10-12-2013, 06:39 PM
That is inane with a minute of time left.
Utah game thread
10-12-2013, 06:44 PM
(10-12-2013, 06:38 PM)82 Card link Wrote:Shaw's explanation for the two throws at the end was that we were out of time outs.
If that's really what his rationale was then he's actually a terrible strategy coach. Which is too bad, because that's like the easiest part of the game to get right.
(10-12-2013, 06:38 PM)82 Card link Wrote:Shaw's explanation for the two throws at the end was that we were out of time outs.
If that's really what his rationale was then he's actually a terrible strategy coach. Which is too bad, because that's like the easiest part of the game to get right.
Shaw did have a timeout. His excuse for not running on third down was that he didn't want to "burn" his timeout to stop the clock while setting up for his fourth down play.
We know Shaw hates second guessing but what the heck. How do you NOT give it to Gaffney, who averaged 6 yards per carry for the game, in that situation?Â
We forgot who we are.
We know Shaw hates second guessing but what the heck. How do you NOT give it to Gaffney, who averaged 6 yards per carry for the game, in that situation?Â
We forgot who we are.
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.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2013, 07:33 PM by Leftcoast.)
Shaw did have a timeout. His excuse for not running on third down was that he didn't want to "burn" his timeout to stop the clock while setting up for his fourth down play.
We know Shaw hates second guessing but what the heck. How do you NOT give it to Gaffney, who averaged 6 yards per carry for the game, in that situation?Â
We forgot who we are.
We know Shaw hates second guessing but what the heck. How do you NOT give it to Gaffney, who averaged 6 yards per carry for the game, in that situation?Â
We forgot who we are.
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.
Cardinal96
Unregistered
Unregistered
10-12-2013, 06:46 PM
As mad as I am about the play-calling at the end I am trying to console myself with the fact that we didn't deserve to win this game. Flat, uninspiring play for long stretches of this game.
As mad as I am about the play-calling at the end I am trying to console myself with the fact that we didn't deserve to win this game. Flat, uninspiring play for long stretches of this game.
10-12-2013, 06:46 PM
(10-12-2013, 06:39 PM)dabigv link Wrote:That is inane with a minute of time left.
I don't have Shaw's coaching experience, but I would concur. I was actually afraid we'd leave too much time on the clock if we scored too quickly.
10-12-2013, 06:49 PM
As bad as that game was, I really thought we'd go up 28-27 there. Whether Utah would have enough in the tank to come back and get a long field goal is anybody's guess. Disappointed for sure, but underperformed for at least 2 quarters.
As bad as that game was, I really thought we'd go up 28-27 there. Whether Utah would have enough in the tank to come back and get a long field goal is anybody's guess. Disappointed for sure, but underperformed for at least 2 quarters.
(10-12-2013, 06:39 PM)dabigv link Wrote:That is inane with a minute of time left.Welcome to the non-woofing Utah message board. >:(
FWIW - Shaw was in a tough situation. If they run twice and don't convert EVERYONE screams that he always runs in those situations and everyone in the Pac-12 has come to expect that. If they have two incompletions, then most of us scream that for once the situation called for power.
A win would have been cool, but it is not as if Stanford deserved to win. Stanford just failed to come in with the urgency needed to go 1-0 this weekend. The last drive was loaded with lucky/clutch plays, but in the end the team was one good catch short. That's how the game goes.
It will be important for the team to not let the season fall off the rails now. UCLA is a big time opponent, and Stanford Stadium will need to be rockin' to help the team.
(10-12-2013, 06:39 PM)dabigv link Wrote:That is inane with a minute of time left.Welcome to the non-woofing Utah message board. >:(
FWIW - Shaw was in a tough situation. If they run twice and don't convert EVERYONE screams that he always runs in those situations and everyone in the Pac-12 has come to expect that. If they have two incompletions, then most of us scream that for once the situation called for power.
A win would have been cool, but it is not as if Stanford deserved to win. Stanford just failed to come in with the urgency needed to go 1-0 this weekend. The last drive was loaded with lucky/clutch plays, but in the end the team was one good catch short. That's how the game goes.
It will be important for the team to not let the season fall off the rails now. UCLA is a big time opponent, and Stanford Stadium will need to be rockin' to help the team.
10-12-2013, 07:19 PM
I was listening to post-game interviews on Utah Radio (I watched the game in person), the #2 running back said their offensive game plan was simple: have a guy run in motion on nearly every play, forcing a defender to a certain side of the formation thus opening up the middle. The player said the coaches saw this vulnerability on tape and built it into the game plan. And, sure enough, we got torched. I think the D played well the entire 2d half but by then it was too late.
On the last drive, 3rd and 2 from the 6, defense is on its heels, the pile moves forward on every run play, run the EFFING BALL!! Or, Run read option? or run a play where the QB can run or pass? Stupid Shaw. Stupid. If he really said he had no timeouts (as another poster said), then that is just shameful. Moreover, there was nearly a minute on the clocks, enough time to run two plays without a timeout.
Hogan sucked all game. Pre-game, Utah radio was dissing Hogan saying he was never going to play in the NFL and that he did a "decent" job running the team and that last week we won against UW in spite of him. They couldn't have said it better.
The two catches on the last drive were great plays by the receivers bailing Hogan out. He has no idea how to read a defense. But why go to him in the clutch? Gaffney was killing them! No one second guesses a running play on 3rd and 2 in that situation...get the first down, run more plays...
I have no access to post-game interviews now, I wonder if Shaw is showing any humility.
Utah had a great game plan and executed well. I don't know if I buy this "we didn't deserve to win", we were in position to win the game at end, we would have deserved it!
On the last drive, 3rd and 2 from the 6, defense is on its heels, the pile moves forward on every run play, run the EFFING BALL!! Or, Run read option? or run a play where the QB can run or pass? Stupid Shaw. Stupid. If he really said he had no timeouts (as another poster said), then that is just shameful. Moreover, there was nearly a minute on the clocks, enough time to run two plays without a timeout.
Hogan sucked all game. Pre-game, Utah radio was dissing Hogan saying he was never going to play in the NFL and that he did a "decent" job running the team and that last week we won against UW in spite of him. They couldn't have said it better.
The two catches on the last drive were great plays by the receivers bailing Hogan out. He has no idea how to read a defense. But why go to him in the clutch? Gaffney was killing them! No one second guesses a running play on 3rd and 2 in that situation...get the first down, run more plays...
I have no access to post-game interviews now, I wonder if Shaw is showing any humility.
Utah had a great game plan and executed well. I don't know if I buy this "we didn't deserve to win", we were in position to win the game at end, we would have deserved it!
I was listening to post-game interviews on Utah Radio (I watched the game in person), the #2 running back said their offensive game plan was simple: have a guy run in motion on nearly every play, forcing a defender to a certain side of the formation thus opening up the middle. The player said the coaches saw this vulnerability on tape and built it into the game plan. And, sure enough, we got torched. I think the D played well the entire 2d half but by then it was too late.
On the last drive, 3rd and 2 from the 6, defense is on its heels, the pile moves forward on every run play, run the EFFING BALL!! Or, Run read option? or run a play where the QB can run or pass? Stupid Shaw. Stupid. If he really said he had no timeouts (as another poster said), then that is just shameful. Moreover, there was nearly a minute on the clocks, enough time to run two plays without a timeout.
Hogan sucked all game. Pre-game, Utah radio was dissing Hogan saying he was never going to play in the NFL and that he did a "decent" job running the team and that last week we won against UW in spite of him. They couldn't have said it better.
The two catches on the last drive were great plays by the receivers bailing Hogan out. He has no idea how to read a defense. But why go to him in the clutch? Gaffney was killing them! No one second guesses a running play on 3rd and 2 in that situation...get the first down, run more plays...
I have no access to post-game interviews now, I wonder if Shaw is showing any humility.
Utah had a great game plan and executed well. I don't know if I buy this "we didn't deserve to win", we were in position to win the game at end, we would have deserved it!
On the last drive, 3rd and 2 from the 6, defense is on its heels, the pile moves forward on every run play, run the EFFING BALL!! Or, Run read option? or run a play where the QB can run or pass? Stupid Shaw. Stupid. If he really said he had no timeouts (as another poster said), then that is just shameful. Moreover, there was nearly a minute on the clocks, enough time to run two plays without a timeout.
Hogan sucked all game. Pre-game, Utah radio was dissing Hogan saying he was never going to play in the NFL and that he did a "decent" job running the team and that last week we won against UW in spite of him. They couldn't have said it better.
The two catches on the last drive were great plays by the receivers bailing Hogan out. He has no idea how to read a defense. But why go to him in the clutch? Gaffney was killing them! No one second guesses a running play on 3rd and 2 in that situation...get the first down, run more plays...
I have no access to post-game interviews now, I wonder if Shaw is showing any humility.
Utah had a great game plan and executed well. I don't know if I buy this "we didn't deserve to win", we were in position to win the game at end, we would have deserved it!
10-12-2013, 07:46 PM
In addition to everything else that has been said, I do think the poor officiating hurt us badly in this game. Ideally we would have played well enough to win in spite of it, but it was a lot to overcome.Â
1. On the pass to Dres Anderson for the 51 yard TD, Anderson simply shoved our defender out of the way, in obvious sight of the official, who did not call offensive pass interference. That was a 7 point non-call.
2. The reason the bubble screens were so effective was that Utah was holding on virtually all of them, many of them blatant.
3. The roughing the passer call on Ben Gardner was at least a 4 point penalty.
4. The non-whistle on forward progress that cost us a fumble.
Were there calls or non calls that favored Stanford? Perhaps, but these were very significant penalties that really changed the character of the game.
All that said, other teams now know how to beat our defense. They are using the same techniques as Arizona last year and UCLA in the PAC 12 championship. In fact, Utah was running virtually the same offense as UCLA ran in the championship. Force our front seven to run sideline to sideline and then when they are conditioned into lateral movement, send the runner up the middle. We must fix this.Â
And despite everything, our offense was stagnant and our playcalling suspect. Hogan telegraphs way too much. Other teams also are doing a good job limiting his running.Â
Neuheisel said something after the game that sounded interesting to me. He said the loss of Ertz and Toilolo hurt our power running more than our pass receiving. Until the TEs become credible receiving threats the power running will suffer. Not sure I understood the reason for that, but it was an interesting theory. Â
UCLA absolutely will do exactly what Utah did offensively-since Utah copied it from them. We have one week.Â
1. On the pass to Dres Anderson for the 51 yard TD, Anderson simply shoved our defender out of the way, in obvious sight of the official, who did not call offensive pass interference. That was a 7 point non-call.
2. The reason the bubble screens were so effective was that Utah was holding on virtually all of them, many of them blatant.
3. The roughing the passer call on Ben Gardner was at least a 4 point penalty.
4. The non-whistle on forward progress that cost us a fumble.
Were there calls or non calls that favored Stanford? Perhaps, but these were very significant penalties that really changed the character of the game.
All that said, other teams now know how to beat our defense. They are using the same techniques as Arizona last year and UCLA in the PAC 12 championship. In fact, Utah was running virtually the same offense as UCLA ran in the championship. Force our front seven to run sideline to sideline and then when they are conditioned into lateral movement, send the runner up the middle. We must fix this.Â
And despite everything, our offense was stagnant and our playcalling suspect. Hogan telegraphs way too much. Other teams also are doing a good job limiting his running.Â
Neuheisel said something after the game that sounded interesting to me. He said the loss of Ertz and Toilolo hurt our power running more than our pass receiving. Until the TEs become credible receiving threats the power running will suffer. Not sure I understood the reason for that, but it was an interesting theory. Â
UCLA absolutely will do exactly what Utah did offensively-since Utah copied it from them. We have one week.Â
In addition to everything else that has been said, I do think the poor officiating hurt us badly in this game. Ideally we would have played well enough to win in spite of it, but it was a lot to overcome.Â
1. On the pass to Dres Anderson for the 51 yard TD, Anderson simply shoved our defender out of the way, in obvious sight of the official, who did not call offensive pass interference. That was a 7 point non-call.
2. The reason the bubble screens were so effective was that Utah was holding on virtually all of them, many of them blatant.
3. The roughing the passer call on Ben Gardner was at least a 4 point penalty.
4. The non-whistle on forward progress that cost us a fumble.
Were there calls or non calls that favored Stanford? Perhaps, but these were very significant penalties that really changed the character of the game.
All that said, other teams now know how to beat our defense. They are using the same techniques as Arizona last year and UCLA in the PAC 12 championship. In fact, Utah was running virtually the same offense as UCLA ran in the championship. Force our front seven to run sideline to sideline and then when they are conditioned into lateral movement, send the runner up the middle. We must fix this.Â
And despite everything, our offense was stagnant and our playcalling suspect. Hogan telegraphs way too much. Other teams also are doing a good job limiting his running.Â
Neuheisel said something after the game that sounded interesting to me. He said the loss of Ertz and Toilolo hurt our power running more than our pass receiving. Until the TEs become credible receiving threats the power running will suffer. Not sure I understood the reason for that, but it was an interesting theory. Â
UCLA absolutely will do exactly what Utah did offensively-since Utah copied it from them. We have one week.Â
1. On the pass to Dres Anderson for the 51 yard TD, Anderson simply shoved our defender out of the way, in obvious sight of the official, who did not call offensive pass interference. That was a 7 point non-call.
2. The reason the bubble screens were so effective was that Utah was holding on virtually all of them, many of them blatant.
3. The roughing the passer call on Ben Gardner was at least a 4 point penalty.
4. The non-whistle on forward progress that cost us a fumble.
Were there calls or non calls that favored Stanford? Perhaps, but these were very significant penalties that really changed the character of the game.
All that said, other teams now know how to beat our defense. They are using the same techniques as Arizona last year and UCLA in the PAC 12 championship. In fact, Utah was running virtually the same offense as UCLA ran in the championship. Force our front seven to run sideline to sideline and then when they are conditioned into lateral movement, send the runner up the middle. We must fix this.Â
And despite everything, our offense was stagnant and our playcalling suspect. Hogan telegraphs way too much. Other teams also are doing a good job limiting his running.Â
Neuheisel said something after the game that sounded interesting to me. He said the loss of Ertz and Toilolo hurt our power running more than our pass receiving. Until the TEs become credible receiving threats the power running will suffer. Not sure I understood the reason for that, but it was an interesting theory. Â
UCLA absolutely will do exactly what Utah did offensively-since Utah copied it from them. We have one week.Â
10-12-2013, 07:57 PM
When the TEs are credible passing threats, someone has to pay close attention to them, making an LB or Safety less effective in defending the run. If the TEs can't catch, you stack the box to play the run every time, even if the TEs might occasionally run pass routes out of typical run formations.
When the TEs are credible passing threats, someone has to pay close attention to them, making an LB or Safety less effective in defending the run. If the TEs can't catch, you stack the box to play the run every time, even if the TEs might occasionally run pass routes out of typical run formations.
10-12-2013, 08:09 PM
(10-12-2013, 07:19 PM)double e dub link Wrote:I was listening to post-game interviews on Utah Radio (I watched the game in person), the #2 running back said their offensive game plan was simple: have a guy run in motion on nearly every play, forcing a defender to a certain side of the formation thus opening up the middle.Â
This is kind of a weird comment. Not because he's wrong about the effectiveness of the tactic -- it's been killing us ever since UCLA gorged on it in the Pac-12 championship game last year -- but as to why it's effective: we've basically decided steadfastly against moving a guy out with the motion man, which means the pass is readily available and the defense is outflanked.
---
By the way, the box score is a weird place. In terms of yards per play, Stanford's 6.9 to Utah's 5.6 is a pretty good margin. If you'd told me we'd have that kind of margin plus a special teams touchdown, I would've guessed we'd win by two touchdowns. But, of course, we didn't. Why?
Well, offensively, we weren't able to finish off drives. Jordan Williamson missed an FG; two fumbles; and the last drive, of course. Too many mistakes.
(10-12-2013, 07:19 PM)double e dub link Wrote:I was listening to post-game interviews on Utah Radio (I watched the game in person), the #2 running back said their offensive game plan was simple: have a guy run in motion on nearly every play, forcing a defender to a certain side of the formation thus opening up the middle.Â
This is kind of a weird comment. Not because he's wrong about the effectiveness of the tactic -- it's been killing us ever since UCLA gorged on it in the Pac-12 championship game last year -- but as to why it's effective: we've basically decided steadfastly against moving a guy out with the motion man, which means the pass is readily available and the defense is outflanked.
---
By the way, the box score is a weird place. In terms of yards per play, Stanford's 6.9 to Utah's 5.6 is a pretty good margin. If you'd told me we'd have that kind of margin plus a special teams touchdown, I would've guessed we'd win by two touchdowns. But, of course, we didn't. Why?
Well, offensively, we weren't able to finish off drives. Jordan Williamson missed an FG; two fumbles; and the last drive, of course. Too many mistakes.
10-12-2013, 08:23 PM
(10-12-2013, 06:50 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:FWIW - Shaw was in a tough situation. If they run twice and don't convert EVERYONE screams that he always runs in those situations and everyone in the Pac-12 has come to expect that. If they have two incompletions, then most of us scream that for once the situation called for power.
We scream when we run straight between the tackles on 1st and 10 on our 25 yrd line when they are stacking the box with 8 or 9 bodies three times in a row. Even in those situations we obtain 1-3 yards.
Since we had two plays to get a first down while being extremely close to the goalline, it is mind boggling we didn't push to first down then push it in for a TD. Let the QB call the subsequent plays if the lack of timeout or time are an issue (doubtful it was time since we had over a minute of clock) - its not hard to power it in with our muscle, yet we didn't even try.
If I had a dollar every time I was distracted, I wish I had some ice cream.
(10-12-2013, 06:50 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:FWIW - Shaw was in a tough situation. If they run twice and don't convert EVERYONE screams that he always runs in those situations and everyone in the Pac-12 has come to expect that. If they have two incompletions, then most of us scream that for once the situation called for power.
We scream when we run straight between the tackles on 1st and 10 on our 25 yrd line when they are stacking the box with 8 or 9 bodies three times in a row. Even in those situations we obtain 1-3 yards.
Since we had two plays to get a first down while being extremely close to the goalline, it is mind boggling we didn't push to first down then push it in for a TD. Let the QB call the subsequent plays if the lack of timeout or time are an issue (doubtful it was time since we had over a minute of clock) - its not hard to power it in with our muscle, yet we didn't even try.
If I had a dollar every time I was distracted, I wish I had some ice cream.
10-12-2013, 08:26 PM
I'm not necessarily against passing, but I feel like there needs to be a run fake involved. There wasn't with either. That's poor tactics.
I'm not necessarily against passing, but I feel like there needs to be a run fake involved. There wasn't with either. That's poor tactics.
10-12-2013, 08:37 PM
Ordinarily nothing cures the blues better than watching the UCBers get run off the field. And today would be a great example because UCB is getting killed. Sadly, their opponent is Stanford's next opponent, and I wish that UCLA would get a tougher challenge. Just can't win today. :(
Does Dykes make it through the year? His team is terrible. I guess he should be thankful that there are a lot of injuries, so that he can blame his bad coaching on the limited roster.
Does Dykes make it through the year? His team is terrible. I guess he should be thankful that there are a lot of injuries, so that he can blame his bad coaching on the limited roster.
Ordinarily nothing cures the blues better than watching the UCBers get run off the field. And today would be a great example because UCB is getting killed. Sadly, their opponent is Stanford's next opponent, and I wish that UCLA would get a tougher challenge. Just can't win today. :(
Does Dykes make it through the year? His team is terrible. I guess he should be thankful that there are a lot of injuries, so that he can blame his bad coaching on the limited roster.
Does Dykes make it through the year? His team is terrible. I guess he should be thankful that there are a lot of injuries, so that he can blame his bad coaching on the limited roster.
10-12-2013, 08:40 PM
One last point: Stanford's 6.9 YPP is the worst Utah's surrendered all year.
One last point: Stanford's 6.9 YPP is the worst Utah's surrendered all year.
10-12-2013, 09:11 PM
(10-12-2013, 08:37 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:Ordinarily nothing cures the blues better than watching the UCBers get run off the field. And today would be a great example because UCB is getting killed. Sadly, their opponent is Stanford's next opponent, and I wish that UCLA would get a tougher challenge. Just can't win today. :(
....
Not exactly getting run off the field, at least in the first half. C.al looks horrible. But UCLA looks ragged too, drawing more fouls than Washington did last week (8 in the first half). I'm pretty sure UCLA will expand on the 14 point margin at the half.
For a real butt kicking, there's the ASU-Colorado game. 47-6 at the half.
(10-12-2013, 08:37 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:Ordinarily nothing cures the blues better than watching the UCBers get run off the field. And today would be a great example because UCB is getting killed. Sadly, their opponent is Stanford's next opponent, and I wish that UCLA would get a tougher challenge. Just can't win today. :(
....
Not exactly getting run off the field, at least in the first half. C.al looks horrible. But UCLA looks ragged too, drawing more fouls than Washington did last week (8 in the first half). I'm pretty sure UCLA will expand on the 14 point margin at the half.
For a real butt kicking, there's the ASU-Colorado game. 47-6 at the half.
10-12-2013, 09:34 PM
(10-12-2013, 08:26 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I'm not necessarily against passing, but I feel like there needs to be a run fake involved. There wasn't with either. That's poor tactics.
Yeah, I need to go to bed, because I am getting madder and madder about this.
By the way, enjoyed Dallas Lloyd's run.Â
(10-12-2013, 08:26 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I'm not necessarily against passing, but I feel like there needs to be a run fake involved. There wasn't with either. That's poor tactics.
Yeah, I need to go to bed, because I am getting madder and madder about this.
By the way, enjoyed Dallas Lloyd's run.Â
10-12-2013, 09:42 PM
(10-12-2013, 09:11 PM)82 Card link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=8599.msg71153#msg71153 date=1381635453]
Ordinarily nothing cures the blues better than watching the UCBers get run off the field. And today would be a great example because UCB is getting killed. Sadly, their opponent is Stanford's next opponent, and I wish that UCLA would get a tougher challenge. Just can't win today. :(
....
Not exactly getting run off the field, at least in the first half. kal looks horrible. But UCLA looks ragged too, drawing more fouls than Washington did last week (8 in the first half). I'm pretty sure UCLA will expand on the 14 point margin at the half.
For a real butt kicking, there's the ASU-Colorado game. 47-6 at the half.
[/quote]
They looked good for the first 5 minutes, but have really decided to play at UCB's level. UCLA is a top 15 team, so just goes to show that it can be hard to play at that top tier pre-NFL level every game.
(10-12-2013, 09:11 PM)82 Card link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=8599.msg71153#msg71153 date=1381635453]
Ordinarily nothing cures the blues better than watching the UCBers get run off the field. And today would be a great example because UCB is getting killed. Sadly, their opponent is Stanford's next opponent, and I wish that UCLA would get a tougher challenge. Just can't win today. :(
....
Not exactly getting run off the field, at least in the first half. kal looks horrible. But UCLA looks ragged too, drawing more fouls than Washington did last week (8 in the first half). I'm pretty sure UCLA will expand on the 14 point margin at the half.
For a real butt kicking, there's the ASU-Colorado game. 47-6 at the half.
[/quote]
They looked good for the first 5 minutes, but have really decided to play at UCB's level. UCLA is a top 15 team, so just goes to show that it can be hard to play at that top tier pre-NFL level every game.
10-12-2013, 10:01 PM
I'm going to try to look for a silver lining here, which is hard because this week we were on the wrong end of the last minute drive that failed.Â
So far this year we seem to be playing not to lose, rather than playing to win. In some games, we've played to protect a lead, rather than to put down the hammer. We seem almost content to play the close game, knowing that we usually manage to pull those out. But that's the risk of playing this way, and the 2 turnovers in the second half made us play from behind which we aren't well built to do.Â
The coaching has seemed tight. Substitutions have been sparse, almost like they are so scared of losing that they won't put the younger guys in the game, but this is wearing down our defense at ends of games. (I think the loss of Henry Anderson hurts more than outsiders realize for this reason.) It seems like we've been holding back parts of the offensive playbook, maybe to avoid showing our hand to teams like Oregon and UCLA.Â
I'm hoping that having this loss means that we play loose from here on out. The season's not over, and as goofy as it sounds after a loss like this, we still control our destiny in the Pac-12. If we want to be a national title contender, it was always going to have to go through Oregon, who looks like the best team in the country to me. Maybe we can be that loose team again like last year with the swarming D that had something to prove, and the O that was just plucky enough to get it done.Â
So far this year we seem to be playing not to lose, rather than playing to win. In some games, we've played to protect a lead, rather than to put down the hammer. We seem almost content to play the close game, knowing that we usually manage to pull those out. But that's the risk of playing this way, and the 2 turnovers in the second half made us play from behind which we aren't well built to do.Â
The coaching has seemed tight. Substitutions have been sparse, almost like they are so scared of losing that they won't put the younger guys in the game, but this is wearing down our defense at ends of games. (I think the loss of Henry Anderson hurts more than outsiders realize for this reason.) It seems like we've been holding back parts of the offensive playbook, maybe to avoid showing our hand to teams like Oregon and UCLA.Â
I'm hoping that having this loss means that we play loose from here on out. The season's not over, and as goofy as it sounds after a loss like this, we still control our destiny in the Pac-12. If we want to be a national title contender, it was always going to have to go through Oregon, who looks like the best team in the country to me. Maybe we can be that loose team again like last year with the swarming D that had something to prove, and the O that was just plucky enough to get it done.Â
I'm going to try to look for a silver lining here, which is hard because this week we were on the wrong end of the last minute drive that failed.Â
So far this year we seem to be playing not to lose, rather than playing to win. In some games, we've played to protect a lead, rather than to put down the hammer. We seem almost content to play the close game, knowing that we usually manage to pull those out. But that's the risk of playing this way, and the 2 turnovers in the second half made us play from behind which we aren't well built to do.Â
The coaching has seemed tight. Substitutions have been sparse, almost like they are so scared of losing that they won't put the younger guys in the game, but this is wearing down our defense at ends of games. (I think the loss of Henry Anderson hurts more than outsiders realize for this reason.) It seems like we've been holding back parts of the offensive playbook, maybe to avoid showing our hand to teams like Oregon and UCLA.Â
I'm hoping that having this loss means that we play loose from here on out. The season's not over, and as goofy as it sounds after a loss like this, we still control our destiny in the Pac-12. If we want to be a national title contender, it was always going to have to go through Oregon, who looks like the best team in the country to me. Maybe we can be that loose team again like last year with the swarming D that had something to prove, and the O that was just plucky enough to get it done.Â
So far this year we seem to be playing not to lose, rather than playing to win. In some games, we've played to protect a lead, rather than to put down the hammer. We seem almost content to play the close game, knowing that we usually manage to pull those out. But that's the risk of playing this way, and the 2 turnovers in the second half made us play from behind which we aren't well built to do.Â
The coaching has seemed tight. Substitutions have been sparse, almost like they are so scared of losing that they won't put the younger guys in the game, but this is wearing down our defense at ends of games. (I think the loss of Henry Anderson hurts more than outsiders realize for this reason.) It seems like we've been holding back parts of the offensive playbook, maybe to avoid showing our hand to teams like Oregon and UCLA.Â
I'm hoping that having this loss means that we play loose from here on out. The season's not over, and as goofy as it sounds after a loss like this, we still control our destiny in the Pac-12. If we want to be a national title contender, it was always going to have to go through Oregon, who looks like the best team in the country to me. Maybe we can be that loose team again like last year with the swarming D that had something to prove, and the O that was just plucky enough to get it done.Â
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »