The CardBoard
After sleeping on it... - 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: After sleeping on it... (/thread-3701.html)


After sleeping on it... - OutsiderFan - 09-01-2012

Not much sleep last night, but have some thoughts....

San Jose State is a solid team.  They were physically on par with stanford at the LOS.  That was not expected by anyone, and why Stanford was favored by 24.  It is entirely possible McIntyre has gotten his team to be good.  If they don't win at least eight games this year it would be surprising, and probably mean Stanford won't either.

The biggest question in my mind is for David Shaw or Pep Hamilton: Was that offensive play calling indicative of what you want from your team all season?  One of the most unimaginative offensive game plans I have ever seen.  When it gets to the point I can predict a running play is going to be called to what hole, it isn't good.  The last scrimmage stat line for Nunes was quite concerning for me.  I just don't believe you can win football games with a QB who can't generate at least 10 yds per completion.  Nunes complete 16 passes for 123 yds against SJS.  Simply not winning football.  Only 280 total yards of offense.  You simply can't win games when the other team puts 8 guys up to stop the run and the QB can't make them pay with the pass.  This notion that Stanford is keeping things under wraps for USC is silly.  You want to put as many things on video as possible to give other teams as much to prepare for as possible.  The Duke game will be quite telling. If Nunes can't throw for over 200 yards against Duke, USC is not going to be the worry.

Stanford's defense stiffened and played great when it had to play great.  When you look at the stats overall, anytime a defense yields under 300 yards it's a solid performance.  SJS gained 288.  But, just like 2011, the pass efficiency defense was awful.  Allowing 68% completions is usually a recipe for losses.  Stanford only started pressuring the QB when the game was tied, but then they really did that well. 

The third down conversion disparity is probably the biggest area of concern from the game.  SJS was at one time 6-10 on 3rd down and finished 7-12.  Stanford was a putrid 2-12.  When you run offense like Stanford does, you can't win with that disparity.  And frankly, San Jose State was the better team for three quarters.  The only reason Stanford won was because Stanford was significantly better than SJS in the first quarter.

Usua Amanam was sensational.  Stanford doesn't win without his performance in that game.

Lyons played, so the foot didn't seem to be an issue.  Kept everything in front of him and played well.

FS is as weak as feared.  Reynolds was OK, but Carrington just isn't up to the task.

Tarpley looked like the best ILB out there last night.  It wasn't Vaughters. 

I don't believe Peat or Murphy played LT the whole game.  Murphy and Garnett did play, however, and to my knowledge Peat did not.

Stephan Taylor had very few holes and still churned out tough yards.

Hewitt seems to have been missed.

Nunes wasn't rolled out much if at all and had 0 yards rushing.  He had a few good throws but too many off target ones and far too few intermediate and long passes.  Unless he plays much better next week, and Stanford stretches the field with a more aggressive passing attack, Duke can beat Stanford.  Nunes has to improve more from this week to next than any time in his football life if Stanford is going to have the kind of season being expected. 









Re: After sleeping on it... - washingtonismoney - 09-01-2012

One thing Nunes mentions in the press conference is that San Jose State was taking the long throws away. Not sure what that means, but it's not good.

Re: After sleeping on it... - JohnR34231 - 09-01-2012

SJS was taking the long throws away and stacking the LOS?

Could someone explain to me how you do that?

Nine up front and two thirty yards deep?

Re: After sleeping on it... - OutsiderFan - 09-01-2012

Yes, that quote stunned me too. 

SJS didn't take away the deep stuff.  Nunes did.

Nunes also seemed to suggest he was concerned about being hit, by saying he had good protection and if that continues, he'll be more comfortable passing.

Re: After sleeping on it... - Hurlburt88 - 09-01-2012

one of most disturbing things to me as I wake up is the use of delays on third and short.  with d-line trying to disrupt, everything needs to be perfect in execution, which we struggled with given updated line and missing 2 fullbacks.  Judgement issue . . .

Re: After sleeping on it... - doug - 09-01-2012

Last week, I started the thread "Is anyone else concerned."  My focus was on Shaw and whether he is too conservative, based on his stated criteria for choosing the new QB and the indefensible (in my opinion) decision at the end of the Fiesta Bowl to call off the attack. I still don't have enough information to have confidence in any judgment, but I am even more concerned now than I was last week. Perhaps the greatest thing about Harbaugh was the way every player he put on the field played with confidence and gave the impression he knew the coaches believed he would make the right plays. We didn't show any of that last night as a team. It's subtle but profound difference, but what I saw last night only increases my fear that Shaw's instincts are to play not to lose and risk as little as possible. I still hope that's not the case but last night was not reassuring.

Re: After sleeping on it... - KartyFan - 09-01-2012

(09-01-2012, 05:50 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Nunes also seemed to suggest he was concerned about being hit, by saying he had good protection and if that continues, he'll be more comfortable passing.

Any QB would be more comfortable with good protection. I don't think you can take that as a sign of weakness.

I think Nunes aged well. No terrible decisions from my view in the corner/endzone at least. The OL was disappointing and the DL gave their QB too much time to let receivers get open.

Re: After sleeping on it... - 76lsjumb - 09-01-2012

I entirely agree with the comment regarding needing to get at least 10 yards per completion to be able to say you've got a semblance of a decent passing offense.  But, in fairness to Nunes, if Montgomery had caught the long ball at the end that hit him righ in the hands and pretty much in stride, Nunes would have been right at or slightly over 10 yds/completion [and very well may have had another touchdown pass on his stat line].  At the same time, of course, there were a couple of pretty good catches made on other of his passes, so things balance out.  He missed on some, but I didn't think any of his misses were particularly egregious [except maybe the one that got swatted after about 3 feet in the air], and his touchdown pass was very well placed.  With the right play-calling, I think Nunes can be effective.

My thought afterward was maybe not so much that we missed Luck's physical skills as, apparently, his coaching [i.e., play-calling ability].  When Shaw kept praising Luck's ability to get us/keep us out of bad plays, it didn't register that those "bad plays" were the ones our coaching staff was calling... ??? 

Re: After sleeping on it... - oman - 09-01-2012

(09-01-2012, 08:33 AM)optimistic link Wrote:I think Nunes aged well. No terrible decisions from my view in the corner/endzone at least. The OL was disappointing and the DL gave their QB too much time to let receivers get open.

I think this is a great point.  I saw Nunes as calm last night, not so much deer in the headlights.