10-16-2011, 07:39 AM
More Ty!
We're in a ball game
10-16-2011, 08:07 AM
(10-16-2011, 04:13 AM)hurlburt88 link Wrote:AL's interception: I thought if ball was another yard downfield it is a catch. A bit too much air.Â
Thought it was a team production there--Patterson let the corner get inside of him too easily. Shaw, according to Gemmel, blamed Patterson.
(10-16-2011, 04:13 AM)hurlburt88 link Wrote:AL's interception: I thought if ball was another yard downfield it is a catch. A bit too much air.Â
Thought it was a team production there--Patterson let the corner get inside of him too easily. Shaw, according to Gemmel, blamed Patterson.
10-16-2011, 08:23 AM
(10-15-2011, 11:29 PM)Rando90 link Wrote:I watched the Oregon game very closely because I had money on Oregon (got the push).
They have so much damn speed. I know everybody knows that. But Thomas, in my opinion, isn't a big passing threat. Seems like sometimes he is on point and sometimes he's just not accurate at all, judging by the Kal and ASU games. Their biggest asset is obviously their rushing offense. Most of their yardage comes from BIG PLAYS that often go for touchdowns.
Seeing that we play a conservative defense where we don't allow big plays, and are one of the best run stopping defenses in NCAA, I really like how we match up against Oregon. I guess the biggest thing I'm worried about is the speed and no huddle. I think on paper, if we stuff their run, we can do well on defense.
I agree. Containing Oregon's running game (and similar plays) is the key. Their speed makes containing the run very difficult - they love the stretch the field horizontally with outside runs, screens, sweeps, etc., and they have the speed to give them a chance at a home run on any of those types of plays. You have to be able to limit their big plays on the outside without becoming overextended and opening up the middle of the field. Auburn/LSU were able to do this through a combination of speed and size on defense, and they forced Oregon to become a more traditional offense. Oregon's offense is still good if they're forced to play this way, but it's containable and beatable.Â
I'm not impressed with Oregon's ability to make plays over-the-top or downfield based on what I've seen, so I think getting good run support from the secondary will be key. Their big plays tend to be where they turn a corner on you or beat somebody one-on-one in the open field and get a big run or YAC. We don't need to necessarily stack the box in the traditional sense (between the tackles), but we need good support sideline to sideline 5 yards and in. We have to dare Thomas to beat us throwing the ball down the field.Â
(10-15-2011, 11:29 PM)Rando90 link Wrote:I watched the Oregon game very closely because I had money on Oregon (got the push).
They have so much damn speed. I know everybody knows that. But Thomas, in my opinion, isn't a big passing threat. Seems like sometimes he is on point and sometimes he's just not accurate at all, judging by the Kal and ASU games. Their biggest asset is obviously their rushing offense. Most of their yardage comes from BIG PLAYS that often go for touchdowns.
Seeing that we play a conservative defense where we don't allow big plays, and are one of the best run stopping defenses in NCAA, I really like how we match up against Oregon. I guess the biggest thing I'm worried about is the speed and no huddle. I think on paper, if we stuff their run, we can do well on defense.
I agree. Containing Oregon's running game (and similar plays) is the key. Their speed makes containing the run very difficult - they love the stretch the field horizontally with outside runs, screens, sweeps, etc., and they have the speed to give them a chance at a home run on any of those types of plays. You have to be able to limit their big plays on the outside without becoming overextended and opening up the middle of the field. Auburn/LSU were able to do this through a combination of speed and size on defense, and they forced Oregon to become a more traditional offense. Oregon's offense is still good if they're forced to play this way, but it's containable and beatable.Â
I'm not impressed with Oregon's ability to make plays over-the-top or downfield based on what I've seen, so I think getting good run support from the secondary will be key. Their big plays tend to be where they turn a corner on you or beat somebody one-on-one in the open field and get a big run or YAC. We don't need to necessarily stack the box in the traditional sense (between the tackles), but we need good support sideline to sideline 5 yards and in. We have to dare Thomas to beat us throwing the ball down the field.Â
10-16-2011, 09:10 AM
(10-15-2011, 10:49 PM)estephan link Wrote:We are doomed to the same old back and forth here. "we won by a big margin, so we rule." "no, there are problems."Â Shaw is of the latter camp, and it's not just coach talk.
The people that see the problems are the ones that know that there are hard opponents ahead, and are interested in doing as well as possible against them.
The coaches know the team has some things to work on, and every informed fan can identify things too. But the media feasts on the lack of Stanford love, and drops the team relentlessly in the polls. Enough already. Stanford played a better game than Oklahoma, Oregon or Oklahoma State. So unless those teams are moving down, I really don't see why only Stanford is getting these Sunday downgrades. If Stanford is overrated then Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame and/or ASU will give voters a chance to knock the team down. But until there is an actual loss or an actual bad win (say a win that does not cover the spread), Stanford is doing just fine and the polls should reflect that.
OOC how many other teams are undefeated AND have covered the spread every week? That list has got to be mighty small.
(10-15-2011, 10:49 PM)estephan link Wrote:We are doomed to the same old back and forth here. "we won by a big margin, so we rule." "no, there are problems."Â Shaw is of the latter camp, and it's not just coach talk.
The people that see the problems are the ones that know that there are hard opponents ahead, and are interested in doing as well as possible against them.
The coaches know the team has some things to work on, and every informed fan can identify things too. But the media feasts on the lack of Stanford love, and drops the team relentlessly in the polls. Enough already. Stanford played a better game than Oklahoma, Oregon or Oklahoma State. So unless those teams are moving down, I really don't see why only Stanford is getting these Sunday downgrades. If Stanford is overrated then Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame and/or ASU will give voters a chance to knock the team down. But until there is an actual loss or an actual bad win (say a win that does not cover the spread), Stanford is doing just fine and the polls should reflect that.
OOC how many other teams are undefeated AND have covered the spread every week? That list has got to be mighty small.
10-16-2011, 09:27 AM
(10-16-2011, 09:10 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:OOC how many other teams are undefeated AND have covered the spread every week? That list has got to be mighty small.
The answer is 0.
A couple of weeks ago the only other team to be undefeated against the spread was Rutgers; not sure if they've extended that feat.
(10-16-2011, 09:10 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:OOC how many other teams are undefeated AND have covered the spread every week? That list has got to be mighty small.
The answer is 0.
A couple of weeks ago the only other team to be undefeated against the spread was Rutgers; not sure if they've extended that feat.
10-16-2011, 09:28 AM
Listen, Wisconsin's not going to have a bye every week. If Stanford continues to win and win big, it will rise in the polls and in the BCS. Next week is the first big opportunity.
10-16-2011, 10:05 AM
(10-16-2011, 09:28 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:Listen, Wisconsin's not going to have a bye every week. If Stanford continues to win and win big, it will rise in the polls and in the BCS. Next week is the first big opportunity.
Agree. It will work out.
Or not.
10-16-2011, 10:30 AM
(10-16-2011, 09:28 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:Listen, Wisconsin's not going to have a bye every week. If Stanford continues to win and win big, it will rise in the polls and in the BCS. Next week is the first big opportunity.
Not if Wilner continues to read this board. He dropped Stanford to #10. Using the same crazy logic found here. The opponents are losers, so Stanford should destroy teams by 70 or 80. In fact, it is oddly better to lose to top-20 teams by a few TDs than to actually win by 24+ every game. ::)
Errrr. So annoying. Notre Dame, Michigan, Wisconsin types would not have this "problem" >:(
And now it is a problem because this 24+ win is really like a loss stuff has enabled voters to let several schools pass Stanford. It is not out of the question AT ALL that the loser of Nov 5 match-up between LSU and Alabama will stay ahead of Stanford now. And there is no way Stanfodr would pass that loser in later polls.
(10-16-2011, 09:28 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:Listen, Wisconsin's not going to have a bye every week. If Stanford continues to win and win big, it will rise in the polls and in the BCS. Next week is the first big opportunity.
Not if Wilner continues to read this board. He dropped Stanford to #10. Using the same crazy logic found here. The opponents are losers, so Stanford should destroy teams by 70 or 80. In fact, it is oddly better to lose to top-20 teams by a few TDs than to actually win by 24+ every game. ::)
Errrr. So annoying. Notre Dame, Michigan, Wisconsin types would not have this "problem" >:(
And now it is a problem because this 24+ win is really like a loss stuff has enabled voters to let several schools pass Stanford. It is not out of the question AT ALL that the loser of Nov 5 match-up between LSU and Alabama will stay ahead of Stanford now. And there is no way Stanfodr would pass that loser in later polls.
10-16-2011, 10:52 AM
Don't blame it on the board. Wilner's had a thing against Stanford for years. There's one and only one person who likes him, and that person simply feels compelled to defend another journalist.
10-16-2011, 12:31 PM
(10-16-2011, 10:30 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=4654.msg33052#msg33052 date=1318782531]
Listen, Wisconsin's not going to have a bye every week. If Stanford continues to win and win big, it will rise in the polls and in the BCS. Next week is the first big opportunity.
Not if Wilner continues to read this board. He dropped Stanford to #10. Using the same crazy logic found here. The opponents are losers, so Stanford should destroy teams by 70 or 80. In fact, it is oddly better to lose to top-20 teams by a few TDs than to actually win by 24+ every game. ::)
Errrr. So annoying. the University of South Bend, Michigan, Wisconsin types would not have this "problem" >:(
And now it is a problem because this 24+ win is really like a loss stuff has enabled voters to let several schools pass Stanford. It is not out of the question AT ALL that the loser of Nov 5 match-up between LSU and Alabama will stay ahead of Stanford now. And there is no way Stanfodr would pass that loser in later polls.
[/quote]
Well, we really don't play either of the two best teams until after Nov. 5, and if those two continue to win, your scenario could happen and we could jump them.
With this team, I thought at the beginning of the year that our schedule would help us with a new line and some possible issues on defense. I think it has. I'm glad we didn't have an Oklahoma team to play to start the season off.
I'll worry about this after the NotRDayme game ends.
If an undefeated Big12 team plays an undefeated SEC team, I won't complain all that much. I think those conferences are better.
(10-16-2011, 10:30 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=4654.msg33052#msg33052 date=1318782531]
Listen, Wisconsin's not going to have a bye every week. If Stanford continues to win and win big, it will rise in the polls and in the BCS. Next week is the first big opportunity.
Not if Wilner continues to read this board. He dropped Stanford to #10. Using the same crazy logic found here. The opponents are losers, so Stanford should destroy teams by 70 or 80. In fact, it is oddly better to lose to top-20 teams by a few TDs than to actually win by 24+ every game. ::)
Errrr. So annoying. the University of South Bend, Michigan, Wisconsin types would not have this "problem" >:(
And now it is a problem because this 24+ win is really like a loss stuff has enabled voters to let several schools pass Stanford. It is not out of the question AT ALL that the loser of Nov 5 match-up between LSU and Alabama will stay ahead of Stanford now. And there is no way Stanfodr would pass that loser in later polls.
[/quote]
Well, we really don't play either of the two best teams until after Nov. 5, and if those two continue to win, your scenario could happen and we could jump them.
With this team, I thought at the beginning of the year that our schedule would help us with a new line and some possible issues on defense. I think it has. I'm glad we didn't have an Oklahoma team to play to start the season off.
I'll worry about this after the NotRDayme game ends.
If an undefeated Big12 team plays an undefeated SEC team, I won't complain all that much. I think those conferences are better.
10-16-2011, 01:53 PM
(10-16-2011, 09:27 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=4654.msg33048#msg33048 date=1318781459]
OOC how many other teams are undefeated AND have covered the spread every week? That list has got to be mighty small.
The answer is 0.
A couple of weeks ago the only other team to be undefeated against the spread was Rutgers; not sure if they've extended that feat.
[/quote]
It's an inefficient market to be exploited, clearly.Â
Beat Cal.
(10-16-2011, 09:27 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=4654.msg33048#msg33048 date=1318781459]
OOC how many other teams are undefeated AND have covered the spread every week? That list has got to be mighty small.
The answer is 0.
A couple of weeks ago the only other team to be undefeated against the spread was Rutgers; not sure if they've extended that feat.
[/quote]
It's an inefficient market to be exploited, clearly.Â
Beat Cal.
10-17-2011, 05:10 AM
(10-16-2011, 04:23 PM)oman link Wrote:Much respect for the avatar, Ward. Now I am in the mood for some Ford.
Booted and spurred and ready to ride.
(Thank you for overlooking the SC connection; as far as I know, Ernie Nevers never appeared in a Ford picture).
Beat Cal.
(10-16-2011, 04:23 PM)oman link Wrote:Much respect for the avatar, Ward. Now I am in the mood for some Ford.
Booted and spurred and ready to ride.
(Thank you for overlooking the SC connection; as far as I know, Ernie Nevers never appeared in a Ford picture).
Beat Cal.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »