[Nan3cy]

Great story. Sayers was unreal. Unfortunately he got that knee injury against the Niners. Never was the same.

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18453.msg219702#msg219702 date=1514562849]
A line from "Brian's Song" has stuck with me over the years.  Brian Piccolo is talking with Gale Sayers and says, "I know I can't get a sixty yard run, but I can get six yards ten times, and they still add up the same way."

Our defense isn't very deep.  The longer our defense is on the field, the worse it is for us.  I wonder how we'll do, once we're past the Bryce Love era, but still have running backs averaging 4.5 yards or better, chewing up the clock?

BTW, speaking of Gale Sayers...my dad was a WR and best friends with Bob Berry, the QB at Willow Glen HS when they won 44 games in a row (and were finally beaten by a Bill Walsh coached team).  Bob was an All-American at Oregon and went on to a lengthy career with the Vikings and Falcons.  In those pre-media days, there was very little information on the athletes, and Bob had just been named to the West team for the 1965 East-West shrine game.  Butkus and Staubach were on the East team and Berry, Craig Morton of C.al, and Bob Nichols, Richard Ragsdale and Jack Chapple of Stanford were on the West team.  Dad and Berry and some of their former HS teammates were sitting around a kitchen table and talking about the all-stars and who really stood out.  My dad asked Berry who the best players were, and Bob said "Well, they're all pretty good.  But there's this running back from Kansas named Gale Sayers who's head and shoulders above everyone else."

[/quote]

I met Gale Sayers 20 years ago at an event held by the adoption agency my grandmother started in the 1920s. He has a son adopted from the Cradle, and he and his wife have sponsored/funded a program within the Cradle to encourage African-American adoption. My mother was with me, and although she was getting more and more into dementia, she knew a good-looking guy when she saw one. When she heard Sayers give a short speech on the founding of the Sayers Center, she turned to me and said "I want to meet HIM." I think he was in his late 50s at the time, but he looked terrific.

This story has no point other than to brag that I've met Gale Sayers, and there is something of a family connection.  :D

[Nan3cy]

Great story. Sayers was unreal. Unfortunately he got that knee injury against the Niners. Never was the same.

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18453.msg219702#msg219702 date=1514562849]
A line from "Brian's Song" has stuck with me over the years.  Brian Piccolo is talking with Gale Sayers and says, "I know I can't get a sixty yard run, but I can get six yards ten times, and they still add up the same way."

Our defense isn't very deep.  The longer our defense is on the field, the worse it is for us.  I wonder how we'll do, once we're past the Bryce Love era, but still have running backs averaging 4.5 yards or better, chewing up the clock?

BTW, speaking of Gale Sayers...my dad was a WR and best friends with Bob Berry, the QB at Willow Glen HS when they won 44 games in a row (and were finally beaten by a Bill Walsh coached team).  Bob was an All-American at Oregon and went on to a lengthy career with the Vikings and Falcons.  In those pre-media days, there was very little information on the athletes, and Bob had just been named to the West team for the 1965 East-West shrine game.  Butkus and Staubach were on the East team and Berry, Craig Morton of C.al, and Bob Nichols, Richard Ragsdale and Jack Chapple of Stanford were on the West team.  Dad and Berry and some of their former HS teammates were sitting around a kitchen table and talking about the all-stars and who really stood out.  My dad asked Berry who the best players were, and Bob said "Well, they're all pretty good.  But there's this running back from Kansas named Gale Sayers who's head and shoulders above everyone else."

[/quote]

I met Gale Sayers 20 years ago at an event held by the adoption agency my grandmother started in the 1920s. He has a son adopted from the Cradle, and he and his wife have sponsored/funded a program within the Cradle to encourage African-American adoption. My mother was with me, and although she was getting more and more into dementia, she knew a good-looking guy when she saw one. When she heard Sayers give a short speech on the founding of the Sayers Center, she turned to me and said "I want to meet HIM." I think he was in his late 50s at the time, but he looked terrific.

This story has no point other than to brag that I've met Gale Sayers, and there is something of a family connection.  :D

[Nan3cy]

Great story. Sayers was unreal. Unfortunately he got that knee injury against the Niners. Never was the same.

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18453.msg219702#msg219702 date=1514562849]
A line from "Brian's Song" has stuck with me over the years.  Brian Piccolo is talking with Gale Sayers and says, "I know I can't get a sixty yard run, but I can get six yards ten times, and they still add up the same way."

Our defense isn't very deep.  The longer our defense is on the field, the worse it is for us.  I wonder how we'll do, once we're past the Bryce Love era, but still have running backs averaging 4.5 yards or better, chewing up the clock?

BTW, speaking of Gale Sayers...my dad was a WR and best friends with Bob Berry, the QB at Willow Glen HS when they won 44 games in a row (and were finally beaten by a Bill Walsh coached team).  Bob was an All-American at Oregon and went on to a lengthy career with the Vikings and Falcons.  In those pre-media days, there was very little information on the athletes, and Bob had just been named to the West team for the 1965 East-West shrine game.  Butkus and Staubach were on the East team and Berry, Craig Morton of C.al, and Bob Nichols, Richard Ragsdale and Jack Chapple of Stanford were on the West team.  Dad and Berry and some of their former HS teammates were sitting around a kitchen table and talking about the all-stars and who really stood out.  My dad asked Berry who the best players were, and Bob said "Well, they're all pretty good.  But there's this running back from Kansas named Gale Sayers who's head and shoulders above everyone else."

[/quote]

I met Gale Sayers 20 years ago at an event held by the adoption agency my grandmother started in the 1920s. He has a son adopted from the Cradle, and he and his wife have sponsored/funded a program within the Cradle to encourage African-American adoption. My mother was with me, and although she was getting more and more into dementia, she knew a good-looking guy when she saw one. When she heard Sayers give a short speech on the founding of the Sayers Center, she turned to me and said "I want to meet HIM." I think he was in his late 50s at the time, but he looked terrific.

This story has no point other than to brag that I've met Gale Sayers, and there is something of a family connection.  :D

[Nan3cy]

Great story. Sayers was unreal. Unfortunately he got that knee injury against the Niners. Never was the same.

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18453.msg219702#msg219702 date=1514562849]
A line from "Brian's Song" has stuck with me over the years.  Brian Piccolo is talking with Gale Sayers and says, "I know I can't get a sixty yard run, but I can get six yards ten times, and they still add up the same way."

Our defense isn't very deep.  The longer our defense is on the field, the worse it is for us.  I wonder how we'll do, once we're past the Bryce Love era, but still have running backs averaging 4.5 yards or better, chewing up the clock?

BTW, speaking of Gale Sayers...my dad was a WR and best friends with Bob Berry, the QB at Willow Glen HS when they won 44 games in a row (and were finally beaten by a Bill Walsh coached team).  Bob was an All-American at Oregon and went on to a lengthy career with the Vikings and Falcons.  In those pre-media days, there was very little information on the athletes, and Bob had just been named to the West team for the 1965 East-West shrine game.  Butkus and Staubach were on the East team and Berry, Craig Morton of C.al, and Bob Nichols, Richard Ragsdale and Jack Chapple of Stanford were on the West team.  Dad and Berry and some of their former HS teammates were sitting around a kitchen table and talking about the all-stars and who really stood out.  My dad asked Berry who the best players were, and Bob said "Well, they're all pretty good.  But there's this running back from Kansas named Gale Sayers who's head and shoulders above everyone else."

[/quote]

I met Gale Sayers 20 years ago at an event held by the adoption agency my grandmother started in the 1920s. He has a son adopted from the Cradle, and he and his wife have sponsored/funded a program within the Cradle to encourage African-American adoption. My mother was with me, and although she was getting more and more into dementia, she knew a good-looking guy when she saw one. When she heard Sayers give a short speech on the founding of the Sayers Center, she turned to me and said "I want to meet HIM." I think he was in his late 50s at the time, but he looked terrific.

This story has no point other than to brag that I've met Gale Sayers, and there is something of a family connection.  :D

[jacketree]

I think Lex means that Stanford needs an overwhelming TOP advantage to keep its defense off the field.  Although TOP really doesn't matter if they score and you don't.  It was all pretty even last night on balance.  I'm just hung up on the massive fade starting in Q2.

Interesting factoid on SVP last night.  First time in history both Army and Navy won a bowl game in the same season.  Neither team completed a pass.  Army held the ball in their game for 46 minutes!  That is 77 percent of the clock.  Navy held the ball in their game for 42 minutes (70 percent). Unfortunately I wasn't able to watch the Army game, which sounded like a barn-burner. They made a 2 point conversion to win with seconds left and then recovered a botched lateral-return attempt on the ensuing kickoff for the final margin of 7.  I listened to chunks of the Navy game while in transit to the field yesterday.  They gave up an opening kickoff return and then nothing else. They were discussing Alabama-Clemson extensively early in the third quartered. Took me forever to find out what was actually happening.  I only bring this up because I think Lex wants Stanford to emulate that kind of dominance, albeit probably with more than 8 pass attempts in a season.  Both of those offenses are completely predictable outside of the inherent unpredictability of the triple option and variants thereof.  (There was a grand total of one triple option play combined in the Army-Navy blizzard game.  Army almost fumbled away the win, but it turned into the penultimate winning play.  Risk-reward.)

And great story Nan3cy!

[jacketree]

I think Lex means that Stanford needs an overwhelming TOP advantage to keep its defense off the field.  Although TOP really doesn't matter if they score and you don't.  It was all pretty even last night on balance.  I'm just hung up on the massive fade starting in Q2.

Interesting factoid on SVP last night.  First time in history both Army and Navy won a bowl game in the same season.  Neither team completed a pass.  Army held the ball in their game for 46 minutes!  That is 77 percent of the clock.  Navy held the ball in their game for 42 minutes (70 percent). Unfortunately I wasn't able to watch the Army game, which sounded like a barn-burner. They made a 2 point conversion to win with seconds left and then recovered a botched lateral-return attempt on the ensuing kickoff for the final margin of 7.  I listened to chunks of the Navy game while in transit to the field yesterday.  They gave up an opening kickoff return and then nothing else. They were discussing Alabama-Clemson extensively early in the third quartered. Took me forever to find out what was actually happening.  I only bring this up because I think Lex wants Stanford to emulate that kind of dominance, albeit probably with more than 8 pass attempts in a season.  Both of those offenses are completely predictable outside of the inherent unpredictability of the triple option and variants thereof.  (There was a grand total of one triple option play combined in the Army-Navy blizzard game.  Army almost fumbled away the win, but it turned into the penultimate winning play.  Risk-reward.)

And great story Nan3cy!

[jacketree]

I think Lex means that Stanford needs an overwhelming TOP advantage to keep its defense off the field.  Although TOP really doesn't matter if they score and you don't.  It was all pretty even last night on balance.  I'm just hung up on the massive fade starting in Q2.

Interesting factoid on SVP last night.  First time in history both Army and Navy won a bowl game in the same season.  Neither team completed a pass.  Army held the ball in their game for 46 minutes!  That is 77 percent of the clock.  Navy held the ball in their game for 42 minutes (70 percent). Unfortunately I wasn't able to watch the Army game, which sounded like a barn-burner. They made a 2 point conversion to win with seconds left and then recovered a botched lateral-return attempt on the ensuing kickoff for the final margin of 7.  I listened to chunks of the Navy game while in transit to the field yesterday.  They gave up an opening kickoff return and then nothing else. They were discussing Alabama-Clemson extensively early in the third quartered. Took me forever to find out what was actually happening.  I only bring this up because I think Lex wants Stanford to emulate that kind of dominance, albeit probably with more than 8 pass attempts in a season.  Both of those offenses are completely predictable outside of the inherent unpredictability of the triple option and variants thereof.  (There was a grand total of one triple option play combined in the Army-Navy blizzard game.  Army almost fumbled away the win, but it turned into the penultimate winning play.  Risk-reward.)

And great story Nan3cy!

[jacketree]

I think Lex means that Stanford needs an overwhelming TOP advantage to keep its defense off the field.  Although TOP really doesn't matter if they score and you don't.  It was all pretty even last night on balance.  I'm just hung up on the massive fade starting in Q2.

Interesting factoid on SVP last night.  First time in history both Army and Navy won a bowl game in the same season.  Neither team completed a pass.  Army held the ball in their game for 46 minutes!  That is 77 percent of the clock.  Navy held the ball in their game for 42 minutes (70 percent). Unfortunately I wasn't able to watch the Army game, which sounded like a barn-burner. They made a 2 point conversion to win with seconds left and then recovered a botched lateral-return attempt on the ensuing kickoff for the final margin of 7.  I listened to chunks of the Navy game while in transit to the field yesterday.  They gave up an opening kickoff return and then nothing else. They were discussing Alabama-Clemson extensively early in the third quartered. Took me forever to find out what was actually happening.  I only bring this up because I think Lex wants Stanford to emulate that kind of dominance, albeit probably with more than 8 pass attempts in a season.  Both of those offenses are completely predictable outside of the inherent unpredictability of the triple option and variants thereof.  (There was a grand total of one triple option play combined in the Army-Navy blizzard game.  Army almost fumbled away the win, but it turned into the penultimate winning play.  Risk-reward.)

And great story Nan3cy!

[Mick]

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18453.msg219696#msg219696 date=1514561951]

....

This was, to me, the most frustrating year of the Shaw era. They have been pretty darn good at winning the tight games. Not this year  Still 9-5.  Good year. Just so close to being a great one.

Agreed.  We lost four games by a total of eleven points. 

Geaux Cardinal!
[/quote]


Makes me think of Garoppolo vs. Hoyer for the 49ers.  Until last weekend's big breakout, the 49ers were only averaging five more points per game with Garoppolo than Hoyer.  But they were five crucial points.  Under Hoyer, the 49ers were 1-9, but five of the losses were by three or fewer points.

[Mick]

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18453.msg219696#msg219696 date=1514561951]

....

This was, to me, the most frustrating year of the Shaw era. They have been pretty darn good at winning the tight games. Not this year  Still 9-5.  Good year. Just so close to being a great one.

Agreed.  We lost four games by a total of eleven points. 

Geaux Cardinal!
[/quote]


Makes me think of Garoppolo vs. Hoyer for the 49ers.  Until last weekend's big breakout, the 49ers were only averaging five more points per game with Garoppolo than Hoyer.  But they were five crucial points.  Under Hoyer, the 49ers were 1-9, but five of the losses were by three or fewer points.

[Mick]

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18453.msg219696#msg219696 date=1514561951]

....

This was, to me, the most frustrating year of the Shaw era. They have been pretty darn good at winning the tight games. Not this year  Still 9-5.  Good year. Just so close to being a great one.

Agreed.  We lost four games by a total of eleven points. 

Geaux Cardinal!
[/quote]


Makes me think of Garoppolo vs. Hoyer for the 49ers.  Until last weekend's big breakout, the 49ers were only averaging five more points per game with Garoppolo than Hoyer.  But they were five crucial points.  Under Hoyer, the 49ers were 1-9, but five of the losses were by three or fewer points.

[Mick]

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18453.msg219696#msg219696 date=1514561951]

....

This was, to me, the most frustrating year of the Shaw era. They have been pretty darn good at winning the tight games. Not this year  Still 9-5.  Good year. Just so close to being a great one.

Agreed.  We lost four games by a total of eleven points. 

Geaux Cardinal!
[/quote]


Makes me think of Garoppolo vs. Hoyer for the 49ers.  Until last weekend's big breakout, the 49ers were only averaging five more points per game with Garoppolo than Hoyer.  But they were five crucial points.  Under Hoyer, the 49ers were 1-9, but five of the losses were by three or fewer points.

[lex24]

Second half: 

TCU. 9-75. TD
S. 4-79. TD
TCU. 9-75. TD
S.  7-64. FG
TCU. 3-17. Fun
S. 3-0. Punt
TCU. 1-95 TD
S 3 minus 15. Punt. TCU TD
S. 10-76. TD
TCU. 9-59. FG

Then the three and out. The announcers were talking about Stanford being gassed defensively. Those long drives are killers. TOP is impacted by tempo. It’s not just the TOP. It’s the plays.

[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18453.msg219725#msg219725 date=1514569860]
We did possess the ball more than TCU.

-m.

By over six minutes. Guess that facts get in the way of some of the above arguments. Good catch Langdude.

Stanford won the turnover battle, as well. 3-2.
[/quote]

[lex24]

Second half: 

TCU. 9-75. TD
S. 4-79. TD
TCU. 9-75. TD
S.  7-64. FG
TCU. 3-17. Fun
S. 3-0. Punt
TCU. 1-95 TD
S 3 minus 15. Punt. TCU TD
S. 10-76. TD
TCU. 9-59. FG

Then the three and out. The announcers were talking about Stanford being gassed defensively. Those long drives are killers. TOP is impacted by tempo. It’s not just the TOP. It’s the plays.

[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18453.msg219725#msg219725 date=1514569860]
We did possess the ball more than TCU.

-m.

By over six minutes. Guess that facts get in the way of some of the above arguments. Good catch Langdude.

Stanford won the turnover battle, as well. 3-2.
[/quote]

[lex24]

Second half: 

TCU. 9-75. TD
S. 4-79. TD
TCU. 9-75. TD
S.  7-64. FG
TCU. 3-17. Fun
S. 3-0. Punt
TCU. 1-95 TD
S 3 minus 15. Punt. TCU TD
S. 10-76. TD
TCU. 9-59. FG

Then the three and out. The announcers were talking about Stanford being gassed defensively. Those long drives are killers. TOP is impacted by tempo. It’s not just the TOP. It’s the plays.

[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18453.msg219725#msg219725 date=1514569860]
We did possess the ball more than TCU.

-m.

By over six minutes. Guess that facts get in the way of some of the above arguments. Good catch Langdude.

Stanford won the turnover battle, as well. 3-2.
[/quote]

[lex24]

Second half: 

TCU. 9-75. TD
S. 4-79. TD
TCU. 9-75. TD
S.  7-64. FG
TCU. 3-17. Fun
S. 3-0. Punt
TCU. 1-95 TD
S 3 minus 15. Punt. TCU TD
S. 10-76. TD
TCU. 9-59. FG

Then the three and out. The announcers were talking about Stanford being gassed defensively. Those long drives are killers. TOP is impacted by tempo. It’s not just the TOP. It’s the plays.

[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18453.msg219725#msg219725 date=1514569860]
We did possess the ball more than TCU.

-m.

By over six minutes. Guess that facts get in the way of some of the above arguments. Good catch Langdude.

Stanford won the turnover battle, as well. 3-2.
[/quote]

[Langdude]

Yes. The d-line and probably OLB definitely tired in the second half. I don't remember hearing Mike Tyler's name once. Part of that was our lack of depth not enabling us to sub. Part of that was our offense a couple of times being too brief. And part of that was us not stopping TCU. I agree with you that it is not merely a TOP argument full stop.

-m.

Second half: 

TCU. 9-75. TD
S. 4-79. TD
TCU. 9-75. TD
S.  7-64. FG
TCU. 3-17. Fun
S. 3-0. Punt
TCU. 1-95 TD
S 3 minus 15. Punt. TCU TD
S. 10-76. TD
TCU. 9-59. FG

Then the three and out. The announcers were talking about Stanford being gassed defensively. Those long drives are killers. TOP is impacted by tempo. It’s not just the TOP. It’s the plays.






[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=18453.msg219727#msg219727 date=1514570163]
[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18453.msg219725#msg219725 date=1514569860]
We did possess the ball more than TCU.

-m.

By over six minutes. Guess that facts get in the way of some of the above arguments. Good catch Langdude.

Stanford won the turnover battle, as well. 3-2.
[/quote]
[/quote]

[Langdude]

Yes. The d-line and probably OLB definitely tired in the second half. I don't remember hearing Mike Tyler's name once. Part of that was our lack of depth not enabling us to sub. Part of that was our offense a couple of times being too brief. And part of that was us not stopping TCU. I agree with you that it is not merely a TOP argument full stop.

-m.

Second half: 

TCU. 9-75. TD
S. 4-79. TD
TCU. 9-75. TD
S.  7-64. FG
TCU. 3-17. Fun
S. 3-0. Punt
TCU. 1-95 TD
S 3 minus 15. Punt. TCU TD
S. 10-76. TD
TCU. 9-59. FG

Then the three and out. The announcers were talking about Stanford being gassed defensively. Those long drives are killers. TOP is impacted by tempo. It’s not just the TOP. It’s the plays.






[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=18453.msg219727#msg219727 date=1514570163]
[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18453.msg219725#msg219725 date=1514569860]
We did possess the ball more than TCU.

-m.

By over six minutes. Guess that facts get in the way of some of the above arguments. Good catch Langdude.

Stanford won the turnover battle, as well. 3-2.
[/quote]
[/quote]

[Langdude]

Yes. The d-line and probably OLB definitely tired in the second half. I don't remember hearing Mike Tyler's name once. Part of that was our lack of depth not enabling us to sub. Part of that was our offense a couple of times being too brief. And part of that was us not stopping TCU. I agree with you that it is not merely a TOP argument full stop.

-m.

Second half: 

TCU. 9-75. TD
S. 4-79. TD
TCU. 9-75. TD
S.  7-64. FG
TCU. 3-17. Fun
S. 3-0. Punt
TCU. 1-95 TD
S 3 minus 15. Punt. TCU TD
S. 10-76. TD
TCU. 9-59. FG

Then the three and out. The announcers were talking about Stanford being gassed defensively. Those long drives are killers. TOP is impacted by tempo. It’s not just the TOP. It’s the plays.






[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=18453.msg219727#msg219727 date=1514570163]
[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18453.msg219725#msg219725 date=1514569860]
We did possess the ball more than TCU.

-m.

By over six minutes. Guess that facts get in the way of some of the above arguments. Good catch Langdude.

Stanford won the turnover battle, as well. 3-2.
[/quote]
[/quote]

[Langdude]

Yes. The d-line and probably OLB definitely tired in the second half. I don't remember hearing Mike Tyler's name once. Part of that was our lack of depth not enabling us to sub. Part of that was our offense a couple of times being too brief. And part of that was us not stopping TCU. I agree with you that it is not merely a TOP argument full stop.

-m.

Second half: 

TCU. 9-75. TD
S. 4-79. TD
TCU. 9-75. TD
S.  7-64. FG
TCU. 3-17. Fun
S. 3-0. Punt
TCU. 1-95 TD
S 3 minus 15. Punt. TCU TD
S. 10-76. TD
TCU. 9-59. FG

Then the three and out. The announcers were talking about Stanford being gassed defensively. Those long drives are killers. TOP is impacted by tempo. It’s not just the TOP. It’s the plays.






[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=18453.msg219727#msg219727 date=1514570163]
[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18453.msg219725#msg219725 date=1514569860]
We did possess the ball more than TCU.

-m.

By over six minutes. Guess that facts get in the way of some of the above arguments. Good catch Langdude.

Stanford won the turnover battle, as well. 3-2.
[/quote]
[/quote]