The CardBoard
Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - 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 20, Washington 13 (/thread-7875.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - washingtonismoney - 09-27-2014

Unlike the SC game, in which redzone ineptitude covered up otherwise-excellent offensive play, this was a mehfest all the way through. 5.51 yards/play is OK-ish, but 3 turnovers and 3-12 on third downs is not. I think the main culprit, again, was the offensive line -- in particular, Andrus Peat, who I think had his worst game as a starting lineman.

Still, the refs covered up comprehensive dominance. Going on the road and whooping a reasonably solid opponent 5.51 YPP to 2.6 YPP is seriously impressive.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - washingtonismoney - 09-27-2014

By the way, the Huskies have detected a fifth columnist in Madrid-on-Montlake -- Coach Pete: http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2014/9/27/6854957/washington-stanford-final-score-recap

Crying huskies also in this thread: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/huskyfootball/2014/09/27/uws-cyler-miles-on-loss-to-stanford-weve-got-to-move-on/

Given UW's perpetual delusions of wonderfulness, the schadenfreude is always sweet.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - Rally - 09-27-2014

I thought intentional grounding resulted in loss of down and 15 yards.  Not so anymore?

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - BostonCard - 09-27-2014

Intentional grounding is a spot foul.  Basically, it's the same result as if the qb had been sacked.

Bc

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - GoodGrief - 09-27-2014

(09-27-2014, 07:04 PM)ferrari link Wrote:I thought intentional grounding resulted in loss of down and 15 yards.  Not so anymore?

Yeah, can somebody explain that to me? The ref announced that there would be a loss of down, but then they still had 3rd down instead of going right to 4th down.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - Rally - 09-27-2014

(09-27-2014, 07:17 PM)GoodGrief link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10729.msg99503#msg99503 date=1411869855]
I thought intentional grounding resulted in loss of down and 15 yards.  Not so anymore?

Yeah, can somebody explain that to me? The ref announced that there would be a loss of down, but then they still had 3rd down instead of going right to 4th down.
[/quote]

Easy to explain.  The refs don't know anymore than I do.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - needle - 09-27-2014

I'm pretty sure the penalty makes the result as if a sack occurred, including the spot.

That's also why they run off time, because the clock would have ticked down if there had been a sack.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - Rally - 09-27-2014

(09-27-2014, 07:22 PM)needle link Wrote:I'm pretty sure the penalty makes the result as if a sack occurred, including the spot.

That's also why they run off time, because the clock would have ticked down if there had been a sack.

Am I crazy or did there used to be a loss of down?

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - washingtonismoney - 09-27-2014

(09-27-2014, 07:27 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=needle link=topic=10729.msg99510#msg99510 date=1411870938]
I'm pretty sure the penalty makes the result as if a sack occurred, including the spot.

That's also why they run off time, because the clock would have ticked down if there had been a sack.

Am I crazy or did there used to be a loss of down?
[/quote]

Yes, that's why it's "as if a sack occurred."

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - Rally - 09-27-2014

(09-27-2014, 07:28 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10729.msg99512#msg99512 date=1411871223]
[quote author=needle link=topic=10729.msg99510#msg99510 date=1411870938]
I'm pretty sure the penalty makes the result as if a sack occurred, including the spot.

That's also why they run off time, because the clock would have ticked down if there had been a sack.

Am I crazy or did there used to be a loss of down?
[/quote]

Yes, that's why it's "as if a sack occurred."
[/quote]

So why wasn't there a loss of down?  Should have been 4th, not 3rd.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - washingtonismoney - 09-27-2014

(09-27-2014, 07:31 PM)ferrari link Wrote:So why wasn't there a loss of down?  Should have been 4th, not 3rd.

Because it occurred on second down.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - Rally - 09-27-2014

(09-27-2014, 07:34 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10729.msg99516#msg99516 date=1411871509]
So why wasn't there a loss of down?  Should have been 4th, not 3rd.

Because it occurred on second down.
[/quote]

Oh.  Really?

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - martyup - 09-27-2014

Watching this game was agony.  I was more afraid of UW scoring when we were on offense rather than defense.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - stupac2 - 09-27-2014

I think the confusion here is that "loss of down" means the down that was played. Normally a penalty results in a replay of the previous down, intentional grounding doesn't.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - martyup - 09-27-2014

Is it time for Shaw to seriously start considering a change at offensive coordinator?  Can we bring in an offensive guru mid-season? We are going to waste this awesome defense if we don't start putting more points on the board.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - Oasis - 09-27-2014

(09-27-2014, 07:53 PM)martyup link Wrote:Watching this game was agony.  I was more afraid of UW scoring when we were on offense rather than defense.

This was agony.  Despite a valiant effort to avoid it, Stanford managed to win because of play-calling by Washington (fake punt, muffed 4th and 1) that eclipsed even what Stanford does in the red zone.  I'm really thinking of tuning out for a while.  There are other things to do that don't hurt as much, like going over my tax return.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - JohnR34231 - 09-28-2014

A couple of observations.

1. If we are harboring any hopes of being three time conference champs the offense is going to have to improve, and fast. At least they were able to get the ball in the end zone with the game on the line, something they couldn't do against U$C. Still. and as Garvin said, stop me if you've heard this one before, they get the ball back needing a couple of first downs to run out the clock, can't move the ball an inch, and the defense has to hold on by its fingernails for the victory. The tag line of a victory in the Shaw regime may be the defense plays very well, the offense just barely well enough to win.

2. If the Huskies have decided they don't want Chris Petersen, Boise State will no doubt be glad to take him back. The Broncos stunk up the place at Air Force yesterday, committing multiple turnovers and being down 28-0 in the fourth quarter, before putting a couple of TD's on the board late to make the final 28-14 score somewhat respectable.

P.S. Those who have followed Stanford for sometime know that any time we are playing a decent Washington team in Seattle without Andrew Luck at QB, victory is never easy for us. I'll take any victory we can get there.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - 81alum - 09-28-2014

(09-27-2014, 08:46 PM)martyup link Wrote:Is it time for Shaw to seriously start considering a change at offensive coordinator?  Can we bring in an offensive guru mid-season? We are going to waste this awesome defense if we don't start putting more points on the board.
I was not convinced that Bloomgren was a good offensive coordinator last year--the game plans were sometimes good and sometimes inconsistent--and this year I am beginning to seriously doubt it.  I say that with regret, because I really admired the job he did with the offensive line earlier in his time with us.  He has good credentials, as an assistant with the Jets and running the offense of a couple of small college teams previously.  I also worry about his designation as "Associate Head Coach" which seems to ensconce his position.

This board has debated the execution/playcalling quandry over and over, but David Shaw said it best--there is really no difference between the two, because the coach is responsible in practice to get his players ready to execute, to judge the kinds of plays his current personnel are capable of executing, and to call plays at times that put his players in the best position to be able to execute.  Somewhere in that chain Bloomgren is not consistently getting the most out of his talent.  That said, I doubt that a mid-season change would be productive--it probably would be disruptive, sow the seeds of discord, and make things worse.  Besides, sometimes Bloomgren gets it just right (see the ASU title game) even if sometimes he gets it wrong.  Maybe we will be lucky and he will produce excellent offensive game plans from here on out. 

Now, compare that with Lance Anderson.  Lance took a very good defense and was not afraid to make some changes, simplifying the defensive play calling so as to turn the physical talent loose.  Nearly everyone expected there to be at least some fall-off and one of the reasons was the replacement of Mason with Anderson. Well, I think we can safely say that Anderson is getting the most out of his talent, and that he has put together defensive schemes that have consistently worked.



Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - washingtonismoney - 09-28-2014

If these problems continue to the same degree throughout the year then there should be personnel changes in the offensive part of the coaching staff.

But I'm not surprised at our struggles so far. The offensive line was brutal in the spring game and they've been bad so far this year, however much talent they might individually have. Bloomgren the coordinator needs to be bailed out by Bloomgren the line coach.

Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - martyup - 09-28-2014

I'm not suggesting replacing Bloomgren at this point.  Rather, bringing in some retired guru to act as a consultant on how to better utilize the talent we have on offense.  I think that we have the QB, receivers, and line to be much better on offense.  Maybe a set of fresh wise eyes could help bring it together.