts his season in a different light.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - needle - 11-17-2024
Quote: On offense, we were three for three in insanely high-leverage fourth down situations: 4th down from our own 34 on the first drive of the game, the back of the endzone touchdown on 4th and goal from the 4, and the play of the game with the game-tying touchdown on 4th and 1 from the 25 (shades of Pritchard to Sherman for me).
The two fourth-down scoring plays were great plays by the QB. Lamson and Daniels should always be remembered fondly by us fans for these clutch throws.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - fullmetal - 11-17-2024
I think Daniels saw the flags and chucked up some 50/50 throws for the free plays. brobdingnagian credit to Daniels and Lamson for playing much better than their early season selves. Limiting the QB mistakes allowed everyone else to contribute. I need to rewatch the defense, but getting pressure on Shough in the fourth quarter was key to making those defensive stops. In previous games, we'd rush three and get picked apart. It's impossible to consistently defend the pass with our patchwork secondary if we don't get pressure on the QB.
Not sure what was up with the run game, but maybe Louisville decided to commit to run defense and dare Stanford to throw.
Franklin left the game for targeting and will have to sit out the first half of Big Game, no? I saw Leigber leave the game too, so I hope he's alright.
Daniels didn't seem to have enough acceleration out of the collapsing pocket to escape a few sacks. He needs to either train with the track team this spring or commit to running just a bit sooner.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - Goose - 11-17-2024
(11-17-2024, 02:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: As much as Daniels was hurt by an interception that was really more of a fumble and not his fault, it is worth noting that he was also bailed out twice on interceptions that were called back due to penalties, so still kind of a mixed bag.It can be argued that Daniels knew for sure on at least one of those interceptions he had a "free play". The other was defensive holding early in the play so even in that case Daniels might have been pretty sure he could take chances. Obviously don't know.
BC
Totally agree that on the "interception" it was not Daniels fault. For those of you that want to look it happened at 3:50 into the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpj6slzhXs. However, IMO it was ruled an interception because even though Ayomanor had two hands on the ball the DB had his hand on the ball too, between the ball and Ayomanor's chest. Ayomanor could not pull the ball to his body. He therefore did not have "control" of the ball. By the time Ayomanor's feet hit the ground, the DB is in the process of pulling the ball out, an action he completes shortly thereafter.
Be that as it may, it wasn't Daniels fault. He put the ball where he was supposed to. I also find it hard to blame Ayomanor much. He had to make a good athletic play to wall off the DB and jump to catch the ball. The DB got a hand in. He then made a play. That happens. That is why I hate these "jump balls" being a major feature of our offense. First, the defense often knows what is coming. We over-use this type of play. Second, if the DB can stay with the play he is often in a position to intercept or, at a minimum, break up the pass. Third, Daniels has to put the ball in exactly the right place. Often he doesn't, risking an easy interception.
There was a time in college football when lots of DBs were small, fast guys. JJAW made a living against them. That isn't true anymore. Now DBs tend to have long wingspans and be much larger men. The player who made the interception, Corey Thornton (14) is listed as 6'1" 195 lbs. Ayomanor is 6'2" 210 lbs. It isn't night and day anymore.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - cctop - 11-17-2024
(11-17-2024, 03:46 PM)Goose Wrote: For those of you that want to look it happened at 3:50 into the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpj6slzhXs.
Thanks for the link to the condensed game.
At the 22:40 mark, I just realized that the QB on 4th-and-1 with 0:50 seconds left was Lamson, not Daniels. An entire season of subbing him in just for the short-yardage run set up the TD pass. But man he took a hard hit.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - threepointer - 11-17-2024
We won the time of possession battle by allowing them to score quickly on their drives. Smart. :{
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - Red80 - 11-17-2024
(11-17-2024, 03:20 PM)fullmetal Wrote: I think Daniels saw the flags and chucked up some 50/50 throws for the free plays. of immense proportions credit to Daniels and Lamson for playing much better than their early season selves. Limiting the QB mistakes allowed everyone else to contribute. I need to rewatch the defense, but getting pressure on Shough in the fourth quarter was key to making those defensive stops. In previous games, we'd rush three and get picked apart. It's impossible to consistently defend the pass with our patchwork secondary if we don't get pressure on the QB.
Not sure what was up with the run game, but maybe Louisville decided to commit to run defense and dare Stanford to throw.
Franklin left the game for targeting and will have to sit out the first half of Big Game, no? I saw Leigber leave the game too, so I hope he's alright.
Daniels didn't seem to have enough acceleration out of the collapsing pocket to escape a few sacks. He needs to either train with the track team this spring or commit to running just a bit sooner.
I'd say Daniels runs a legit 4.5 40. He has plenty of speed, as evidenced by his long TD runs vs NC State. Louisville's DL has some big time talent and athletes. They destroyed Stanford's OL all day, which makes Daniels' performance even more impressive. Commit to running sooner would mean as soon as he received the snap on a number of those plays. The protection was that bad. AD was a warrior yesterday.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - needle - 11-18-2024
If you can handle the bro talk, there's some decent-to-good film analysis from the Louisville side starting at the 34-minute mark of this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz1JCVmV-60&t=2708s
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - JohnR34231 - 11-18-2024
(11-17-2024, 04:06 PM)cctop Wrote:(11-17-2024, 03:46 PM)Goose Wrote: For those of you that want to look it happened at 3:50 into the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpj6slzhXs.
Thanks for the link to the condensed game.
At the 22:40 mark, I just realized that the QB on 4th-and-1 with 0:50 seconds left was Lamson, not Daniels. An entire season of subbing him in just for the short-yardage run set up the TD pass. But man he took a hard hit.
Yep, whoever said Lamson running the ball on fourth and short was totally predictable must have convinced Louisville of it.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - cardcrimson - 11-18-2024
(11-18-2024, 07:47 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:Lamson threw a dart to the back of the end zone on a goal line play earlier in the season. Don't know if it was fourth down, but clearly everyone was expecting him to run then, too.(11-17-2024, 04:06 PM)cctop Wrote:(11-17-2024, 03:46 PM)Goose Wrote: For those of you that want to look it happened at 3:50 into the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpj6slzhXs.
Thanks for the link to the condensed game.
At the 22:40 mark, I just realized that the QB on 4th-and-1 with 0:50 seconds left was Lamson, not Daniels. An entire season of subbing him in just for the short-yardage run set up the TD pass. But man he took a hard hit.
Yep, whoever said Lamson running the ball on fourth and short was totally predictable must have convinced Louisville of it.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - BostonCard - 11-18-2024
(11-18-2024, 07:47 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Yep, whoever said Lamson running the ball on fourth and short was totally predictable must have convinced Louisville of it.
Except... the linebacker had Lamson dead to rights and had he taken even a fraction of a second longer, he would have been sacked, and Mosely was covered, though he had a step on his DB. By the way, Sam Roush totally ran by his coverage and there was a pretty egregious hold by what looks like #11 (though that number is listed as a TE on Louisville's roster) who just grabs his pants.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - SkiBum80 - 11-18-2024
(11-18-2024, 01:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-18-2024, 07:47 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Yep, whoever said Lamson running the ball on fourth and short was totally predictable must have convinced Louisville of it.
Except... the linebacker had Lamson dead to rights and had he taken even a fraction of a second longer, he would have been sacked, and Mosely was covered, though he had a step on his DB. By the way, Sam Roush totally ran by his coverage and there was a pretty egregious hold by what looks like #11 (though that number is listed as a TE on Louisville's roster) who just grabs his pants.
BC
I missed that uncalled penalty.
Just add it to the list of bad refereeing in the game.
The targeting call on Franklin and the no-call on the very late (long after the whistle) MMA throwdown of Cole Tabb that injured him out of the game. Couple of worst calls/no calls this season.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - SamuelMcF - 11-18-2024
(11-18-2024, 01:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-18-2024, 07:47 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Yep, whoever said Lamson running the ball on fourth and short was totally predictable must have convinced Louisville of it.
Except... the linebacker had Lamson dead to rights and had he taken even a fraction of a second longer, he would have been sacked, and Mosely was covered, though he had a step on his DB. By the way, Sam Roush totally ran by his coverage and there was a pretty egregious hold by what looks like #11 (though that number is listed as a TE on Louisville's roster) who just grabs his pants.
BC
Ryan Butler, who was in pass pro on that play, is going to have a very bad time in the film room. Straight-up ignored the LB barreling down the middle.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - BostonCard - 11-18-2024
My point is that the key to the play was Mosley beating his man and Lamson making a just good enough throw just in the nick of time; it just as easily could have been a disaster. That Lamson is our short yardage running QB didn’t really fool Louisville.
Would anyone be talking about how clever it was had the LB sacked Lamson?
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - Goose - 11-18-2024
(11-18-2024, 03:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: My point is that the key to the play was Mosley beating his man and Lamson making a just good enough throw just in the nick of time; it just as easily could have been a disaster. That Lamson is our short yardage running QB didn’t really fool Louisville.Agree. My initial expectation after seeing the formation was a flea-flicker. A single back lined up that deep isn't normally what we see on a Lamson short-yardage run. I also didn't think we were just going to try and get the first down. We arguably had enough time (50 seconds) to drive the 25 yards but IMO the offense had just done a whole lot to even get us close. It didn't "feel like" the 25 yards would be all that easy. I don't think it fooled Louisville completely, but I think the linebacker "stayed home" a moment longer than he should have. He was kind of in "no mans land". As you point out, a moment earlier would have mattered. The fake hand-off was so bad it fooled nobody.
Would anyone be talking about how clever it was had the LB sacked Lamson?
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - needle - 11-19-2024
Today in Sick Sad World:
Quote: LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) – University of Louisville sophomore defensive back Tayon Holloway was arrested Sunday on charges of felony strangulation and misdemeanor domestic assault, according to court records.
Holloway, 20, allegedly attacked a woman when she tried to stop him from smoking marijuana at about 9 p.m. Sunday night, according to a police report.
Police claim Holloway threw the woman off the bed and struck her in the face with his fists. When she tried to fight back, Holloway allegedly put a pillow over her face, smothering her for about 10 seconds before attempting to throw her out of the room, according to police.
https://www.wdrb.com/news/louisville-football-defensive-back-tayon-holloway-charged-with-assault-and-felony-strangulation/article_cf39ddce-a603-11ef-8b0d-8793a47c8455.html
This is the kid who committed the personal foul putting Stanford in field goal range to end the game. I don't feel sorry for him at all, but I am curious how he was treated by coaches and teammates after the game ended. Regardless, I hope he gets kicked off the team.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Louisville - SkiBum80 - 11-19-2024
I'll be very interested to hear how much and what exactly Coach TT says about injuries in his pre-Cal presser.
Of course I know he is reticent to say much about it, for competitive game-planning purposes.
But he has in the past sometimes been willing to comment on guys as being unavailable or unlikely or possible or day-to-day or something other.
Secondary, RB's, LB, almost every position seems to have somebody(s) down.