09-10-2012, 08:48 PM
What about the running game?
09-11-2012, 12:31 AM
I follow game development at Blizzard. They're working on expansion regions for Diablo III and they have two characters that are adept at magic, who both need a name. "Tylfan Gaffylor" and "Antoby Gerimble" would be perfect. :)
"We should all be better." --- Bill Walton, UCLA telecast, Feb. 16, 2013
I follow game development at Blizzard. They're working on expansion regions for Diablo III and they have two characters that are adept at magic, who both need a name. "Tylfan Gaffylor" and "Antoby Gerimble" would be perfect. :)
"We should all be better." --- Bill Walton, UCLA telecast, Feb. 16, 2013
09-11-2012, 05:54 AM
My question:Â Is the issue looking for improvement in the running game or is it what needs to happen to win a championship?
Sure, you can expect to see improvement in the running game as the season goes on, but Oregon is starting a RS Frosh QB and is averaging over 300 YPG rushing. U.S.C. is averaging 6 YPC. Those teams don't need to wait until the 3rd or 4th game to get their offense going, so why should Stanford?
I don't know if there is enough data to draw much of a conclusion, but it sure seems to me Wilkes at LG is a really big problem. I don't see him improving all that much as the year goes on. It appears he can't open holes against San Jose State and Duke. How is he going to against good defensive fronts?
It is a known fact Yankey can do the job at LG, and Peat will ultimately be the starting LT. But if Peat isn't ready due to his cast, why not put Garnett at LG or move Danser to LG and put Garnett at RG? But the bigger question is why won't the staff just force the better guys with more upside to play, if the more experienced one isn't getting the job done?
Something has to be done this week if Stanford is to have a shot at staying with and/or beating U.S.C. The shame of it is Taylor looks awesome, but is making most of his yards after contact. If the OL can open some holes he will be a real force.
Sure, you can expect to see improvement in the running game as the season goes on, but Oregon is starting a RS Frosh QB and is averaging over 300 YPG rushing. U.S.C. is averaging 6 YPC. Those teams don't need to wait until the 3rd or 4th game to get their offense going, so why should Stanford?
I don't know if there is enough data to draw much of a conclusion, but it sure seems to me Wilkes at LG is a really big problem. I don't see him improving all that much as the year goes on. It appears he can't open holes against San Jose State and Duke. How is he going to against good defensive fronts?
It is a known fact Yankey can do the job at LG, and Peat will ultimately be the starting LT. But if Peat isn't ready due to his cast, why not put Garnett at LG or move Danser to LG and put Garnett at RG? But the bigger question is why won't the staff just force the better guys with more upside to play, if the more experienced one isn't getting the job done?
Something has to be done this week if Stanford is to have a shot at staying with and/or beating U.S.C. The shame of it is Taylor looks awesome, but is making most of his yards after contact. If the OL can open some holes he will be a real force.
My question:Â Is the issue looking for improvement in the running game or is it what needs to happen to win a championship?
Sure, you can expect to see improvement in the running game as the season goes on, but Oregon is starting a RS Frosh QB and is averaging over 300 YPG rushing. U.S.C. is averaging 6 YPC. Those teams don't need to wait until the 3rd or 4th game to get their offense going, so why should Stanford?
I don't know if there is enough data to draw much of a conclusion, but it sure seems to me Wilkes at LG is a really big problem. I don't see him improving all that much as the year goes on. It appears he can't open holes against San Jose State and Duke. How is he going to against good defensive fronts?
It is a known fact Yankey can do the job at LG, and Peat will ultimately be the starting LT. But if Peat isn't ready due to his cast, why not put Garnett at LG or move Danser to LG and put Garnett at RG? But the bigger question is why won't the staff just force the better guys with more upside to play, if the more experienced one isn't getting the job done?
Something has to be done this week if Stanford is to have a shot at staying with and/or beating U.S.C. The shame of it is Taylor looks awesome, but is making most of his yards after contact. If the OL can open some holes he will be a real force.
Sure, you can expect to see improvement in the running game as the season goes on, but Oregon is starting a RS Frosh QB and is averaging over 300 YPG rushing. U.S.C. is averaging 6 YPC. Those teams don't need to wait until the 3rd or 4th game to get their offense going, so why should Stanford?
I don't know if there is enough data to draw much of a conclusion, but it sure seems to me Wilkes at LG is a really big problem. I don't see him improving all that much as the year goes on. It appears he can't open holes against San Jose State and Duke. How is he going to against good defensive fronts?
It is a known fact Yankey can do the job at LG, and Peat will ultimately be the starting LT. But if Peat isn't ready due to his cast, why not put Garnett at LG or move Danser to LG and put Garnett at RG? But the bigger question is why won't the staff just force the better guys with more upside to play, if the more experienced one isn't getting the job done?
Something has to be done this week if Stanford is to have a shot at staying with and/or beating U.S.C. The shame of it is Taylor looks awesome, but is making most of his yards after contact. If the OL can open some holes he will be a real force.
09-11-2012, 04:52 PM
There are certainly issues with the particular configuration of the OL right now, but the biggest issue, IMO, is the tendency of defenses to put 9 men near the line of scrimmage. It doesn't really matter who you put on the OL, or at which position they are playing, if your blockers are outnumbered by the defenders at the line, you will have a hard time running. The solution: make the opposing teams respect the passing game. As in the Duke game, throw the ball deep early in the game to force the opposing Defensive Coordinator to drop his safeties back, and the RBs will have more space.Â
I would think that USC will come out with the same strategy of moving the safeties up, even though we managed to burn Duke a few times with deep passes. USC will figure they have the corners to handle our receivers one-on-one until Nunes and Shaw/Hamilton prove that they can successfully go deep. With their offense, I don't think the Trojans will be too worried about giving up an early touchdown, if it should happen, even when their O has to go against our D. But if Nunes and the receivers hit a few deep passes early in the game, maybe we see the opposing safeties drop back for the first time all year. Then we will get a better idea of where the running game stands.
I would think that USC will come out with the same strategy of moving the safeties up, even though we managed to burn Duke a few times with deep passes. USC will figure they have the corners to handle our receivers one-on-one until Nunes and Shaw/Hamilton prove that they can successfully go deep. With their offense, I don't think the Trojans will be too worried about giving up an early touchdown, if it should happen, even when their O has to go against our D. But if Nunes and the receivers hit a few deep passes early in the game, maybe we see the opposing safeties drop back for the first time all year. Then we will get a better idea of where the running game stands.
There are certainly issues with the particular configuration of the OL right now, but the biggest issue, IMO, is the tendency of defenses to put 9 men near the line of scrimmage. It doesn't really matter who you put on the OL, or at which position they are playing, if your blockers are outnumbered by the defenders at the line, you will have a hard time running. The solution: make the opposing teams respect the passing game. As in the Duke game, throw the ball deep early in the game to force the opposing Defensive Coordinator to drop his safeties back, and the RBs will have more space.Â
I would think that USC will come out with the same strategy of moving the safeties up, even though we managed to burn Duke a few times with deep passes. USC will figure they have the corners to handle our receivers one-on-one until Nunes and Shaw/Hamilton prove that they can successfully go deep. With their offense, I don't think the Trojans will be too worried about giving up an early touchdown, if it should happen, even when their O has to go against our D. But if Nunes and the receivers hit a few deep passes early in the game, maybe we see the opposing safeties drop back for the first time all year. Then we will get a better idea of where the running game stands.
I would think that USC will come out with the same strategy of moving the safeties up, even though we managed to burn Duke a few times with deep passes. USC will figure they have the corners to handle our receivers one-on-one until Nunes and Shaw/Hamilton prove that they can successfully go deep. With their offense, I don't think the Trojans will be too worried about giving up an early touchdown, if it should happen, even when their O has to go against our D. But if Nunes and the receivers hit a few deep passes early in the game, maybe we see the opposing safeties drop back for the first time all year. Then we will get a better idea of where the running game stands.
09-11-2012, 05:11 PM
It isn't too likely U.S.C. will play their Safeties up because Monte Kiffin is their Defensive Coordinator and his defense is the 2-deep zone.Â
http://www.onefootdown.com/2011/10/20/25...ous Losers
If you can't open the link, blame the admin for re-writing words.
On that topic, here's a suggestion:Â Why not set up the way I have typed U.S.C. as the code for writing "University of South Central" rather than the way it is actually spelled, because links aren't going to work when the real words get re-written.
http://www.onefootdown.com/2011/10/20/25...ous Losers
If you can't open the link, blame the admin for re-writing words.
On that topic, here's a suggestion:Â Why not set up the way I have typed U.S.C. as the code for writing "University of South Central" rather than the way it is actually spelled, because links aren't going to work when the real words get re-written.
It isn't too likely U.S.C. will play their Safeties up because Monte Kiffin is their Defensive Coordinator and his defense is the 2-deep zone.Â
http://www.onefootdown.com/2011/10/20/25...ous Losers
If you can't open the link, blame the admin for re-writing words.
On that topic, here's a suggestion:Â Why not set up the way I have typed U.S.C. as the code for writing "University of South Central" rather than the way it is actually spelled, because links aren't going to work when the real words get re-written.
http://www.onefootdown.com/2011/10/20/25...ous Losers
If you can't open the link, blame the admin for re-writing words.
On that topic, here's a suggestion:Â Why not set up the way I have typed U.S.C. as the code for writing "University of South Central" rather than the way it is actually spelled, because links aren't going to work when the real words get re-written.
09-11-2012, 05:43 PM
(09-11-2012, 05:11 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:It isn't too likely U.S.C. will play their Safeties up because Monte Kiffin is their Defensive Coordinator and his defense is the 2-deep zone.Â
http://www.onefootdown.com/2011/10/20/25...ous Losers
If you can't open the link, blame the admin for re-writing words.
On that topic, here's a suggestion:Â Why not set up the way I have typed U.S.C. as the code for writing "University of South Central" rather than the way it is actually spelled, because links aren't going to work when the real words get re-written.
Rather than complain about the board's autocorrections, I suggest that you simply use a link shortener, such as goo.gl or bit.ly. Those take about five extra seconds, and then your link shows up as http://goo.gl/upFPN (or something similar), which won't get messed up.
(09-11-2012, 05:11 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:It isn't too likely U.S.C. will play their Safeties up because Monte Kiffin is their Defensive Coordinator and his defense is the 2-deep zone.Â
http://www.onefootdown.com/2011/10/20/25...ous Losers
If you can't open the link, blame the admin for re-writing words.
On that topic, here's a suggestion:Â Why not set up the way I have typed U.S.C. as the code for writing "University of South Central" rather than the way it is actually spelled, because links aren't going to work when the real words get re-written.
Rather than complain about the board's autocorrections, I suggest that you simply use a link shortener, such as goo.gl or bit.ly. Those take about five extra seconds, and then your link shows up as http://goo.gl/upFPN (or something similar), which won't get messed up.
09-11-2012, 06:30 PM
Ah, the auto-correcter. As far as quirks of a board go, this is by far the least offensive. On, say, an $EC fanboard, you might have to deal with some rabidly unintelligible people approximating themselves as football fans.
09-11-2012, 07:45 PM
(09-11-2012, 06:30 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Ah, the auto-correcter.ÂSpeaking of this...although an old fart Indian, I considered myself fairly culturally literate. However, I have no clue concerning Draco Malfoy = M.att B.arkley. I beg to be enlightened.
(09-11-2012, 06:30 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Ah, the auto-correcter.ÂSpeaking of this...although an old fart Indian, I considered myself fairly culturally literate. However, I have no clue concerning Draco Malfoy = M.att B.arkley. I beg to be enlightened.
09-11-2012, 07:55 PM
Mostly to do with the blonde, get-away-with-everything vibe, I think. Is Draco actually part of the autocorrect list? I use it just to use it :p
09-11-2012, 08:33 PM
(09-11-2012, 06:30 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Ah, the auto-correcter. As far as quirks of a board go, this is by far the least offensive.
Did you mean quirks of a broad?
09-11-2012, 08:43 PM
(09-11-2012, 07:55 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Mostly to do with the blonde, get-away-with-everything vibe, I think. Is Draco actually part of the autocorrect list? I use it just to use it :p
It's a great name and I congratulate you for its use. I'm wondering, though, to what it refers: someone real? in a movie? in a comic book? in other forms of literature? Perhaps you made it up and then I doubly congratulate you.
(09-11-2012, 07:55 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Mostly to do with the blonde, get-away-with-everything vibe, I think. Is Draco actually part of the autocorrect list? I use it just to use it :p
It's a great name and I congratulate you for its use. I'm wondering, though, to what it refers: someone real? in a movie? in a comic book? in other forms of literature? Perhaps you made it up and then I doubly congratulate you.
09-11-2012, 09:04 PM
Draco Malfoy is from the Harry Potter series. He's a rich kid from the right kind of family, and he'll be the first to tell you that. He and his family align themselves with the villain, Voldemort.
![[Image: 1129670872_rakiesmirk.jpg]](http://images.quizilla.com/I/IN/INU/inuotaku/1129670872_rakiesmirk.jpg)
09-11-2012, 09:05 PM
(09-11-2012, 08:43 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=6415.msg47423#msg47423 date=1347418503]
Mostly to do with the blonde, get-away-with-everything vibe, I think. Is Draco actually part of the autocorrect list? I use it just to use it :p
It's a great name and I congratulate you for its use. I'm wondering, though, to what it refers: someone real? in a movie? in a comic book? in other forms of literature? Perhaps you made it up and then I doubly congratulate you.
[/quote]
You mean other people came up with it at the same time? How serendipitous!
(09-11-2012, 08:43 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=6415.msg47423#msg47423 date=1347418503]
Mostly to do with the blonde, get-away-with-everything vibe, I think. Is Draco actually part of the autocorrect list? I use it just to use it :p
It's a great name and I congratulate you for its use. I'm wondering, though, to what it refers: someone real? in a movie? in a comic book? in other forms of literature? Perhaps you made it up and then I doubly congratulate you.
[/quote]
You mean other people came up with it at the same time? How serendipitous!
09-11-2012, 11:40 PM
I...hadn't considered the possibility that Harry Potter influence on pop culture was insufficiently large to reach CI.
I must reevaluate...everything.
I must reevaluate...everything.
09-11-2012, 11:53 PM
First use of the term "Draco Malfoy" on the CardBoard.
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg43044
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg43044
First use of the term "Draco Malfoy" on the CardBoard.
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg43044
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg43044
09-12-2012, 12:01 AM
You misunderstand. I use it independently of the autocorrect function, if the autocorrect function indeed keys off of a certain QB's name. I definitely don't know enough about HP fandom to have come up with that.
09-12-2012, 01:36 AM
(09-11-2012, 05:11 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:If you can't open the link, blame the admin for re-writing words.
Seeing that the board software is smart enough to recognize something that looks like a URL and make it into a link, it ought to be smart enough not to censor words in the URL. In a link, the text you see and the destination URL you get sent to by clicking are two different things, so the board software could even censor the text you see while leaving the destination URL alone.
If I find some time maybe I'll try to fix that...
(09-11-2012, 05:11 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:If you can't open the link, blame the admin for re-writing words.
Seeing that the board software is smart enough to recognize something that looks like a URL and make it into a link, it ought to be smart enough not to censor words in the URL. In a link, the text you see and the destination URL you get sent to by clicking are two different things, so the board software could even censor the text you see while leaving the destination URL alone.
If I find some time maybe I'll try to fix that...
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »