The CardBoard
I've never been so optimistic after a loss - 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: I've never been so optimistic after a loss (/thread-7716.html)

Pages: 1 2

I've never been so optimistic after a loss - OutsiderFan - 09-06-2014

It is clear how good the offensive pieces Stanford has are.  They moved the ball to the USC 32 on every possession, the defense was PHENOMENAL, and this OL is going to be incredible.  If they improve the Red Zone offense, which seems doable, Stanford will win the Pac-12.  It sure would be nice to get USC in the title game and beat them on the scoreboard as well as on the field. 

My guess is Stanford's coaching staff is going to totally re-think it's Red Zone offense, simplify, and be far less predictable.  In a way, this loss may be a catalyst for making the team better. 

On another note, the chop block call was an abomination, IMO.  You simply can't call that penalty.  The guy Wright hit low wasn't engaged by Garnett.  The spirit of the rule is you don't hit a guy low when he is already engaged.  Two guys went at a blitzing LB one guy was blocking him low, and the other was reaching to push him high.  Garnett hit the guy after Wright had upended him.  Just a mind-numbingly awful call to make, on a potentially game deciding play. 









Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - berto41 - 09-06-2014

At least you acknowledge that it was very predictable. Extremely predictable in the red zone. Debit that to the coaches. I have zero confidence that Shaw will put in a set of plays that make our O in those situations unpredictable. "That's who we are. We tell 'em we're going to run -- even though this year we have no tough yardage runner -- and then we run it. So, what it we don't make it because they line up with 9 in the box. That's who we are!!!!" Pardon me if I take some Pepto Bismol over that one.

Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - oman - 09-06-2014

I think the problem is we didn't run even predictable runs enough, especially in downs 1-3. 

Chop block trivia - Mick - 09-06-2014

Dwight D. Eisenhower (as well as Omar Bradley) were members of the West Point football team.  Eisenhower was a running back and linebacker (tackled Jim Thorpe in one game).  In his last game, he was a victim of what was then called a "high-low" play, or a chop block.  Ruined his knee, then re-injured the knee in boxing and horseback riding, so he turned to gymnastics and fencing.  Seriously.

Re: Chop block trivia - Mick - 09-06-2014

(09-06-2014, 07:42 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=10564.msg97130#msg97130 date=1410057495]
Dwight D Eisenhower (as well as Omar Bradley) were members of the West Point football team.  Eisenhower was a running back and linebacker (tackled Jim Thorpe in one game).  In his last game, he was a victim of what was then called a "high-low" play, or a chop block.  Ruined his knee, then re-injured the knee in boxing and horseback riding, so he turned to gymnastics and fencing.  Seriously.

And started the interstate highway system to provide landing and take off runways for our bombers.
[/quote]


I often thought that his work on the highway system dated to one of his early assignments.  He graduated West Point in 1915, was stationed stateside (early on, he was repeatedly denied overseas assignments and didn't see action in WWI, which General Montgomery held over his head, a bit).  In 1919, he was a young captain and was assigned to a transcontinental tank division to dramatize the need for improved roads throughout the nation.  The convoy averaged 5 mph from Washington DC to San Francisco.  I imagine that Ike had that in mind when he improved the nation's highways.

Post-WWI, he commanded a tank battalion (along with Patton).  As young officers in the early 1920s, they were very much in favor of speed-oriented tank attacks (not unlike the signature feature of the German blitzkrieg two decades later), but the senior officers at the time strongly discouraged Ike and wanted to use tanks in the rear to support infantry.  So strong were Ike's opinions, he was threatened with court martial if he continued to publish them.


Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - 81alum - 09-06-2014

Eisenhower had crossed the nation in a military convoy on the Lincoln Highway early in his career, and it took two months.  Then as  Commander in Europe he learned the strategic advantage Germany had by being able to move military equipment east/west and west/east.  When he lobbied in 1956 for the Highway Act he argued that the United States should have the same advantages that Germany had possessed for moving troops and supplies.

The bomber argument sounds pretty wild, but probably has a grain of truth somewhere.  I would guess that Germany must have used some of its autobahn for runways and that argument could have been thrown around by some pro Highway Act congressman during the 1956 debate.  It doesn't mean it was the main purpose.

It is possible/probably that Eisenhower knew that the highway system was needed for economic development, and that the military uses were a convenient argument during the Cold War, but I would have to dig a lot deeper to try to prove that.



Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - 81alum - 09-06-2014

(09-06-2014, 08:39 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=10564.msg97168#msg97168 date=1410060670]
Eisenhower had crossed the nation in a military convoy on the Lincoln Highway early in his career, and it took two months.  Then as  Commander in Europe he learned the strategic advantage Germany had by being able to move military equipment east/west and west/east.  When he lobbied in 1956 for the Highway Act he argued that the United States should have the same advantages that Germany had possessed for moving troops and supplies.

The bomber argument sounds pretty wild, but probably has a grain of truth somewhere.  I would guess that Germany must have used some of its autobahn for runways and that argument could have been thrown around by some pro Highway Act congressman during the 1956 debate.  It doesn't mean it was the main purpose.

It is possible/probably that Eisenhower knew that the highway system was needed for economic development, and that the military uses were a convenient argument during the Cold War, but I would have to dig a lot deeper to try to prove that.

Eisenhower wasn't fighting the defeated Germans he was worried about the Russkis. You know, the guys with atom bombs?  This was very real back then.  We had canned food and everything needed to withstand nuclear attack at my house, including wooden desks to hide under.  As the oldest child I even knew where my parents has hidden $50 to use as bribes in case the Red Menace arrived while they were away.  I was about 8 years old at the time.  But wise beyond my ears.  Sadly it may be that the Russian 59er isn't gone yet, even though the President mocked Mr. Romney for suggesting so.
[/quote]
Yes, I remember the Cold War too, and carting fresh water and blankets to the bomb shelter in our basement for my family during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  We were near an air force base and expected to have to survive the fallout.

I probably muddied my meaning in the earlier post.  Eisenhower was certainly worried about the Soviets during the height of the Cold War, but his idea for the American freeway system came from his experience in Germany and his admiration for the engineering of the German autobahn and the military advantages it gave them.  No doubt he intended this German-inspired system to help us case of Soviet attack.  It was certainly not the only German idea we borrowed to help in the Cold War. 

Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - estephan500 - 09-07-2014


This thread is funny.  Person 1:  I am optimistic and we are going to win the PAC-12.  Everyone else:  Hmm, let's talk about Eisenhower...



Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - JohnR34231 - 09-07-2014

(09-07-2014, 02:29 AM)estephan link Wrote:This thread is funny.  Person 1:  I am optimistic and we are going to win the PAC-12.  Everyone else:  Hmm, let's talk about Eisenhower...

Winning the Pac-12 North is tough now because not only do we have to beat the Ducks in Eugene, but we are going to have to depend on them losing another conference game, since I seriously doubt if we will get through the rest of our conference schedule undefeated.
You're right though, it's a little early in the season to be getting all discouraged and why not stay optimistic?


Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - OutsiderFan - 09-07-2014

This is the type of loss that can inspire a team to win the rest of its games.  But it all depends on the strength of the team's leadership.  Someone must step up and become the clear leader to say:  We're mad as hell and not going to take this anymore.  IMO, it has to be Hogan or Shaw, because the defense can't be asked to do more.  Stanford has lost its last three games giving up an avg. of less than 17 PPG. 

Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - Stymie - 09-07-2014

(09-06-2014, 09:02 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=10564.msg97173#msg97173 date=1410062110]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10564.msg97170#msg97170 date=1410061191]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=10564.msg97168#msg97168 date=1410060670]
Eisenhower had crossed the nation in a military convoy on the Lincoln Highway early in his career, and it took two months.  Then as  Commander in Europe he learned the strategic advantage Germany had by being able to move military equipment east/west and west/east.  When he lobbied in 1956 for the Highway Act he argued that the United States should have the same advantages that Germany had possessed for moving troops and supplies.

The bomber argument sounds pretty wild, but probably has a grain of truth somewhere.  I would guess that Germany must have used some of its autobahn for runways and that argument could have been thrown around by some pro Highway Act congressman during the 1956 debate.  It doesn't mean it was the main purpose.

It is possible/probably that Eisenhower knew that the highway system was needed for economic development, and that the military uses were a convenient argument during the Cold War, but I would have to dig a lot deeper to try to prove that.

Eisenhower wasn't fighting the defeated Germans he was worried about the Russkis. You know, the guys with atom bombs?  This was very real back then.  We had canned food and everything needed to withstand nuclear attack at my house, including wooden desks to hide under.  As the oldest child I even knew where my parents has hidden $50 to use as bribes in case the Red Menace arrived while they were away.  I was about 8 years old at the time.  But wise beyond my ears.  Sadly it may be that the Russian 59er isn't gone yet, even though the President mocked Mr. Romney for suggesting so.
[/quote]
Yes, I remember the Cold War too, and carting fresh water and blankets to the bomb shelter in our basement for my family during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  We were near an air force base and expected to have to survive the fallout.

I probably muddied my meaning in the earlier post.  Eisenhower was certainly worried about the Soviets during the height of the Cold War, but his idea for the American freeway system came from his experience in Germany and his admiration for the engineering of the German autobahn and the military advantages it gave them.  No doubt he intended this German-inspired system to help us case of Soviet attack.  It was certainly not the only German idea we borrowed to help in the Cold War.
[/quote]

I stand by my comments.  Ike wasn't fighting Germany and wasn't concerned about a ground invasion.  He was concerned about an aerial, probably nuclear assault and wanted to assure surviveability and retaliation.  He also knew the public was war weary so didn't reveal his true intentions.  His subterfuge obviously worked, convincing even you.  Because of past acquaintences and associations I can't say more.  Probably best you continue to believe in interstate commerce.  Yes, that is probably correct.  Please delete all these messages.
[/quote]

One of my best friends' dad was a builder and built a bomb shelter in his back yard.  My friend told me that he wouldn't let me in if the Russkis started bombing us and I told him that I knew where the air vent was and I'd stuff it full of wet rags until he let me in.  We were evil children....

Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - StanFan88 - 09-07-2014

(09-07-2014, 02:29 AM)estephan link Wrote:This thread is funny.  Person 1:  I am optimistic and we are going to win the PAC-12.  Everyone else:  Hmm, let's talk about Eisenhower...

I wish I could share your optimism, but:
- Too many OL penalties
- Pick an RB (hopefully Young) and stick with him. 4 RBs = No RBs
- Either put Williamson out there whenever we are inside the 35 or bench him and let the Mad Russian have a crack
- Start calling plays that fit the offense you have not the one you want to have

That's a lot to fix, but if that all doesn't happen this team will be in the Fight Hunger Bowl.

Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - yvonne - 09-07-2014

— The OL issues will probably get cleaned up over the course of the season.
— However, I don't think we shall or even can see an end to RB by committee because we don't have the kind of back like No 37 on the other side who can break tackles and pick up yardage.
— I don't know what to make of Williamson. This happened the very week after he became the all time scoring leader.
— Listening to the press conference, I hear that Shaw takes responsibility for some of what happened in the red zone (not the fumbles and missed FGs), and he specifically mentioned tuning the right plays to the personnel we have.

One of the things I wonder about that hasn't been mentioned and is critical is upper class leadership. That's one of the biggest things we lost with Shane. The first time I saw the video of him leading the C-House cheer, I thought, "Wow, that's a real alpha male." Do we have senior leadership, or is it just a bunch of guys?

Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - fullmetal - 09-07-2014

When you've got four team captains...you have don't have a team captain.

Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - gocard14 - 09-07-2014

I too am optimistic.  The play calling and execution between the 20s was fantastic.  Good mix of run and pass, inside and outside, power vs. play-action vs. screens and trickery. The defense adjusted well to USCs wide splits and played well despite some areas for improvement (if we tackle like that on the perimeter against Oregon we'll get slaughtered).

I don't think we need to install more special red zone offense.  We just need to execute our regular offense better.

Our drives ended with:
-Multiple penalties leading to missed long field goal. This has been a pattern in the first two weeks, I think we'll clean this up.
-High snap fumble. We have a new center, hopefully will be sorted out as the year goes on)
-Stopped on fourth and 1 that should have been converted. I dislike the play call here.  Sure Marx is bigger then our RBs, but give the ball to the guy whose used to carrying it. Or better yet give Hogan a bootleg option if they crowd the line.
T-D called back for drive killing 15yd penalty on a terrible call.
-Hand-off fumble between Hogan and wright.  One of the downsides of having so many RBs is the potential for this, though IMO it looked like a bad handoff by Hogan (couldn't decide if he was going to hand off or pass until too late).

Bottom line: We hurt ourselves with a serious mix of bad luck and mental mistakes.  All of these are correctable, and I have enough faith in Shaw as a coach to get that done. Our Defense looked fantastic. Our offense showed that it is dynamic and dangerous, Shaw just needs to get out of his own head during red zone play calling. I could see us running the table, but our margin for error just got awfully small.

Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - washingtonismoney - 09-07-2014

(09-07-2014, 08:58 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:When you've got four team captains...you have don't have a team captain.

So...we had zero team captains last year? And the year before that?

Virtually every team has multiple captains.

Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - thunder_chik - 09-07-2014

(09-07-2014, 08:48 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:One of the things I wonder about that hasn't been mentioned and is critical is upper class leadership. That's one of the biggest things we lost with Shane. The first time I saw the video of him leading the C-House cheer, I thought, "Wow, that's a real alpha male." Do we have senior leadership, or is it just a bunch of guys?

Yvonne, good point.  The same thing crossed my mind last night as I tried to sort out what happened with our team's meltdown yesterday.  Captains are Hogan, Richards, Tarpley, Ward...who's the guy getting everyone's blood up before (and during) the game?  Who is the face of Stanford football?  I keep wishing for a Skov clone to emerge with the eyeblack and Mohawk.  We seriously need a charisma injection.
After all, football is entertainment.  Let's get those angry nerds back with the glasses!

Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - StanFan88 - 09-07-2014

(09-07-2014, 08:48 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:— The OL issues will probably get cleaned up over the course of the season.
— However, I don't think we shall or even can see an end to RB by committee because we don't have the kind of back like No 37 on the other side who can break tackles and pick up yardage.
— I don't know what to make of Williamson. This happened the very week after he became the all time scoring leader.
— Listening to the press conference, I hear that Shaw takes responsibility for some of what happened in the red zone (not the fumbles and missed FGs), and he specifically mentioned tuning the right plays to the personnel we have.

One of the things I wonder about that hasn't been mentioned and is critical is upper class leadership. That's one of the biggest things we lost with Shane. The first time I saw the video of him leading the C-House cheer, I thought, "Wow, that's a real alpha male." Do we have senior leadership, or is it just a bunch of guys?

- I hope you're right about the OL.
- On RB, Shaw needs to pick someone as the starter and play him like a starter.  When you have four RBs you don't have any.  And Wright's lack of reps with Hogan showed with that fumble.
- On FGs, I don't care if it's Williamson or Ukropina but you don't punt from the opponents' 30 yard line.  You either send the kicker out there or you go for it.
- The first thing Shaw said about RZ was execution.  That's BS.  The first thing is to CALL THE RIGHT PLAY(s).  Best execution in the world won't do much if the defense knows what's coming.

I'm not worried at all about the captains, and every football team has three or four of them.

Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - yvonne - 09-07-2014

http://www.gostanford.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?id=3386532

00:39 "That's coaches and players. That's veiled to say, 'That's me. That's me.'"
04:34 "The problem in the red zone right now is me. I gotta get back to work to make sure we're doing things that our guys can do, and putting them in positions to be successful. "



Re: I've never been so optimistic after a loss - oman - 09-07-2014

I'm pretty optimistic, and yes, I think we need to stick with a running back.

The other team I root for is Texas. So I am feeling pretty dang good about this team.  I'd love to have a clean record but we can still have a better season that last year.  That should be the goal and I think our players and coaches can accomplish that.