09-17-2016, 10:18 PM
I could see Louisville jumping way up, even #2. I wouldn't be surprised if they jumped us and we stayed at 7. (Unfortunately)
Stanford-SC Game Thread
I could see Louisville jumping way up, even #2. I wouldn't be surprised if they jumped us and we stayed at 7. (Unfortunately)
09-17-2016, 10:32 PM
(09-17-2016, 10:18 PM)amartinsu13 link Wrote:I could see Louisville jumping way up, even #2. I wouldn't be surprised if they jumped us and we stayed at 7. (Unfortunately)I agree. We had a good, not great, W over an unranked team. Very likely we stay at 7. Louisville had a blowout W over #2 (game not as close as the score would indicate, LOL); very possible they jump us.
Pax et Bonum
(09-17-2016, 10:18 PM)amartinsu13 link Wrote:I could see Louisville jumping way up, even #2. I wouldn't be surprised if they jumped us and we stayed at 7. (Unfortunately)I agree. We had a good, not great, W over an unranked team. Very likely we stay at 7. Louisville had a blowout W over #2 (game not as close as the score would indicate, LOL); very possible they jump us.
Pax et Bonum
09-17-2016, 10:35 PM
You're probably right and that would be OK. Louisville looks great. Good enough to beat Clemson for sure.
Zero points across the bridge in nearly a full quarter now.
Zero points across the bridge in nearly a full quarter now.
Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working .I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work. Peter Gibbons
You're probably right and that would be OK. Louisville looks great. Good enough to beat Clemson for sure.
Zero points across the bridge in nearly a full quarter now.
Zero points across the bridge in nearly a full quarter now.
Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working .I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work. Peter Gibbons
09-17-2016, 10:44 PM
Let's face it:Â Rankings this early in the season don't really matter except for calculating SOS.
Pax et Bonum
Let's face it:Â Rankings this early in the season don't really matter except for calculating SOS.
Pax et Bonum
09-17-2016, 11:16 PM
In SEC bias-ville:
Ole Miss jumps to #2 for outscoring #1 'Bama in 3 of the 4 quarters and only losing by 5 at home.
Ole Miss jumps to #2 for outscoring #1 'Bama in 3 of the 4 quarters and only losing by 5 at home.
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
![[Image: CsnGRdBVUAABvRF.jpg]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsnGRdBVUAABvRF.jpg)
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-18-2016, 02:59 AM
Neither Cotton nor Kaumatule seemed to see much action, is that right? And yet Perez and Branch got an entire series...
Neither Cotton nor Kaumatule seemed to see much action, is that right? And yet Perez and Branch got an entire series...
09-18-2016, 05:37 AM
Could definitely see Wilmer raising Ole Miss in his pole based on their performance yesterday.
09-18-2016, 06:03 AM
(09-18-2016, 05:37 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Could definitely see Wilmer raising Ole Miss in his pole....
And I cannot UNsee the image this presents.
(09-18-2016, 05:37 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Could definitely see Wilmer raising Ole Miss in his pole....
And I cannot UNsee the image this presents.
09-18-2016, 06:21 AM
Damned auto-correct...
This Dalton Schultz tweet was recommended in my twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/BinghamBaller9/statu...9317385216
This Dalton Schultz tweet was recommended in my twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/BinghamBaller9/statu...9317385216
Damned auto-correct...
This Dalton Schultz tweet was recommended in my twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/BinghamBaller9/statu...9317385216
This Dalton Schultz tweet was recommended in my twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/BinghamBaller9/statu...9317385216
09-18-2016, 06:55 AM
Nice column from Bruce Jenkins: http://www.sfchronicle.com/college/jenki...er-premium
09-18-2016, 07:30 AM
(09-18-2016, 02:57 AM)ChicagoVisitor link Wrote:Almost face-guarding PI on this play...
IIRC face-guarding is not a penalty. But Rector did misplay it, if he just decelerates as much as he can then it's absolutely PI because the defender would've just taken him out.
(09-18-2016, 02:57 AM)ChicagoVisitor link Wrote:Almost face-guarding PI on this play...
IIRC face-guarding is not a penalty. But Rector did misplay it, if he just decelerates as much as he can then it's absolutely PI because the defender would've just taken him out.
09-18-2016, 07:44 AM
This was apparently a big enough win to earn a spot in Drawing Conclusions for the week:
![[Image: i?img=%2Fphoto%2F2016%2F0917%2FTheFour_W....png&w=570]](http://a1.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=%2Fphoto%2F2016%2F0917%2FTheFour_W3.Stanford_USC.png&w=570)
I saw that because I wanted to look at the box score, I came away from that game thinking we had a pretty good offense but wondering why we only scored 27. Here are our drives:
Punt
TD
FG
TD
End of Half
FG
TD
INT
Punt
End of Game
So we scored on 5/8 meaningful possessions (you can argue about the End of Half one, but with 0 TOs and only on our 25 I don't really mind throwing McCaffrey at their line a couple times and seeing if he breaks one). That's not too bad, especially when the opponent is only scoring on 2/8. Once again it seems like the main reason we're not scoring as much as we did last year was mostly because of how few meaningful drives there were. A lot of that was probably USC moving the ball pretty well but failing to score.
I saw that because I wanted to look at the box score, I came away from that game thinking we had a pretty good offense but wondering why we only scored 27. Here are our drives:
Punt
TD
FG
TD
End of Half
FG
TD
INT
Punt
End of Game
So we scored on 5/8 meaningful possessions (you can argue about the End of Half one, but with 0 TOs and only on our 25 I don't really mind throwing McCaffrey at their line a couple times and seeing if he breaks one). That's not too bad, especially when the opponent is only scoring on 2/8. Once again it seems like the main reason we're not scoring as much as we did last year was mostly because of how few meaningful drives there were. A lot of that was probably USC moving the ball pretty well but failing to score.
This was apparently a big enough win to earn a spot in Drawing Conclusions for the week:
I saw that because I wanted to look at the box score, I came away from that game thinking we had a pretty good offense but wondering why we only scored 27. Here are our drives:
Punt
TD
FG
TD
End of Half
FG
TD
INT
Punt
End of Game
So we scored on 5/8 meaningful possessions (you can argue about the End of Half one, but with 0 TOs and only on our 25 I don't really mind throwing McCaffrey at their line a couple times and seeing if he breaks one). That's not too bad, especially when the opponent is only scoring on 2/8. Once again it seems like the main reason we're not scoring as much as we did last year was mostly because of how few meaningful drives there were. A lot of that was probably USC moving the ball pretty well but failing to score.
I saw that because I wanted to look at the box score, I came away from that game thinking we had a pretty good offense but wondering why we only scored 27. Here are our drives:
Punt
TD
FG
TD
End of Half
FG
TD
INT
Punt
End of Game
So we scored on 5/8 meaningful possessions (you can argue about the End of Half one, but with 0 TOs and only on our 25 I don't really mind throwing McCaffrey at their line a couple times and seeing if he breaks one). That's not too bad, especially when the opponent is only scoring on 2/8. Once again it seems like the main reason we're not scoring as much as we did last year was mostly because of how few meaningful drives there were. A lot of that was probably USC moving the ball pretty well but failing to score.
09-18-2016, 07:55 AM
I didn't see any drive calculator that would give the expected point value of a drive starting at your own 25 with 30s left, But you can look at win probability as a surrogate. Being tied in a game in that scenario gives a 57% win probability. Assuming that calculator gives you a 50% shot of winning in OT, that means you have at least a 7% chance of scoring. The true chance is likely higher, as you have to subtract the probability of a turnover and points for the other team.
That being said, I have no qualms with avoiding 3 extra touches for Mccaffrey when he already has sky high usage rates.
That being said, I have no qualms with avoiding 3 extra touches for Mccaffrey when he already has sky high usage rates.
I didn't see any drive calculator that would give the expected point value of a drive starting at your own 25 with 30s left, But you can look at win probability as a surrogate. Being tied in a game in that scenario gives a 57% win probability. Assuming that calculator gives you a 50% shot of winning in OT, that means you have at least a 7% chance of scoring. The true chance is likely higher, as you have to subtract the probability of a turnover and points for the other team.
That being said, I have no qualms with avoiding 3 extra touches for Mccaffrey when he already has sky high usage rates.
That being said, I have no qualms with avoiding 3 extra touches for Mccaffrey when he already has sky high usage rates.
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-18-2016, 08:38 AM
(09-18-2016, 07:30 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:IIRC face-guarding is not a penalty. But Rector did misplay it, if he just decelerates as much as he can then it's absolutely PI because the defender would've just taken him out.
I couldn't put my finger on what was bugging me about this play, but what you pointed out was it.
(09-18-2016, 07:30 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:IIRC face-guarding is not a penalty. But Rector did misplay it, if he just decelerates as much as he can then it's absolutely PI because the defender would've just taken him out.
I couldn't put my finger on what was bugging me about this play, but what you pointed out was it.
09-18-2016, 08:49 AM
That was a fantastic butt kicking last night. The offense wasn't as sharp as it will need to be in two weeks when the Huskies will take away the run more than U$C could. But I'll take 300 yds rushing and a 5+ average anytime, anywhere. Burns pretty much did what he needed to do, other than the two overthrows. I remember Hogan making similar mistakes in his first season too. This will get better. By mid-October I expect him to hit at least one of those two.
This defense has a chance to be VERY VERY special - like 2010 special. And that special-ness is in spite of ILB which continues to be a major issue. Palma is a good run-stopper but he cannot cover TEs downfield - why he was even on the field on a 3rd & 18 is beyond me. The one series outside of late-game where Perez played he was once again consistently out of position and that directly led to not only the long completion to the TE but also the TD run where he missed his gap. We are going to play a lot of 2-3-6 and 3-3-5 this season which means there will only be 1 ILB out there. Give me Palma on 1st & 2nd and Davis on 3rd. The rest of the depth chart there needs to make a LOT of progress.
This defense has a chance to be VERY VERY special - like 2010 special. And that special-ness is in spite of ILB which continues to be a major issue. Palma is a good run-stopper but he cannot cover TEs downfield - why he was even on the field on a 3rd & 18 is beyond me. The one series outside of late-game where Perez played he was once again consistently out of position and that directly led to not only the long completion to the TE but also the TD run where he missed his gap. We are going to play a lot of 2-3-6 and 3-3-5 this season which means there will only be 1 ILB out there. Give me Palma on 1st & 2nd and Davis on 3rd. The rest of the depth chart there needs to make a LOT of progress.
That was a fantastic butt kicking last night. The offense wasn't as sharp as it will need to be in two weeks when the Huskies will take away the run more than U$C could. But I'll take 300 yds rushing and a 5+ average anytime, anywhere. Burns pretty much did what he needed to do, other than the two overthrows. I remember Hogan making similar mistakes in his first season too. This will get better. By mid-October I expect him to hit at least one of those two.
This defense has a chance to be VERY VERY special - like 2010 special. And that special-ness is in spite of ILB which continues to be a major issue. Palma is a good run-stopper but he cannot cover TEs downfield - why he was even on the field on a 3rd & 18 is beyond me. The one series outside of late-game where Perez played he was once again consistently out of position and that directly led to not only the long completion to the TE but also the TD run where he missed his gap. We are going to play a lot of 2-3-6 and 3-3-5 this season which means there will only be 1 ILB out there. Give me Palma on 1st & 2nd and Davis on 3rd. The rest of the depth chart there needs to make a LOT of progress.
This defense has a chance to be VERY VERY special - like 2010 special. And that special-ness is in spite of ILB which continues to be a major issue. Palma is a good run-stopper but he cannot cover TEs downfield - why he was even on the field on a 3rd & 18 is beyond me. The one series outside of late-game where Perez played he was once again consistently out of position and that directly led to not only the long completion to the TE but also the TD run where he missed his gap. We are going to play a lot of 2-3-6 and 3-3-5 this season which means there will only be 1 ILB out there. Give me Palma on 1st & 2nd and Davis on 3rd. The rest of the depth chart there needs to make a LOT of progress.
09-18-2016, 08:51 AM
Stanford scored about 3.8 points per drive once you filter out the end-of-half junk stuff. That's pretty solid -- per Brian Fremeau Stanford scored 3.58 ppd last year (http://www.bcftoys.com/2015-ppd/). And Stanford averaged 6.52 yards per play, just about an average performance for the team last year. (Indeed, Stanford rang up 6.49 and 6.52 ypp in its two games against SC in 2015).
As stupac says, the lack of drives/plays was probably the biggest factor. Stanford's averaging 55.5 plays/game so far this year -- down from 66 plays/game last year. I have a suspicion that Shaw wants to keep things simple for Burns: it's a small sample size, of course, but Burns has started off each game so far hot, only to lose accuracy in the second half. Pure speculation, but it may be Burns feels very comfortable in scripted situations but not as sharp deeper in the play book.
Note that Burns has passed far less in his opening two games than Nunes (28 passes/game), Hogan (26 passes/game), or of course Luck (28.5 passes/game ... though interestingly Luck had 12 and 14 attempts in games 3 and 4 of his illustrious career.)
As stupac says, the lack of drives/plays was probably the biggest factor. Stanford's averaging 55.5 plays/game so far this year -- down from 66 plays/game last year. I have a suspicion that Shaw wants to keep things simple for Burns: it's a small sample size, of course, but Burns has started off each game so far hot, only to lose accuracy in the second half. Pure speculation, but it may be Burns feels very comfortable in scripted situations but not as sharp deeper in the play book.
Note that Burns has passed far less in his opening two games than Nunes (28 passes/game), Hogan (26 passes/game), or of course Luck (28.5 passes/game ... though interestingly Luck had 12 and 14 attempts in games 3 and 4 of his illustrious career.)
Stanford scored about 3.8 points per drive once you filter out the end-of-half junk stuff. That's pretty solid -- per Brian Fremeau Stanford scored 3.58 ppd last year (http://www.bcftoys.com/2015-ppd/). And Stanford averaged 6.52 yards per play, just about an average performance for the team last year. (Indeed, Stanford rang up 6.49 and 6.52 ypp in its two games against SC in 2015).
As stupac says, the lack of drives/plays was probably the biggest factor. Stanford's averaging 55.5 plays/game so far this year -- down from 66 plays/game last year. I have a suspicion that Shaw wants to keep things simple for Burns: it's a small sample size, of course, but Burns has started off each game so far hot, only to lose accuracy in the second half. Pure speculation, but it may be Burns feels very comfortable in scripted situations but not as sharp deeper in the play book.
Note that Burns has passed far less in his opening two games than Nunes (28 passes/game), Hogan (26 passes/game), or of course Luck (28.5 passes/game ... though interestingly Luck had 12 and 14 attempts in games 3 and 4 of his illustrious career.)
As stupac says, the lack of drives/plays was probably the biggest factor. Stanford's averaging 55.5 plays/game so far this year -- down from 66 plays/game last year. I have a suspicion that Shaw wants to keep things simple for Burns: it's a small sample size, of course, but Burns has started off each game so far hot, only to lose accuracy in the second half. Pure speculation, but it may be Burns feels very comfortable in scripted situations but not as sharp deeper in the play book.
Note that Burns has passed far less in his opening two games than Nunes (28 passes/game), Hogan (26 passes/game), or of course Luck (28.5 passes/game ... though interestingly Luck had 12 and 14 attempts in games 3 and 4 of his illustrious career.)
09-18-2016, 09:39 AM
It's funny, it didn't feel like our blocking was all that good, but I guess there were repeatedly brobdingnagian holes in the front seven. Really, USC's back 7 are just pretty good and were doing a good job tackling 1-on-1, or slowing McCaffrey/Love down enough that someone else could catch up. If they repeat that performance against UCLA's less-athletic defense...
It's funny, it didn't feel like our blocking was all that good, but I guess there were repeatedly brobdingnagian holes in the front seven. Really, USC's back 7 are just pretty good and were doing a good job tackling 1-on-1, or slowing McCaffrey/Love down enough that someone else could catch up. If they repeat that performance against UCLA's less-athletic defense...
09-18-2016, 09:46 AM
Also from Chris Fowler:
More from @ESPNStatsInfo : @GoStanford under center 37 snaps. Ran 36 of those. USC averaged 8 in the box. Card gained 6.1/rush. Absurd
More from @ESPNStatsInfo : @GoStanford under center 37 snaps. Ran 36 of those. USC averaged 8 in the box. Card gained 6.1/rush. Absurd
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »