The CardBoard
Stanford Receivers, Then and Now - 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: Stanford Receivers, Then and Now (/thread-8057.html)


Stanford Receivers, Then and Now - Hank 91 - 10-18-2014

I've been grading the position groups through the first half of the season, and I found something interesting when I looked at the wide receivers. There are lots of reasons for this, but look at how they've regressed. I guess if I had really thought about it I would have come to the same conclusion, but before I looked at the numbers from the first six games last season, I thought things were better this year. From some reason I can't include the chart here, so you'll have to click over to see it, but here's the gist: Rector is identical to what he was last season, Montgomery has seen the ball more but done far less damage, and pretty much the same with Cajuste. Interesting.

http://www.gomightycard.com/2014/10/stanford-football-semester-report-card-wide-receivers.html


Re: Stanford Receivers, Then and Now - martyup - 10-18-2014

That Rector stat is so strange.  Exactly the same numbers.  Overall, it is consistent the goal of improving our intermediate passing game.  We've got more receptions, but for less yardage.  It would be nice to see these guys get some long balls again.

Re: Stanford Receivers, Then and Now - Hank 91 - 10-18-2014

(10-18-2014, 12:20 PM)ferrari link Wrote:Are the numbers for total receptions reversed?  Shows 2014 10 ahead, not behind.

Thanks for catching that. The chart is correct, my analysis was off. Fixed it.

I wonder if part of the issue... - Mick - 10-18-2014

...is that defenses had to stop Gaffney last year and can focus on defending the receivers more.  Not certain how the tight ends affect things.

Re: Stanford Receivers, Then and Now - Hank 91 - 10-18-2014

A commenter mentioned this on my site. I think that's a brobdingnagian part of it. Not much of a run threat.

Re: Stanford Receivers, Then and Now - Rally - 10-18-2014

(10-18-2014, 04:36 PM)Hank 91 link Wrote:A commenter mentioned this on my site. I think that's a of extremely large proportions part of it. Not much of a run threat.

Still trying to learn Cardboard protocol.  Are we not to use the word ""h.u.ge?" Why not?  Geez, soon I'll need a dictionary to follow this.

Re: Stanford Receivers, Then and Now - BostonCard - 10-18-2014

H*ge gets censored because someone dared declare the game against Texas (now 15 years ago) to have been "h*ge".  We promptly lost it 69-17.  The word has been banned ever since.

I think it was briefly un-censored, promptly used improperly whereupon bad things happened, and put back on the naughty list.

BC

Re: Stanford Receivers, Then and Now - Rally - 10-18-2014

(10-18-2014, 08:13 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:H*ge gets censored because someone dared declare the game against Texas (now 15 years ago) to have been "h*ge".  We promptly lost it 69-17.  The word has been banned ever since.

I think it was briefly un-censored, promptly used improperly whereupon bad things happened, and put back on the naughty list.

BC

Thanks.  Ridiculous but thanks.  So welcoming to new visitors who, if not confused, might actually stick around and contribute.  15 YEARS AGO.??  Geez.