11-01-2014, 08:52 PM
Well, at least Jordan was perfect tonight. ::)
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Final: Oregon 45, Stanford 16
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
11-01-2014, 09:38 PM
Disappointing, but not particularly surprising. A lot of people saw this coming.
We are an average team this year, and Oregon is a very good one.
P.S. Good point, Martyup, we can't blame this one on Williamson, despite that fact that trashing him seems to be the favorite pastime of some Stanford fans.
We are an average team this year, and Oregon is a very good one.
P.S. Good point, Martyup, we can't blame this one on Williamson, despite that fact that trashing him seems to be the favorite pastime of some Stanford fans.
Disappointing, but not particularly surprising. A lot of people saw this coming.
We are an average team this year, and Oregon is a very good one.
P.S. Good point, Martyup, we can't blame this one on Williamson, despite that fact that trashing him seems to be the favorite pastime of some Stanford fans.
We are an average team this year, and Oregon is a very good one.
P.S. Good point, Martyup, we can't blame this one on Williamson, despite that fact that trashing him seems to be the favorite pastime of some Stanford fans.
11-01-2014, 09:45 PM
The next three games are winnable and losable.Â
We could wind up 8-4, go to a reasonable bowl game, maintain recruiting momentum, and chalk it up to an off year.
We could wind up 5-7, go nowhere, discourage recruits, and begin a downwards slide.Â
Is this year going to be a slightly down year amidst a long train of great years? Or is it the start of mediocrity?Â
I think what the coaches and players do over the next two weeks are absolutely vital for the longer term success of our program. And we fans should turn out en masse for Utah with an enthusiasm unknown to man, whether we feel it or not.
We could wind up 8-4, go to a reasonable bowl game, maintain recruiting momentum, and chalk it up to an off year.
We could wind up 5-7, go nowhere, discourage recruits, and begin a downwards slide.Â
Is this year going to be a slightly down year amidst a long train of great years? Or is it the start of mediocrity?Â
I think what the coaches and players do over the next two weeks are absolutely vital for the longer term success of our program. And we fans should turn out en masse for Utah with an enthusiasm unknown to man, whether we feel it or not.
The next three games are winnable and losable.Â
We could wind up 8-4, go to a reasonable bowl game, maintain recruiting momentum, and chalk it up to an off year.
We could wind up 5-7, go nowhere, discourage recruits, and begin a downwards slide.Â
Is this year going to be a slightly down year amidst a long train of great years? Or is it the start of mediocrity?Â
I think what the coaches and players do over the next two weeks are absolutely vital for the longer term success of our program. And we fans should turn out en masse for Utah with an enthusiasm unknown to man, whether we feel it or not.
We could wind up 8-4, go to a reasonable bowl game, maintain recruiting momentum, and chalk it up to an off year.
We could wind up 5-7, go nowhere, discourage recruits, and begin a downwards slide.Â
Is this year going to be a slightly down year amidst a long train of great years? Or is it the start of mediocrity?Â
I think what the coaches and players do over the next two weeks are absolutely vital for the longer term success of our program. And we fans should turn out en masse for Utah with an enthusiasm unknown to man, whether we feel it or not.
11-01-2014, 10:37 PM
(11-01-2014, 08:34 PM)garvin link Wrote:** We should be able to reach a consensus that the next person to suggest Barry Sanders is the answer to our running-game woes will be horsewhipped, naked, a lunchtime in White Plaza. Six carries, two yards.
Frankly, I don't think it much matters. We need a different kind of running back to regain consistency in our offense. But Sanders' stats are as good as the others on the year. They all have respectable averages, but none of them is what we need to run the style of offense that we are used to.
RUSHING GP Att Gain Loss Net Avg TD Long Avg/G
Wright,RÂ 8Â 80Â 368Â Â Â Â Â 9Â Â Â Â Â 359Â 4.5Â 2Â 28Â Â Â Â Â 44.9
Sanders,B 9Â 46Â 299Â Â Â Â Â 7Â Â Â Â Â 292Â 6.3Â 0Â 44Â Â Â Â Â 32.4
Young,KÂ 9Â 42Â 246Â Â Â Â Â 6Â Â Â Â Â 240Â 5.7Â 0Â 34Â Â Â Â Â 26.7
(11-01-2014, 08:34 PM)garvin link Wrote:** We should be able to reach a consensus that the next person to suggest Barry Sanders is the answer to our running-game woes will be horsewhipped, naked, a lunchtime in White Plaza. Six carries, two yards.
Frankly, I don't think it much matters. We need a different kind of running back to regain consistency in our offense. But Sanders' stats are as good as the others on the year. They all have respectable averages, but none of them is what we need to run the style of offense that we are used to.
RUSHING GP Att Gain Loss Net Avg TD Long Avg/G
Wright,RÂ 8Â 80Â 368Â Â Â Â Â 9Â Â Â Â Â 359Â 4.5Â 2Â 28Â Â Â Â Â 44.9
Sanders,B 9Â 46Â 299Â Â Â Â Â 7Â Â Â Â Â 292Â 6.3Â 0Â 44Â Â Â Â Â 32.4
Young,KÂ 9Â 42Â 246Â Â Â Â Â 6Â Â Â Â Â 240Â 5.7Â 0Â 34Â Â Â Â Â 26.7
11-01-2014, 11:03 PM
I think the frustration stems from the view that there is some sort of miracle cure for what ails us. If only...
Shaw would put in Barry Sanders (or, more recently, McCaffrey), then our running game would be magically better
Shaw would replace Hogan with Chryst, then our passing game would magically be better
Shaw would call different plays, then our offense would be magically better
BC
Shaw would put in Barry Sanders (or, more recently, McCaffrey), then our running game would be magically better
Shaw would replace Hogan with Chryst, then our passing game would magically be better
Shaw would call different plays, then our offense would be magically better
BC
I think the frustration stems from the view that there is some sort of miracle cure for what ails us. If only...
Shaw would put in Barry Sanders (or, more recently, McCaffrey), then our running game would be magically better
Shaw would replace Hogan with Chryst, then our passing game would magically be better
Shaw would call different plays, then our offense would be magically better
BC
Shaw would put in Barry Sanders (or, more recently, McCaffrey), then our running game would be magically better
Shaw would replace Hogan with Chryst, then our passing game would magically be better
Shaw would call different plays, then our offense would be magically better
BC
11-01-2014, 11:59 PM
(11-01-2014, 11:03 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I think the frustration stems from the view that there is some sort of miracle cure for what ails us. If only...
Shaw would put in Barry Sanders (or, more recently, McCaffrey), then our running game would be magically better
Shaw would replace Hogan with Chryst, then our passing game would magically be better
Shaw would call different plays, then our offense would be magically better
BC
Football fans have a tendency to oversimplify things. As much as we would like to think there is some miracle cure for our ailing offense, I'm afraid there isn't.
(11-01-2014, 11:03 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I think the frustration stems from the view that there is some sort of miracle cure for what ails us. If only...
Shaw would put in Barry Sanders (or, more recently, McCaffrey), then our running game would be magically better
Shaw would replace Hogan with Chryst, then our passing game would magically be better
Shaw would call different plays, then our offense would be magically better
BC
Football fans have a tendency to oversimplify things. As much as we would like to think there is some miracle cure for our ailing offense, I'm afraid there isn't.
11-02-2014, 07:46 AM
I will predict 2-1 in our next 3 games, and the great Stanford brand will enable us to maintain recruiting momentum!Â
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
I will predict 2-1 in our next 3 games, and the great Stanford brand will enable us to maintain recruiting momentum!Â
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
11-02-2014, 08:15 AM
(11-02-2014, 07:46 AM)hurlburt88 link Wrote:I will predict 2-1 in our next 3 games, and the great Stanford brand will enable us to maintain recruiting momentum!
I was scanning quickly through posts and read:
...and the great Stanford *BAND* will enable us to maintain recruiting momentum!
Something for Shaw to think about :).
(11-02-2014, 07:46 AM)hurlburt88 link Wrote:I will predict 2-1 in our next 3 games, and the great Stanford brand will enable us to maintain recruiting momentum!
I was scanning quickly through posts and read:
...and the great Stanford *BAND* will enable us to maintain recruiting momentum!
Something for Shaw to think about :).
11-02-2014, 08:43 AM
The biggest disappointment this season for me has been the OLine. While I expected it to take some time for them to develop both as individual players and as a group, they aren't where I thought they'd be by now. Pass protection seems decent at this point, but we aren't where I'd hoped we'd be in the run game. Not sure what the origin of the problem is - wonder if Bloomgren has too much on his plate.
The biggest disappointment this season for me has been the OLine. While I expected it to take some time for them to develop both as individual players and as a group, they aren't where I thought they'd be by now. Pass protection seems decent at this point, but we aren't where I'd hoped we'd be in the run game. Not sure what the origin of the problem is - wonder if Bloomgren has too much on his plate.
StanFan88
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-02-2014, 08:56 AM
At the beginning of the season five potential problem areas were highlighted. Three of them have turned out to be substantial issues:
- OL. They're just not that great. Maybe they have a lot of talent, but it isn't translating to the field. I expect them to continue to improve this season and look forward to seeing at least four of them out there next season
- RB. This is as much on Shaw & Bloomgren as it is on the players out there. If the offense they want to run is predicated on having a bell cow, why hasn't at least one good one been recruited in the last three years????? Remound Wright is a very average RB. He can get you 2-4 yards on almost every play but he doesn't have very good vision or moves and doesn't have breakaway speed. I would like to see more of McCaffrey and Sanders back there
- QB. Kevin Hogan has been nothing short of a major disappointment this season. He is clearly not able to be the main guy in an offense - he's just not good enough. His ball security this year has also taken a major turn for the worse.
The two areas that have panned out well are the Front Seven and TE.
This is an above average football team. Unfortunately two of the remaining three games are against teams that are in a similar position (Utah, UCLA) and after beating OSU last night Cal is no longer a conference bottom feeder.
Getting to 8-4 looks really tough. 7-5 and the Vega$ Bowl appears most likely.
- OL. They're just not that great. Maybe they have a lot of talent, but it isn't translating to the field. I expect them to continue to improve this season and look forward to seeing at least four of them out there next season
- RB. This is as much on Shaw & Bloomgren as it is on the players out there. If the offense they want to run is predicated on having a bell cow, why hasn't at least one good one been recruited in the last three years????? Remound Wright is a very average RB. He can get you 2-4 yards on almost every play but he doesn't have very good vision or moves and doesn't have breakaway speed. I would like to see more of McCaffrey and Sanders back there
- QB. Kevin Hogan has been nothing short of a major disappointment this season. He is clearly not able to be the main guy in an offense - he's just not good enough. His ball security this year has also taken a major turn for the worse.
The two areas that have panned out well are the Front Seven and TE.
This is an above average football team. Unfortunately two of the remaining three games are against teams that are in a similar position (Utah, UCLA) and after beating OSU last night Cal is no longer a conference bottom feeder.
Getting to 8-4 looks really tough. 7-5 and the Vega$ Bowl appears most likely.
At the beginning of the season five potential problem areas were highlighted. Three of them have turned out to be substantial issues:
- OL. They're just not that great. Maybe they have a lot of talent, but it isn't translating to the field. I expect them to continue to improve this season and look forward to seeing at least four of them out there next season
- RB. This is as much on Shaw & Bloomgren as it is on the players out there. If the offense they want to run is predicated on having a bell cow, why hasn't at least one good one been recruited in the last three years????? Remound Wright is a very average RB. He can get you 2-4 yards on almost every play but he doesn't have very good vision or moves and doesn't have breakaway speed. I would like to see more of McCaffrey and Sanders back there
- QB. Kevin Hogan has been nothing short of a major disappointment this season. He is clearly not able to be the main guy in an offense - he's just not good enough. His ball security this year has also taken a major turn for the worse.
The two areas that have panned out well are the Front Seven and TE.
This is an above average football team. Unfortunately two of the remaining three games are against teams that are in a similar position (Utah, UCLA) and after beating OSU last night Cal is no longer a conference bottom feeder.
Getting to 8-4 looks really tough. 7-5 and the Vega$ Bowl appears most likely.
- OL. They're just not that great. Maybe they have a lot of talent, but it isn't translating to the field. I expect them to continue to improve this season and look forward to seeing at least four of them out there next season
- RB. This is as much on Shaw & Bloomgren as it is on the players out there. If the offense they want to run is predicated on having a bell cow, why hasn't at least one good one been recruited in the last three years????? Remound Wright is a very average RB. He can get you 2-4 yards on almost every play but he doesn't have very good vision or moves and doesn't have breakaway speed. I would like to see more of McCaffrey and Sanders back there
- QB. Kevin Hogan has been nothing short of a major disappointment this season. He is clearly not able to be the main guy in an offense - he's just not good enough. His ball security this year has also taken a major turn for the worse.
The two areas that have panned out well are the Front Seven and TE.
This is an above average football team. Unfortunately two of the remaining three games are against teams that are in a similar position (Utah, UCLA) and after beating OSU last night Cal is no longer a conference bottom feeder.
Getting to 8-4 looks really tough. 7-5 and the Vega$ Bowl appears most likely.
11-02-2014, 09:00 AM
Good assessment Stanfan. I agree. If you asked everyone in the summer that we would be holding our breath for a 7-5 Las Vegas Bowl invite, the answer would be an overwhelming no.Â
Good assessment Stanfan. I agree. If you asked everyone in the summer that we would be holding our breath for a 7-5 Las Vegas Bowl invite, the answer would be an overwhelming no.Â
11-02-2014, 09:23 AM
(11-01-2014, 10:37 PM)81alum link Wrote:Frankly, I don't think it much matters. We need a different kind of running back to regain consistency in our offense. But Sanders' stats are as good as the others on the year. They all have respectable averages, but none of them is what we need to run the style of offense that we are used to.
which raises the question of if we are so committed and dependent on a big physical running back to make our offense go why have we not been able to recruit a couple of them (did we really expect Seale or Wright to be the next big back?)? Why do we keep recruiting smaller and quicker backs (e.g. Young, Sanders) who are a poor fit for our offense?
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(11-01-2014, 10:37 PM)81alum link Wrote:Frankly, I don't think it much matters. We need a different kind of running back to regain consistency in our offense. But Sanders' stats are as good as the others on the year. They all have respectable averages, but none of them is what we need to run the style of offense that we are used to.
which raises the question of if we are so committed and dependent on a big physical running back to make our offense go why have we not been able to recruit a couple of them (did we really expect Seale or Wright to be the next big back?)? Why do we keep recruiting smaller and quicker backs (e.g. Young, Sanders) who are a poor fit for our offense?
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
11-02-2014, 09:35 AM
Stanford was going after Royce Freeman, but does anyone think he'd be as productive at Stanford as Oregon as a True Frosh? This is one of many reasons Stanford needs to simplify its offense. Talented ball carriers and receivers want to play early and be put in position to succeed. At Stanford you have to generally watch for a year or two before you can play, and the play calls put a bull's eye on your back far too often.
Stanford was going after Royce Freeman, but does anyone think he'd be as productive at Stanford as Oregon as a True Frosh? This is one of many reasons Stanford needs to simplify its offense. Talented ball carriers and receivers want to play early and be put in position to succeed. At Stanford you have to generally watch for a year or two before you can play, and the play calls put a bull's eye on your back far too often.
11-02-2014, 09:47 AM
(11-02-2014, 09:23 AM)82lsju link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=11043.msg104199#msg104199 date=1414906659]
Frankly, I don't think it much matters. We need a different kind of running back to regain consistency in our offense. But Sanders' stats are as good as the others on the year. They all have respectable averages, but none of them is what we need to run the style of offense that we are used to.
which raises the question of if we are so committed and dependent on a big physical running back to make our offense go why have we not been able to recruit a couple of them (did we really expect Seale or Wright to be the next big back?)? Why do we keep recruiting smaller and quicker backs (e.g. Young, Sanders) who are a poor fit for our offense?
[/quote]
Numerous commentators have said that the biggest problem is with the interior line. The Tackles (Peat and Murphy) are quite good. The C and RG in particular seem to be problematic, although Garnett at LG certainly has gone through his growing pains. This would help to explain why interior running plays are not working well--it is a lot more than the lack of a big back.Â
Now why don't we have a big back? We do--they are all fullbacks. Are any of them fast enough to be converted to a Gerhardt-style running back? Probably not. Marx is 247. Ward is out of eligibility after this year. Skov I think has another year but he doesn't seem to have the speed. I know nothing about Plantaric and Harrell who were recruited as fullbacks and then seem to have disappeared. And that is it.
As for our RBs, they are all of the same ~200 lb scatback type. I do not know why none of them is a 225 lb. bruiser. It is a little like our TE situation last year. Where did the big, tough, running back at Stanford go? The one who gets an extra yard on every play just by falling forward?
(11-02-2014, 09:23 AM)82lsju link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=11043.msg104199#msg104199 date=1414906659]
Frankly, I don't think it much matters. We need a different kind of running back to regain consistency in our offense. But Sanders' stats are as good as the others on the year. They all have respectable averages, but none of them is what we need to run the style of offense that we are used to.
which raises the question of if we are so committed and dependent on a big physical running back to make our offense go why have we not been able to recruit a couple of them (did we really expect Seale or Wright to be the next big back?)? Why do we keep recruiting smaller and quicker backs (e.g. Young, Sanders) who are a poor fit for our offense?
[/quote]
Numerous commentators have said that the biggest problem is with the interior line. The Tackles (Peat and Murphy) are quite good. The C and RG in particular seem to be problematic, although Garnett at LG certainly has gone through his growing pains. This would help to explain why interior running plays are not working well--it is a lot more than the lack of a big back.Â
Now why don't we have a big back? We do--they are all fullbacks. Are any of them fast enough to be converted to a Gerhardt-style running back? Probably not. Marx is 247. Ward is out of eligibility after this year. Skov I think has another year but he doesn't seem to have the speed. I know nothing about Plantaric and Harrell who were recruited as fullbacks and then seem to have disappeared. And that is it.
As for our RBs, they are all of the same ~200 lb scatback type. I do not know why none of them is a 225 lb. bruiser. It is a little like our TE situation last year. Where did the big, tough, running back at Stanford go? The one who gets an extra yard on every play just by falling forward?
11-02-2014, 10:04 AM
I don't follow recruiting very closely, but is it possible that there just hasn't been a Gaffney/Taylor/Gerhart type in the past few recruiting cycles who could get in and wanted to come?
I don't necessarily think that waiting for playing time is a concern, it's not like Shaw shies away from playing true freshman when they're that good, especially at skill positions. If you're a good WR/RB and you want playing time straight away, Stanford actually seems like a better option that some since we have a relative paucity at those positions compared to, say, USC or Oregon.
I don't necessarily think that waiting for playing time is a concern, it's not like Shaw shies away from playing true freshman when they're that good, especially at skill positions. If you're a good WR/RB and you want playing time straight away, Stanford actually seems like a better option that some since we have a relative paucity at those positions compared to, say, USC or Oregon.
I don't follow recruiting very closely, but is it possible that there just hasn't been a Gaffney/Taylor/Gerhart type in the past few recruiting cycles who could get in and wanted to come?
I don't necessarily think that waiting for playing time is a concern, it's not like Shaw shies away from playing true freshman when they're that good, especially at skill positions. If you're a good WR/RB and you want playing time straight away, Stanford actually seems like a better option that some since we have a relative paucity at those positions compared to, say, USC or Oregon.
I don't necessarily think that waiting for playing time is a concern, it's not like Shaw shies away from playing true freshman when they're that good, especially at skill positions. If you're a good WR/RB and you want playing time straight away, Stanford actually seems like a better option that some since we have a relative paucity at those positions compared to, say, USC or Oregon.
11-02-2014, 11:27 AM
(11-02-2014, 09:35 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Talented ball carriers and receivers want to play early and be put in position to succeed. At Stanford you have to generally watch for a year or two before you can play, and the play calls put a bull's eye on your back far too often.
I would add "and quarterbacks" somewhere in that first sentence.
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
(11-02-2014, 09:35 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Talented ball carriers and receivers want to play early and be put in position to succeed. At Stanford you have to generally watch for a year or two before you can play, and the play calls put a bull's eye on your back far too often.
I would add "and quarterbacks" somewhere in that first sentence.
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »