The CardBoard
From the rose bowl - 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: From the rose bowl (/thread-6505.html)


From the rose bowl - twgin - 01-01-2014

Forget that except for similar incompetent coaching at Utah we would be playing for the natty,

Between f'in Shaw and the f'in refs we didn't have a chance.

Re: From the rose bowl - washingtonismoney - 01-01-2014

Shaw coached defenders to drop INTs or for OL to get pushed around? Good to know.

Re: From the rose bowl - Gauss - 01-01-2014

(01-01-2014, 06:37 PM)twgin link Wrote:Forget that except for similar incompetent coaching at Utah we would be playing for the natty,

Between f'in Shaw and the f'in refs we didn't have a chance.

Shaw is obviously not blameless, but credit where credit is due. MSU played a hell of a game, even after falling 10-0 behind.
Also, I'd assign to Lyons' coverage (PIs and big plays allowed) a significant part of the blame.

In the end, MSU played better and we had a good season with the Pac-12 title. Onto 2014!

Re: From the rose bowl - twgin - 01-01-2014

We were clearly better than Utah, and clearly better today.  Our players were motivated but badly led.  As follows the pattern, we lose games because of terrible in game management.  How many times can your defense bail you put when you give the opponent 1st and ten on the 27 yard line? A complete and utter coaching fail...


Re: From the rose bowl - 82 Card - 01-01-2014

I don't agree that we were clearly better. We were getting beat on both sides of the line for half the game and our defensive secondary was getting beat. Although some of the play calling can be questioned, as always, the team showed many signs of having been well prepared by the coaching staff. I am not inclined to throw bombs at either the players or the coaches.

Re: From the rose bowl - jacketree - 01-01-2014

I don't know how anyone could possibly say Stanford is 'clearly' better than Michigan State after watching the Rose Bowl. (Those stat wars over the past few weeks seem a little silly too.) I hope this ends whining about missed nattys. Still baffled by all the runs into the teeth of a defensive front that was clearly superior to Stanford's line.  Spartans had the run of play after first Stanford drive. They deserve the trophy.

Re: From the rose bowl - needle - 01-01-2014

The revelation to me was the MSU wideouts. Didn't think they would be able to come up with a great catch.

The problem with the way the game unfolded is that, as another poster said elsewhere, it just seems that Stanford has near-zero faith in its quarterback to make a throw in a throwing situation.

And, yes, getting the ball on your own 25 with 3:06 to play needing a TD *is* an obvious passing situation. Instead, we see four rushes (officially, according to the box score; I would concede that it was a pass to Seale).

Ty Montgomery being out probably influenced this thinking, but you have to just let the balls fly in that circumstance to have a realistic chance to win.

Re: From the rose bowl - twgin - 01-01-2014

Two observations;

IMO, probably shared by everyone else in the stadium wearing a red shirt, Stanford was jobbed badly by the refs in the first half, I think the score should have been 17 - 3 end of the half without poor calls, hence clearly better. I might be wrong, have to get home to look at the recording.

But we still had the lead at the half and the ability to control the game.

But come the second half we had no plan, no concept, no nothing. A rudderless team slowly losing the game, and that's exactly what happened.  Coach Shaw had no idea what to do so he kept sending Gafney up the middle for two yards.  With four minutes left he is still at it, no doubt still hoping that our punishing run game will eventually tire the defense. 

A terrible job of coaching ...


Earth to Shaw. Earth to Shaw... - Redrum - 01-01-2014

Statistics don't lie.  The wildcat loses more predictably than it succeeds spectacularly.  We ran into a superior team and did not have schematic adjustments to counter it.  Now, schematic adjustments of any type might not have been sufficient, but how many times does one have to try the same thing before figuring out to do something else?  A really good coach knows how to adapt during games and Shaw hasn't had to do a lot of that in the last three years.  But he wasn't able to make coaching adjustments work for us when we were getting beaten at our own game.  Shaw shouldn't be fired or any of that other nonsense we'll hear in the next few days/weeks, but he needs lots of analysis and outside people showing him what his scoutable tendencies are and how to counter that.

Re: Earth to Shaw. Earth to Shaw... - washingtonismoney - 01-01-2014

(01-01-2014, 09:08 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Statistics don't lie.  The wildcat loses more predictably than it succeeds spectacularly.

I haven't seen any statistics on the wildcat -- have you? Very serious about this question; been rewatching Stanford games trying to chart it and was hoping someone else had done the work.

Re: Earth to Shaw. Earth to Shaw... - Farm93 - 01-01-2014

(01-01-2014, 09:08 PM)Redrum link Wrote:We ran into a superior team and did not have schematic adjustments to counter it.

Exactly, MSU's D chased down those big plays to stop TDs.  They also rallied later in those drives to force punts or FGs.  They were built to stop a team like Stanford and did the job.  Tip of the hat to a very good team.

I wish Stanford tried something different in the final drive, but that is not Stanford under Coach Shaw.  Stanford has gone to 4 BCS bowls because Stanford almost stubbornly sticks to the run with the belief that eventually it will work.  MSU was just tough enough to never yield.  Congrats to them.  Really no reason to change the team philosophy unless one wants to avoid losing in bowl games by never playing in them.

Like most games this year.  Stanford did enough to have a chance for the win, but also failed to do enough to deserve to win.  Hopefully 2014 will produce more consistency on the road and on obvious passing downs.

I feel bad for the seniors that gave Stanford so much, but suspect that the loss will help keep the returning members of the squad motivated to achieve more in the 2014 season.

It goes beyond last-minute desperation improvisation - Redrum - 01-01-2014

By early in the 3rd quarter the mojo that "is Stanford football"  wasn't working.  Unlike Mike Leach,  Shaw knows caution.  He is smart enough to run the clock with ball control.  But before every down and every second counted, we could have used a passing game that MSU did not have 3 weeks to study and pick apart.  The creative use of TEs comes to mind.  We use our TEs for jumbo blocking.  IIRC, not ONE pass to TE all game.  Maybe that wouldn't have worked.  But not much else was working so... we get down to desperation time and by then it's too late. 

Party on, Spartans!  You earned it.  The better team won.

Re: From the rose bowl - BostonCard - 01-01-2014

Tight ends caught 10 passes on the year, a year after they were two out of our top three receivers.  Now it could be that shaw forgot that tight ends could catch balls, but it seems more likely that the tight ends we have are simply not as good at running routes and catching passes as the guys we lost.

BC