10-24-2015, 10:31 PM
Lots of people close but unless sanders busts one, you were the closest.
BC
BC
UW game thread
Lots of people close but unless sanders busts one, you were the closest.
BC
BC
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
Was not under Shaw. But why be pissy when we are icing this game?
10-24-2015, 10:33 PM
Stanford's 6.6 yards-per-play is the most against UW this year. Their previous worst was 5.8 yards (last week, vs. Oregon). Very solid performance offensively, though I'm impressed by UW's defense overall.
The Stanford defense, on the other hand...
The Stanford defense, on the other hand...
Stanford's 6.6 yards-per-play is the most against UW this year. Their previous worst was 5.8 yards (last week, vs. Oregon). Very solid performance offensively, though I'm impressed by UW's defense overall.
The Stanford defense, on the other hand...
The Stanford defense, on the other hand...
10-24-2015, 10:35 PM
comfortable win. Looks like no serious injuries. Expect to move up a couple of spots in the rankings with FSU and Utah losing. Move on to the next one.
As a recent Cardinal great once said: just keep choppin' wood.
As a recent Cardinal great once said: just keep choppin' wood.
comfortable win. Looks like no serious injuries. Expect to move up a couple of spots in the rankings with FSU and Utah losing. Move on to the next one.
As a recent Cardinal great once said: just keep choppin' wood.
As a recent Cardinal great once said: just keep choppin' wood.
10-24-2015, 10:39 PM
(10-24-2015, 10:33 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Stanford's 6.6 yards-per-play is the most against UW this year. Their previous worst was 5.8 yards (last week, vs. Oregon). Very solid performance offensively, though I'm impressed by UW's defense overall.
The Stanford defense, on the other hand...
The D had a great first half, holding Washington to 58 yards and 2 first downs. Second half was much aloppier with 2 TD drives. But they did more than enough to win, giving 231 total yards, much of it after the game was safely put away. I'd have loved a shutout, but it was more than good enough.
BC
(10-24-2015, 10:33 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Stanford's 6.6 yards-per-play is the most against UW this year. Their previous worst was 5.8 yards (last week, vs. Oregon). Very solid performance offensively, though I'm impressed by UW's defense overall.
The Stanford defense, on the other hand...
The D had a great first half, holding Washington to 58 yards and 2 first downs. Second half was much aloppier with 2 TD drives. But they did more than enough to win, giving 231 total yards, much of it after the game was safely put away. I'd have loved a shutout, but it was more than good enough.
BC
10-24-2015, 10:40 PM
McCaffery with 300 all purpose yards. He could take Barry Sanders record, and still not win the Voldemort.
Oh well, it's a silly trophy anyway.
Oh well, it's a silly trophy anyway.
10-24-2015, 10:42 PM
(10-24-2015, 10:39 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The D had a great first half, holding Washington to 58 yards and 2 first downs. Second half was much aloppier with 2 TD drives. But they did more than enough to win, giving 231 total yards, much of it after the game was safely put away. I'd have loved a shutout, but it was more than good enough.
Oh, it was certainly more than good enough. And maybe that's all we need this year. But still, qualitatively...an awful lot of missed tackles and blown coverages for my taste. Adjust for UW's QB and this just might be a closer game.
We'll see against Washington State. That might be a shootout for the ages.
(10-24-2015, 10:39 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The D had a great first half, holding Washington to 58 yards and 2 first downs. Second half was much aloppier with 2 TD drives. But they did more than enough to win, giving 231 total yards, much of it after the game was safely put away. I'd have loved a shutout, but it was more than good enough.
Oh, it was certainly more than good enough. And maybe that's all we need this year. But still, qualitatively...an awful lot of missed tackles and blown coverages for my taste. Adjust for UW's QB and this just might be a closer game.
We'll see against Washington State. That might be a shootout for the ages.
10-24-2015, 10:45 PM
(10-24-2015, 10:43 PM)martyup link Wrote:Did we beat the spread?
Pushed against the opening line. Some bettors who got -16.5 feel quite happy. Some probably bet against -18 or -19 and got burned.
(10-24-2015, 10:43 PM)martyup link Wrote:Did we beat the spread?
Pushed against the opening line. Some bettors who got -16.5 feel quite happy. Some probably bet against -18 or -19 and got burned.
10-24-2015, 10:46 PM
Looks like our O is playoff good but our defense remains a work-in-progress.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
10-24-2015, 10:47 PM
If, before the season, someone had told me that at this point of the season...
*We would be 6-1
*We would have one of the top 3 defenses in the Pac-12 (along with UW and Utah, and really, is anyone else better?)
*Christian McCaffery would be the national APY leader
...I would have been ecstatic. Particularly given the wholesale changes in the defensive backfield and the lack of depth of the DL.
Absolutely zero to complain about, though I wish Harrison Phillips were on the field to enjoy this. Had he been healthy our D would be just that much stronger. OTOH, nice to get Noor Davis back.
*We would be 6-1
*We would have one of the top 3 defenses in the Pac-12 (along with UW and Utah, and really, is anyone else better?)
*Christian McCaffery would be the national APY leader
...I would have been ecstatic. Particularly given the wholesale changes in the defensive backfield and the lack of depth of the DL.
Absolutely zero to complain about, though I wish Harrison Phillips were on the field to enjoy this. Had he been healthy our D would be just that much stronger. OTOH, nice to get Noor Davis back.
If, before the season, someone had told me that at this point of the season...
*We would be 6-1
*We would have one of the top 3 defenses in the Pac-12 (along with UW and Utah, and really, is anyone else better?)
*Christian McCaffery would be the national APY leader
...I would have been ecstatic. Particularly given the wholesale changes in the defensive backfield and the lack of depth of the DL.
Absolutely zero to complain about, though I wish Harrison Phillips were on the field to enjoy this. Had he been healthy our D would be just that much stronger. OTOH, nice to get Noor Davis back.
*We would be 6-1
*We would have one of the top 3 defenses in the Pac-12 (along with UW and Utah, and really, is anyone else better?)
*Christian McCaffery would be the national APY leader
...I would have been ecstatic. Particularly given the wholesale changes in the defensive backfield and the lack of depth of the DL.
Absolutely zero to complain about, though I wish Harrison Phillips were on the field to enjoy this. Had he been healthy our D would be just that much stronger. OTOH, nice to get Noor Davis back.
10-24-2015, 10:50 PM
(10-24-2015, 10:42 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13330.msg136874#msg136874 date=1445751556]
The D had a great first half, holding Washington to 58 yards and 2 first downs. Second half was much aloppier with 2 TD drives. But they did more than enough to win, giving 231 total yards, much of it after the game was safely put away. I'd have loved a shutout, but it was more than good enough.
Oh, it was certainly more than good enough. And maybe that's all we need this year. But still, qualitatively...an awful lot of missed tackles and blown coverages for my taste. Adjust for UW's QB and this just might be a closer game.
We'll see against Washington State. That might be a shootout for the ages.
[/quote]
Agreed. We could easily have kept UW to single digits if there weren't so many missed tackles; we let them gain more yards than they should have. It didn't matter against UW tonight, but against a better opponent in a closer game...
(10-24-2015, 10:42 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13330.msg136874#msg136874 date=1445751556]
The D had a great first half, holding Washington to 58 yards and 2 first downs. Second half was much aloppier with 2 TD drives. But they did more than enough to win, giving 231 total yards, much of it after the game was safely put away. I'd have loved a shutout, but it was more than good enough.
Oh, it was certainly more than good enough. And maybe that's all we need this year. But still, qualitatively...an awful lot of missed tackles and blown coverages for my taste. Adjust for UW's QB and this just might be a closer game.
We'll see against Washington State. That might be a shootout for the ages.
[/quote]
Agreed. We could easily have kept UW to single digits if there weren't so many missed tackles; we let them gain more yards than they should have. It didn't matter against UW tonight, but against a better opponent in a closer game...
10-24-2015, 10:53 PM
Did Noor get into the game?
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
10-24-2015, 10:56 PM
(10-24-2015, 10:53 PM)martyup link Wrote:Did Noor get into the game?
Not sure, since I am without TV coverage. But my reference was more to getting him back and active. OTOH, I did notice in following the game on ESPN that Okereke made a play in pass coverage. Every little bit of experience for the young defensive players has got to help going forward.
(10-24-2015, 10:53 PM)martyup link Wrote:Did Noor get into the game?
Not sure, since I am without TV coverage. But my reference was more to getting him back and active. OTOH, I did notice in following the game on ESPN that Okereke made a play in pass coverage. Every little bit of experience for the young defensive players has got to help going forward.
10-24-2015, 11:07 PM
(10-24-2015, 10:53 PM)martyup link Wrote:Did Noor get into the game?
I don't think so.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(10-24-2015, 08:58 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Betweeb them, the state of Washington would have one hell of a team.
BC
Or an incredibly bad one. ;)
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
(10-24-2015, 08:58 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Betweeb them, the state of Washington would have one hell of a team.
BC
Or an incredibly bad one. ;)
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
10-25-2015, 01:33 AM
(10-24-2015, 09:59 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13330.msg136830#msg136830 date=1445748866]
[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=13330.msg136828#msg136828 date=1445748766]
That was a nice grab by Taboada to set up the TD.
With a hilarious play design -- note Kyle Murphy was split out and giving the "I'M OPEN" hop.
[/quote]
Ha, I missed that. Was anyone covering him (despite his wearing an ineligible receiver number)?
[/quote]
Here you go:
https://twitter.com/treeSIDjorge/status/...7112944640
Nope, nobody bit.
BC
(10-24-2015, 09:59 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13330.msg136830#msg136830 date=1445748866]
[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=13330.msg136828#msg136828 date=1445748766]
That was a nice grab by Taboada to set up the TD.
With a hilarious play design -- note Kyle Murphy was split out and giving the "I'M OPEN" hop.
[/quote]
Ha, I missed that. Was anyone covering him (despite his wearing an ineligible receiver number)?
[/quote]
Here you go:
https://twitter.com/treeSIDjorge/status/...7112944640
Nope, nobody bit.
BC
10-25-2015, 08:50 AM
This might be a question for those of you who were watching at home, but did Washington ever go back to the plays (read option?) that they used to march down the field right after the half? It seemed to be that after running it to great success on that drive they switched it up and started passing more, was that correct? Or did they try some more read option and we had adjusted? (Or whatever they were doing, it's hard to tell from the stands, especially since most of the drive was on the opposite side of the field from me).
This might be a question for those of you who were watching at home, but did Washington ever go back to the plays (read option?) that they used to march down the field right after the half? It seemed to be that after running it to great success on that drive they switched it up and started passing more, was that correct? Or did they try some more read option and we had adjusted? (Or whatever they were doing, it's hard to tell from the stands, especially since most of the drive was on the opposite side of the field from me).
10-25-2015, 09:57 AM
The announcers noted that it was surprising that during Washington's next possession they did not use Myles Gaskin more. At all, really. The longer that continued the more adamant they became. They finally expressed complete bewilderment and tried to concoct ANY possible reason that Peterson might do that. One of them hypothesized that using tempo might not give their defensive players enough time off the field. But they talked about it quite a bit.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
The announcers noted that it was surprising that during Washington's next possession they did not use Myles Gaskin more. At all, really. The longer that continued the more adamant they became. They finally expressed complete bewilderment and tried to concoct ANY possible reason that Peterson might do that. One of them hypothesized that using tempo might not give their defensive players enough time off the field. But they talked about it quite a bit.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »