The CardBoard
Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - 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 31, Washington 28 (/thread-5787.html)


Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - g1313 - 10-06-2013

Just got back from the game, but I thought the defense played great, but they were on the field for way too long due to our offensive ineffectiveness. Besides the scoring drive at the beginning of the second half, our offense did not record a single first down for the rest of the half. Without the D and special teams today we would have been toast.

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - scorecard - 10-06-2013

For all the good things that happened for us on special teams (Williamson's kicks and Rhynes' punts were pretty darn good as well), the fake punt that UW ran was a killer.  Looked like Lyons had a shot at stopping it, but he missed the tackle.  Granted he had two lineman bearing down on him.  brobdingnagian momentum swing. 

Consecutive games with a turnover streak still alive.  I love the yeti.

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - stupac2 - 10-06-2013

(10-06-2013, 12:52 AM)g1313 link Wrote:Just got back from the game, but I thought the defense played great, but they were on the field for way too long due to our offensive ineffectiveness. Besides the scoring drive at the beginning of the second half, our offense did not record a single first down for the rest of the half. Without the D and special teams today we would have been toast.

I think that sometimes people forget how interrelated these things our. When our offense plays that ineptly it makes the job that much harder for the defense. I thought the defense did a pretty good job all things considered, forcing several key stops in the 4th quarter, and if we had gotten just one damn 1st down we'd all be celebrating a spread-beating 10-point win. Alas and alack...

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - Bruce Wang - 10-06-2013

One area of concern is whoever's advising Shaw on asking for a replay review.  We burned a replay timeout on a clearly inbounds reception.  We could have used that timeout if the officials had not reviewed that last Washington incompletion.

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - Bruce Wang - 10-06-2013

(10-05-2013, 11:48 PM)garvin link Wrote:...this is not the greatest defense in Stanford history. We're still undefeated, but just barely.

On paper it looked like this year's defense was going to be better than last year's, which is starting to look like the greatest in Stanford history (with the caveat that during the time of the Thunder Chickens I was an unfertilized egg and a twinkle in my father's eye).  Even last year's defense had a bad game (Arizona), so let's hope this is the mulligan for the season.

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - PrinceLightfoot - 10-06-2013

I have been reading several articles and comments that start off with what may seem like criticism of our offensive production due to low yardage, but end up on a positive note because it denotes efficiency. I am not sure I buy that completely when referring to our offensive production alone. We failed multiple times at keeping the drive alive - most notably on a critical 3rd and 1 where Lee Ward missed a block and Hogan incorrectly choose to bounce it outside instead of diving forward.

It is interesting to note the following:

Total Washington yardage including special teams and INT returns - 540 yrds
Total Stanford yardage including special teams and INT returns - 537 yrds

The kickoff return for a TD, Ty's other long kickoff return, and Sander's punt return limit potential offensive production. Criticism of our offense is deserved but it should be mitigated as well. There were a few drives where we looked unstoppable. Nonetheless, if we are going to have any chance against Oregon or any other top5 foe, we have several areas that need improvement. Hats off to the Washington defensive scheme and to Keith Price.

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - FarmBoy - 10-06-2013

Lost in the drama over the over-turned call is that amazing INT to halt UW in the red zone. And Sarkisian's really poor decision making on special teams. He's doing a great job of deflecting responsibility for the loss. And UW fans are eating it up.

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - martyup - 10-06-2013

UW is one of the most penalized teams in the FBS.  Yet their fans love to blame all of their problems on the refs.  Excessive penalties fall on the coaches shoulders.  Sark doesn't seem to mind all of the penalties, saying he likes his players to play in "the gray area."  I think we need to send some lovely California cheese up to Seattle to go with that whine.

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - 76lsjumb - 10-06-2013

(10-05-2013, 11:48 PM)garvin link Wrote:Two things got settled tonight: Washington is not overrated, and this is not the greatest defense in Stanford history. We're still undefeated, but just barely.

"Settled" is pretty strong language.  I've got no real quibble with your first point [although I reserve the right to extend and revise my remarks if, next week, Ore.gon blows UW out by the same ~40 pt margin they've been dropping on teams lately].  As to the second point, though, I would be interested in hearing which defense you thought was better than this one.

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - ahuang06 - 10-07-2013

In some defense of Hogan's game - our receivers simply didn't get much separation - at least that I could see. Of the incompletions - half were Hogan throwing high, half seemed to be extremely tight windows. There d-line also did a much better job containing so Hogan couldn't sprint out when his receivers were covered, so he lost his usual safety valve.

Washington's defense, in particular their secondary, just seemed at a whole other level from Wash. St's. I guess the questions are 1) whether the remaining defenses on our schedule will look more like U-Dub's or Wazzu's? 2) can we make adjustments when secondaries smother our receivers?

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - fullmetal - 10-07-2013

I thought our receivers had sufficient separation at the right points in their routes.  I thought Hogan took way too long to throw to those receivers, and in those moments of hesitation, DBs closed out that separation.

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - Mick - 10-07-2013

(10-05-2013, 11:48 PM)garvin link Wrote:Just when it looked like nothing could stop Keith Price and the Huskie offense, we found a secret weapon: the video review. An overturned call in the final 90 seconds of the game pulled out the victory for us.

Here's the scene: After an entire half of back-and-forth between the two teams, Washington was down to the final forth. The Huskies, with 1:47 to go, had a first down at the Stanford 49. But Price, who was 33 for 44 and pretty much having his way with our secondary, suddenly went dry. His first pass, under pressure, went into the ground. His second, under even more pressure, was a throw-away. His third was complete for a first down...until his receiver dropped the ball. So now it was fourth and 10 with 1:31 to go.

Price took the snap in a shotgun formation. His protection was good at first, but he didn't have any open receivers. As the pocket decayed, he rolled deep to his right. A Stanford linebacker -- not sure who -- had a shot at him at the Washington 35, but Price just barely escaped and kept rolling, forward now. With no Stanford defender near, he finally set and threw down the right sideline, where Huskie WR Kevin Smith, diving back toward Price, apparently scooped up the ball just before it hit the field. at the Stanford 33.

Usua Amanam and Alex Carter, both right there on the coverage, immediately signalled that the ball was incomplete. So did several Stanford coaches standing nearby. But David Shaw had unsuccessfully challenged the last Washington reception, so he couldn't ask for a review. With 1:16 on the clock and a timeout left, the Huskies only needed to move the ball a few yards to put it in field goal range. They lined up, the ball was snapped...but it was whistled dead. The replay official upstairs in the press box wanted to take another look.

Two of the three angles ESPN showed viewers on replay suggested the ball might have been trapped. But to me, they fell well short of proving it. I expected the completion call to be upheld. So did the ESPN guys. And from the animated express on Steve Sarkisian's face, so did he.

But that's not what happened. After a seemingly interminable wait, the call on the field was overturned. Kevin Hogan took a couple of knees and the game was over. Shaw's face never changed expression; Sarkisian appeared to wipe a tear from his eye. Did the officials see an angle we didn't? Or just draw a wholly different conclusion from the ESPN guys and me from the same video? Dunno.

Whether the call was correct or not, we got outplayed in every aspect of the game tonight but for one -- special teams. Ty Montgomery, have returned one kick for a touchdown in the first half, set up a second one with a 66 yard return in the third quarter.

Without those two scores, we would have been soundly beaten. Aside from an all-Tyler-Gaffney-all-the-time drive at the start of the third quarter (of the 52 yards non-penalty yards on the drive, Gaffney carried or caught the ball for 37), the Huskies completely shut down our offense. Our total offense in the second half: 100 yards.

Theirs, meanwhile, exploded. They rolled up 489 yards for the game, including 350 passing by Price. They had 31 first downs to our 15. The only things to slow the Huskies down a bit was their continuing penalty problems (10 for 97 all told) and the Stanford front line's pressure, which produced 47 yards in sacks and a red-zone interception.

Two things got settled tonight: Washington is not overrated, and this is not the greatest defense in Stanford history. We're still undefeated, but just barely.

Time of possession, Stanford 31:39, UWashington 28:21.  I don't know why our defense would be more gassed than theirs.

Garvin says Stanford only outplayed UW on special teams.  I contend that UW only outplayed Stanford in the passing game, to wit:

Passing, UW 350 yards, Stanford 105.  That is a first-rate butt-kicking in the passing game.  Of course, when you're down 7-0 after 9.9 seconds, and down 17-7 at half, you'll pass more...28 times more than Stanford.  passing ypc 7.3 for Wash, 5.2 for Stan.
Rushing, Stanford 179 yards, UW 139 yards.  Stanford averaged 4.4 ypc to 3.5 ypc against UW.
Penalties, UW 10 for 89 yards, Stanford 7 for 53 yards.  Advantage, Stanford.
Punting, Stanford averaged more than seven yards net more per punt, 2 returns for 32 yards for Stanford against 4 returns for 25 yards for UW.
Sacks, Stanford five for 30 yards, UW 2 for 7 yards.
Kickoffs, Stanford had four touchbacks, UW had...none
kickoff returns, heh heh, Stanford had five for 211 yards, UW had 2 for 36 yards
Stanford had three red zone chances, scored all three times.  UW had four red zone chances, scored three of the four.

I don't read this as UW outperforming us in every way but special teams.  They did better in passing.  That's all.  Oh, and their coach whines more than Shaw.

Re: Final: Stanford 31, Washington 28 - PrinceLightfoot - 10-07-2013

(10-07-2013, 01:17 PM)Mick link Wrote:Time of possession, Stanford 31:39, UWashington 28:21.  I don't know why our defense would be more gassed than theirs.

The number of plays ran during that amount of time are significantly different as were the length of time our offensive drives lasted during crunch time. We also did not have the depth or ability to rotate players in on the DL effectively to keep them fresh.

Washington ran 88 plays while Stanford ran 61. That is 19 seconds per play vs 31 seconds per play.

When it comes to recuperation, that extra 12 seconds on average per play makes a world of difference for a defensive player.

Our offense supplied four-six minutes of rest for the defense twice in a row as they went three-and-out. All things considered, it is understandable to see several of our guys completely gassed as they were chasing Price on the last play of UW's final drive.