The CardBoard

Full Version: My god that sucked everything sucked my god what was that
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Anyway, doesn't "asshole" imply that someone's social behavior is crass or offensive?  It just doesn't make sense to say "He has left Nunes in without acknowledging his flaws -- he's an asshole."

Reminds me of that part of the movie Airplane! ...  Guys in the control tower are trying to track the troubled jetliner piloted by one of the passengers. Air traffic controller is watching his instruments tracking the plane... "Ten thousand feet... Up to 16,000 feet... What an asshole!"

Actually, I don't have any interest in people doubling down (I think I got that phrase from Romney) on their tough proclamations about Shaw or whatever. I watch these games and I'm worried about the clear flaws and happy with the victories, my opinions on what should or should not be fixed are influenced by people presenting data and analysis, not uncompromising vocabulary.
Anyway, doesn't "asshole" imply that someone's social behavior is crass or offensive?  It just doesn't make sense to say "He has left Nunes in without acknowledging his flaws -- he's an asshole."

Reminds me of that part of the movie Airplane! ...  Guys in the control tower are trying to track the troubled jetliner piloted by one of the passengers. Air traffic controller is watching his instruments tracking the plane... "Ten thousand feet... Up to 16,000 feet... What an asshole!"

Actually, I don't have any interest in people doubling down (I think I got that phrase from Romney) on their tough proclamations about Shaw or whatever. I watch these games and I'm worried about the clear flaws and happy with the victories, my opinions on what should or should not be fixed are influenced by people presenting data and analysis, not uncompromising vocabulary.

Cardinal96

I agree with the thrust behind a lot of the criticisms people are leveling about our coaching this year.  We are playing uninspired football, particularly on offense.  I hear you, believe me!

But I would prefer if we keep our criticisms focused on in-game performance and avoid using terms like asshole that are, essentially, ad hominem attacks.  Unless there is something off field that is particularly egregious and impacts football team performance, which is a legitimate criticism. 

Shaw is a class guy and is not an asshole by any stretch.  The way I look at it is a lot of the community is in agreement that our coaching leaves something to be desired at times and that sticking with Nunes is hard to fathom.  You make it harder to build support around your argument when you throw in terms like asshole.

Cardinal96

I agree with the thrust behind a lot of the criticisms people are leveling about our coaching this year.  We are playing uninspired football, particularly on offense.  I hear you, believe me!

But I would prefer if we keep our criticisms focused on in-game performance and avoid using terms like asshole that are, essentially, ad hominem attacks.  Unless there is something off field that is particularly egregious and impacts football team performance, which is a legitimate criticism. 

Shaw is a class guy and is not an asshole by any stretch.  The way I look at it is a lot of the community is in agreement that our coaching leaves something to be desired at times and that sticking with Nunes is hard to fathom.  You make it harder to build support around your argument when you throw in terms like asshole.

Cardinal96

(10-27-2012, 09:09 PM)fishman link Wrote:I heard from someone connected with the team who said Nunes was playing for his job today.  He seemed genuinely surprised that Hogan didn't stay in to finish out the second half.  Seems that momentum (inertia really) has shifted and that change may be on the way.  Let's hope.

From your lips to God's ears.

Cardinal96

(10-27-2012, 09:09 PM)fishman link Wrote:I heard from someone connected with the team who said Nunes was playing for his job today.  He seemed genuinely surprised that Hogan didn't stay in to finish out the second half.  Seems that momentum (inertia really) has shifted and that change may be on the way.  Let's hope.

From your lips to God's ears.
The game was a poor game for all the reasons others have said--quarterbacking, playcalling, coaching, etc.  But there is another issue.  I am concerned that our style of defense is not able to consistently stop a quick pass/spread attack. 

Multiple spread teams now have exposed a fairly easy way to neutralize the strengths of our defense.  WSU gained 25 first downs and 401 yards passing!  Every time they ran the ball they got absolutely stuffed--doesn't seem to have mattered much.  We sacked them 10 times for 64 yards in losses, intercepted a pass for a pick 6,  and seemed to have some good secondary play--but despite all of this WSU moved the ball on us and dominated time of possession.  Look at the receiving stats for WSU.  Half a dozen guys caught half a dozen passes each--mostly in the 8-12 yard range.  Arizona and WSU have now completely exposed our style of defense as being generally ineffective against the quick pass. 

Our defense is perfectly suited to crush any team which emphasizes running the ball or throwing long drop-back passes--like we do.  But the quick pass is our Achilles heel.  This looks really, really bad for our prospects against Oregon.  Heck, if Colorado, Oregon State, or UCLA don't already have spread offense in their  playbooks, I bet they will be installing it and practicing it just to neutralize Stanford's defense.

Derek Mason is probably my favorite Stanford coach, but he needs to be more creative about finding a solution to this. 

The game was a poor game for all the reasons others have said--quarterbacking, playcalling, coaching, etc.  But there is another issue.  I am concerned that our style of defense is not able to consistently stop a quick pass/spread attack. 

Multiple spread teams now have exposed a fairly easy way to neutralize the strengths of our defense.  WSU gained 25 first downs and 401 yards passing!  Every time they ran the ball they got absolutely stuffed--doesn't seem to have mattered much.  We sacked them 10 times for 64 yards in losses, intercepted a pass for a pick 6,  and seemed to have some good secondary play--but despite all of this WSU moved the ball on us and dominated time of possession.  Look at the receiving stats for WSU.  Half a dozen guys caught half a dozen passes each--mostly in the 8-12 yard range.  Arizona and WSU have now completely exposed our style of defense as being generally ineffective against the quick pass. 

Our defense is perfectly suited to crush any team which emphasizes running the ball or throwing long drop-back passes--like we do.  But the quick pass is our Achilles heel.  This looks really, really bad for our prospects against Oregon.  Heck, if Colorado, Oregon State, or UCLA don't already have spread offense in their  playbooks, I bet they will be installing it and practicing it just to neutralize Stanford's defense.

Derek Mason is probably my favorite Stanford coach, but he needs to be more creative about finding a solution to this. 

Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.
Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.
I agree there should be concern about the defense vs. the air raid offense, however, as was stated in another thread, Stanford's best defense against it is to have a ball control offense that wears teams down over four quarters.

Mason's defense is designed to stop the run, prevent the big play, which it does very, very well, and to get pressure on the QB.  Stanford now #2 in the country against the run.  Only Alabama is better in yards allowed and YPC. 

I have no problem with the Stanford Defense whatsoever.  Sure it is frustrating to see WSU rack up 400 yards passing.  But they only scored 17 points.  That is in large part due to the fact Stanford allowed 0 yards rushing.  In the last two games, Stanford has allowed a total of THREE yards rushing.  Of course, sacks are subtracted form rushing yards, so rushing defense is the most important stat for Stanford's defense (aside from points allowed).

Again, you want to take issue with a unit, blame the Offense.  To gain barely 250 yards against WSU is simply pathetic.

I agree there should be concern about the defense vs. the air raid offense, however, as was stated in another thread, Stanford's best defense against it is to have a ball control offense that wears teams down over four quarters.

Mason's defense is designed to stop the run, prevent the big play, which it does very, very well, and to get pressure on the QB.  Stanford now #2 in the country against the run.  Only Alabama is better in yards allowed and YPC. 

I have no problem with the Stanford Defense whatsoever.  Sure it is frustrating to see WSU rack up 400 yards passing.  But they only scored 17 points.  That is in large part due to the fact Stanford allowed 0 yards rushing.  In the last two games, Stanford has allowed a total of THREE yards rushing.  Of course, sacks are subtracted form rushing yards, so rushing defense is the most important stat for Stanford's defense (aside from points allowed).

Again, you want to take issue with a unit, blame the Offense.  To gain barely 250 yards against WSU is simply pathetic.

The only problem I have with the Stanford defense is its tendency to wilt in the fourth quarter and let teams come from behind. We lost the Washington and ND games because of it, and almost lost yesterday.

I know some people say it's the fault of the offense because the inability to sustain drives causes the defense to have to spend too much time on the field. However, you shouldn't have to make excuses for a truly outstanding defense.
The only problem I have with the Stanford defense is its tendency to wilt in the fourth quarter and let teams come from behind. We lost the Washington and ND games because of it, and almost lost yesterday.

I know some people say it's the fault of the offense because the inability to sustain drives causes the defense to have to spend too much time on the field. However, you shouldn't have to make excuses for a truly outstanding defense.
Letting the defense off the hook is very odd. They gave up a 4th-and-21 and 3 of 4 on fourth downs. I have higher expectations for them and I'm sure they do too.

Better than the offense? Of course. Does the offense have much more room for improvement? Of course. But up to the high standards we have of them? No, not at all.
Letting the defense off the hook is very odd. They gave up a 4th-and-21 and 3 of 4 on fourth downs. I have higher expectations for them and I'm sure they do too.

Better than the offense? Of course. Does the offense have much more room for improvement? Of course. But up to the high standards we have of them? No, not at all.
(10-28-2012, 06:43 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

Exactly.  People get obsessed with yardage, but it's not what matters.  The winner is the team with the most points at the end of the game, not the team with the most yardage.
(10-28-2012, 06:43 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

Exactly.  People get obsessed with yardage, but it's not what matters.  The winner is the team with the most points at the end of the game, not the team with the most yardage.
(10-27-2012, 09:40 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6761.msg50711#msg50711 date=1351396105]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50707#msg50707 date=1351395444]
[quote author=Administrator link=topic=6761.msg50705#msg50705 date=1351395046]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50697#msg50697 date=1351393390]
This is my first post...I've been watching Stanford football since the early 90s and am happy to have found a place where I can discuss. Thanks for having me.

That's interesting because someone named 49er posted using the same IP address as you.
[/quote]

Ok. What does that mean/imply?
[/quote]

It means someone named 49er, who posted three times, used your router, if not your computer.
[/quote]

Well, not necessarily. People rarely get static IP addresses these days, so 49er could just be someone with the same ISP who lives in the same area.
[/quote]

But how likely is that?  It would be quite a coincidence.
(10-27-2012, 09:40 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6761.msg50711#msg50711 date=1351396105]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50707#msg50707 date=1351395444]
[quote author=Administrator link=topic=6761.msg50705#msg50705 date=1351395046]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50697#msg50697 date=1351393390]
This is my first post...I've been watching Stanford football since the early 90s and am happy to have found a place where I can discuss. Thanks for having me.

That's interesting because someone named 49er posted using the same IP address as you.
[/quote]

Ok. What does that mean/imply?
[/quote]

It means someone named 49er, who posted three times, used your router, if not your computer.
[/quote]

Well, not necessarily. People rarely get static IP addresses these days, so 49er could just be someone with the same ISP who lives in the same area.
[/quote]

But how likely is that?  It would be quite a coincidence.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9