The CardBoard
Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - 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 27, No.tre Dame 20 (/thread-6210.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - jeboody - 11-30-2013

(11-30-2013, 09:24 PM)garvin link Wrote:No.tre Dame ran a halfback option that completely sucked in (I think) Devon Carrington, who didn't realize it was a passing play until the WR was seven or eight yards behind him. Carrington concentrated on getting there in time to knock the receiver down for a 15-yard penalty instead of giving up a 56-yard TD, so he never turned around to see the ball was badly underthrown and could easily have been intercepted.

it was alex carter

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - DC - 11-30-2013

It hit Alex Carter in the back after he shoved the receiver.  Alex bit on the run, then found the receiver behind him and was desperately running to catch up.  Doubt he had time to look back at the ball.

Back in the days of idiotface, our db's were taught to NOT look back on the ball, but that certainly appears not to be the case with the team today or we wouldn't be able to get interceptions.  Maybe Hulk can weigh in on the proper technique to cover a receiver one-on-one on deep routes down the sideline.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - washingtonismoney - 11-30-2013

Yes, in some instances the DB shouldn't turn back. (Or, at least, that's what Saban coaches: http://smartfootball.com/defense/nick-saban-schools-you-on-how-to-play-pass-coverage)

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - CowboyIndian - 11-30-2013

(11-30-2013, 10:18 PM)DC link Wrote:It hit Alex Carter in the back after he shoved the receiver.
It looked to me as if the ball hit him in the back and then he shoved the receiver, which seems legal. Anyway, I was cussing the call.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - Nan3cy - 11-30-2013

I'm with you, CI.  >:(

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - martyup - 11-30-2013

Anther 20 something offensive performance.  Tell me how you can score TDs on your first two possessions and only end up with 27 points for the game.  It's not like ND's defense made some dramatic change.

Don't get me wrong, I know that a win is a win.  But I don't understand why in so many games this season we have let teams back into the game after building a big lead.  It's hard to watch.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - Spiny_Norman - 11-30-2013

From David Lombardi - "Shaw says that Stanford DE Josh Mauro just couldn't push off his hurt leg well enough to play today vs Notre Dame. Aggravated late in week."  But he is expected back for ASU.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - Farm93 - 12-01-2013

(11-30-2013, 10:18 PM)DC link Wrote:It hit Alex Carter in the back after he shoved the receiver.  Alex bit on the run, then found the receiver behind him and was desperately running to catch up.  Doubt he had time to look back at the ball.
He was well out of position.  If the throw was decent Alex would never have been their for the PI call.  Given how much ground he needed to cover the desperate run to the receiver was a decent move.  Once beaten as a DB you can't then assume the ball will be underthrown enough that you can get an INT.

I am just thankful his targeting ejection was overturned since losing him for the 1st half of ASU would have been bad news.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - JohnR34231 - 12-01-2013

Shaw seems to have decided that when we are fortunate enough to get a lead in the second half, the best way to win the game is turn it over to the defense, and concentrate offensively on not turning the ball over and giving the opponents an easy chance to score. It seems to work OK, but certainly results in some nail biters that you get the feeling didn't have to be that way.
However, whatever strategies result in a 10-2 regular season record and get us in the Pac-12 championship game can't be all bad.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - Hurlburt88 - 12-01-2013

Yes, 189 is Gaffney's personal best. 

I have a different take on our late game stagnations.  Shaw actually was willing to pass . . . witness the incomplete followed by interception.  But out short & intermediate passing games just are not what they have been in past years.  Very effective weapons for moving the chains with low risk of INT. 

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - CowboyIndian - 12-01-2013

(11-30-2013, 11:22 PM)martyup link Wrote:  But I don't understand why in so many games this season we have let teams back into the game after building a big lead.  It's hard to watch.

Are you familiar with the word "turnover"? We're marching down to make it 21-3...headed to blowout city...and Hogan makes a horrendous choice of targets. Next Up: 14-6 and we give them a life. Turnovers are huuuuuuuugee! We are a complete wash on turnovers this year, I believe, and that's an issue.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - washingtonismoney - 12-01-2013

(12-01-2013, 09:59 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:Are you familiar with the word "turnover"? We're marching down to make it 21-3...headed to blowout city...and Hogan makes a horrendous choice of targets. Next Up: 14-6 and we give them a life. Turnovers are huuuuuuuugee! We are a complete wash on turnovers this year, I believe, and that's an issue.

That and the awfully convenient holding call...

Anyway, with respect to turnovers -- Stanford's gotten unlucky this year. Opponents are recovering 62.5% of fumbles; over the long run, they recover 50%.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - terry - 12-01-2013

(11-30-2013, 09:24 PM)garvin link Wrote:As has been the case too often this season, we're left with a win -- a good win, over a team that's No. 25 in the BCS standings -- but a bitter aftertaste.

No aftertaste here. I walked out of the Stadium happy, and I'm still happy. Good win over a good team.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - washingtonismoney - 12-01-2013

(11-30-2013, 11:22 PM)martyup link Wrote:Anther 20 something offensive performance.  Tell me how you can score TDs on your first two possessions and only end up with 27 points for the game.  It's not like ND's defense made some dramatic change.

Actually! Once you drill down it's pretty easy to see why.

1) N.D. did make a pretty big change in the way it treated its safeties. The first couple drives N.D. decided to drop its safeties pretty low, which is why Hogan started out so strong (and Gaffney relatively slowly). They changed that.

2) that was followed by a lull in which Stanford got stuck in a sequence in which it was buried behind its own 15.

3) Then Stanford scored 13 points in the second half and would've scored more had the refs not pulled a holding call out of each others' posteriors.

Overall, given Hogan's erratic play, I think the 27 points and 6.3 yards per play* were a pretty solid performance.

*(kneel-downs filtered out)

I think the offense was much closer to peak performance than the defense was; but people are conditioned by recent hijinks to blame offense first when it comes to problems. But I thought the defense was worse than the offense relative to expectations, though whether you think the issues are generalizable may affect your opinion.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - Griffins78 - 12-02-2013

Just watched the game on TV from my DVR. I have to say the ACC referees calling our game were really bad - I'd have to say far worse than our Pac-12 refs.

There were so many very visible penalties that they did not call - holds, hands to the face, clips, pass interference, etc. and several that they called that were plain wrong.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - fullmetal - 12-02-2013

Who missed that facemask on the game-sealing interception?  Lyons's helmet was twisted all over his face and no flag was called!  Travesty, abso-bloody-lutely travesty that the refs failed to catch that.

(um, i don't remember seeing a flag.  if there was one, i missed it...)

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - dabigv13 - 12-02-2013

Anybody care to comment on that targeting call? I thought it was unfuckingbelievable, but I was watching in a bar so I didn't catch any of the commentators or Mike Pereira's interpretation...

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - scorecard - 12-02-2013

(12-02-2013, 12:30 AM)Griffin78 link Wrote:Just watched the game on TV from my DVR. I have to say the ACC referees calling our game were really bad - I'd have to say far worse than our Pac-12 refs.

There were so many very visible penalties that they did not call - holds, hands to the face, clips, pass interference, etc. and several that they called that were plain wrong.

It's almost like they didn't want us to win by too much, but that'd be crazy.  Conspiracy theory even.  Because if Pitt, an ACC bottom dweller can beat Notre Dame, then what would Florida State do to Notre Dame?  And Stanford can barely beat Notre Dame and ASU and USC both lost to Notre Dame, so therefore the ACC and Florida State must be so much better than the Pac-12. 

Fullmetal beat me to it as I was writing it, but no, there was no flag called on Lyons' 2nd interception where the Notre Dame receiver basically tried to tear off his helmet by the facemask in the same way that I would rip into a can of Pringles.  It should have been an obvious personal foul which might have been important for field position at that point in the game.  (And what would have happened if Lyons didn't hang on to the ball?  It would have just been an incomplete pass instead of a personal foul or offensive PI)  But that was all rendered moot by Gaffney carrying Irish safeties for 15 extra yards downfield to seal the game (which was wonderfully reminiscent of Gerhart just trucking the Irish safety or Fleener pulling the Irish safety like a plowhorse into the end zone). 

Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - scorecard - 12-02-2013

(12-02-2013, 01:51 AM)dabigv link Wrote:Anybody care to comment on that targeting call? I thought it was unfuckingbelievable, but I was watching in a bar so I didn't catch any of the commentators or Mike Pereira's interpretation...

The reasoning for the flag standing was that they can't pick up the flag once it has been thrown.  On replay, Mike Pereira and the commentators felt the runner slipped, and it really shouldn't have been a penalty at all, as there was no helmet-to-helmet contact.  But there is no recourse once the flag is thrown in college.

For me, it gave me bad memories of Amanam last year getting called for helmet-to-helmet against Everett Golson when he was running and being spun around on a 1st and 20 at midfield that basically put the Irish in field goal range to tie the game towards the end of regulation.  That also wasn't helmet to helmet, and was basically a "it looked like the player was hit too hard, even the crowd said ouch" knee-jerk reaction penalty. 


Re: Final: Stanford 27, No.tre Dame 20 - fullmetal - 12-02-2013

I was in a sports bar and likewise didn't hear Peirera's or the commentators' interpretation, but no helmet-to-helmet contact was shown on the video, and Carter went low at the same time that the ND ballcarrier slipped (didn't quite look deliberate) such that Carter's right shoulder ended up on the ND player's helmet.  Carter was going low all the way--there was no intent to target, and I don't think Carter had any time to redirect himself.  The ND player just didn't keep his footing, so his helmet ended up where his midsection would have been.

But I'm guessing you were thinking the same thing!