(09-25-2021, 09:29 PM)lex24 Wrote: (09-25-2021, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: Came home, ate dinner, read the cardboard. To help those that are confused as to how we could appear to hang with UCLA while having zero offense, UCLA is not a very good team and the Chipster insisted on having DTR throw the ball. Our defense actually played pretty well (for them). They got us a couple of stops and UCLA doing dumb things got us a few more. That is all we can hope for. However, our multiple three and outs cancelled out that effort.
The offense was horrible for the first half. The OL moved nobody during the entire game. We also saw a dose of "bad" McKee where he mist receivers that we available by making off-target throws. When you are having 3 and outs anyway because you can't run, one or two misses in the passing game are fatal, which is what we got. We simply can't expect our defense to hold up if we are punting that much.
If Chp had just run the ball all game, it wouldn't have been as close as it was. They couldn't get six yards every attempt, but could basically get siix yards every other attempt, which would have been quite enough.
Regarding Shaw's decision to put on 4th and a foot, at the time in the stadium I was outraged. However, upon reflection (before we got the ball back FWIW), I realized he had seen our OL play. Making a foot was not as probable as "normal", and putting any more pressure of a shorter field on our defense wasn't a good idea. He was right. Easy to say that given the outcome, but I think it was the case. We have all heard about "good decision, bad outcome" cases. Many here are arguing "bad decision, good outcome" in this case. I don't agree. It was a good decision given how we were performing.
Now, how can Shaw "fix" what happened in the first half on offense. I don't think he can. The team just has to actually play football. They didn't today during the first half, and arguably the OL never did all game.
Shaw had three chances to go for it on 4th and short. The first was, I think, the fourth and a foot you refer to. I had no problem with them punting. At that point in the game they couldn’t get a foot running the ball. Heck, UCLA’s d-line was getting penetration 3 yards into the backfield. I remember a second and one run by Peat. UCLA had 3 d lineman in the backfield almost as soon as he got the ball. He went outside and got back close to LOS. That may have been the same series where they punted fourth and a foot.
But the other two infuriated me. Especially kicking the FG. I knew UCLA would control it and score. He had to go for it there.
I actually was fine kicking the field goal. The message I got there was "Look, we need two scores minimum to win. If we go for it and eventually score a touchdown, it will be all for naught if UCLA controls the ball and scores again. We intend to win, so we will take the 3 now and 7 later." You are correct that UCLA controlled it and scored, but the three did force them to do exactly that. Possibly a different story if the defense can stop them. OTOH, if we go for it and don't make it, UCLA gets better field position and doesn't actually need to score again to not lose. If we do make it and UCLA scores again, we lose. It all came down to did we have another stop in us. If we didn't, we lose either way. I would also be fine with going for it. If we don't make it, we need a stop and a TD to tie, rather than to win, but that is OK too. I think Shaw adopted the "school" solution, which is fine by me.
Quote:It was a putrid performance from the o line. They got slaughtered.
Agree it was a putrid performance. They blocked nobody in the first half, and only barely pass protected a bit better in the second. Stanford has trouble with a defensive line that can move. UCLA has traditionally had a line that was a bit on the small side but was quick. In the past, we have been able to move them by brute force. The last three years or so, we haven't been able to move them and then their speed eats us up. WSU has done the same at times.
(09-26-2021, 05:34 AM)French Rage Wrote: (09-26-2021, 05:05 AM)newguy Wrote: (09-25-2021, 10:05 PM)Embo Wrote: (09-25-2021, 06:24 PM)martyup Wrote: Chip Kelly was very gracious in the post game on-field interview. He seems like a good guy.
I was at the game. Hence, I did not see the aforementioned interview. But your comment begs the question of what happened on the next to last play of the game right after the missed FG with around 4 seconds left. There was a flag on the field, and the ref announced it was unsportsmanlike conduct on UCLA, against the head coach. I looked at the dictated transcript on the scoreboard to confirm this, and it indeed read "head coach". Anyone know what went on?
i, too, would like to know what that was all about.
They were just as surprised on the TV broadcast; couldn't see what the issue was there either. And yes, his postgame comments, that we were playing shorthanded so he was very impressed with the gameplan we put together given that, were surprisingly conciliatory.
Yes, unless you include not blocking anybody in that "gameplan". Chip also had a running back that carried 23 times averaging 5.1 yards per carry. If Chip hadn't insisted on having DTR passing the ball, the score could have been much, much worse. Chip wants DTR to be Marcus Mariota. He isn't. Against good defenses, UCLA doesn't have enough to win. The two big plusses for DTR yesterday were that he didn't throw any interceptions and that he hit the one long TD pass when UCLA really needed it. Of course, it helped that he was playing from ahead essentially the entire game.
