So, here the positives - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: So, here the positives (/thread-14688.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: So, here the positives (/thread-14688.html)
Pages:
1
2
So, here the positives - lex24 - 10-26-2017
1. Kaden Smith. Catch may have saved the season
2. They laid a steamer - and won. WSU lost 37-3 in their equivalent effort.
So now they regroup. Refocus. Etc
The biggest downer (and that is saying something) is Holder. I suspect hes done for the year. And the only reason he was on the field was a horrific third down undisciplined personal foul. Those CANT happen. And they had several tonight.
Re: So, here the positives - OutsiderFan - 10-26-2017
True re: Stanford and WSU, but WSU gave up 9 sacks and had 7 turnovers.
I'd have way rather seen Stanford's offense look competent but for sloppy turnovers, than look completely inept on more than half its possessions.
Re: So, here the positives - washingtonismoney - 10-26-2017
lex, I actually thought the offensive line did a solid job in pass protection. Thoughts there?
Re: So, here the positives - RedShift - 10-26-2017
IMO, the only positive from this game is that it reminded me that Love has been bailing out the Shavitagren offense all season long.
Re: So, here the positives - ChicagoCard - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 10:06 PM)lex24 link Wrote:WSU lost 37-3 in their equivalent effort.
The biggest downer (and that is saying something) is Holder. I suspect hes done for the year. And the only reason he was on the field was a horrific third down undisciplined personal foul. Those CANT happen. And they had several tonight.
Great point about WSU. How about SoKal's inconsistency and hideous performance last weekend.
Awful about Holder. How big a drop off to Murphy and Alexander? Was it two or three OSU drives that should have ended if it weren't for ticky tack calls.
Re: So, here the positives - Phogge - 10-26-2017
Nobody in the East or Southeast gives a hoot about the PAC 12. And this year nobody should.
Re: So, here the positives - Snorlax94 - 10-26-2017
They should if they enjoy watching future NFL stars.
Re: So, here the positives - OutsiderFan - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 10:16 PM)ChicagoTree link Wrote:[quote author=lex24 link=topic=17800.msg208514#msg208514 date=1509080796]
WSU lost 37-3 in their equivalent effort.
The biggest downer (and that is saying something) is Holder. I suspect hes done for the year. And the only reason he was on the field was a horrific third down undisciplined personal foul. Those CANT happen. And they had several tonight.
Great point about WSU. How about SoKal's inconsistency and hideous performance last weekend.
Awful about Holder. How big a drop off to Murphy and Alexander? Was it two or three OSU drives that should have ended if it weren't for ticky tack calls.
[/quote]
I think Antoine and Murphy split duty at CB for Holder. Eboh was also in there at times.
Re: So, here the positives - BostonCard - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 10:11 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:True re: Stanford and WSU, but WSU gave up 9 sacks and had 7 turnovers.
I'd have way rather seen Stanford's offense look competent but for sloppy turnovers, than look completely inept on more than half its possessions.
Well, when WSU wasnt throwing it to Bears DBs, they were busy putting together 4.5 yards per play. Thats not that much better than the pitiful 3.7 ypp we managed, but all else being equal, Id prefer the win, 15 points and 1 turnover to the loss, 3 points and 7! Turnovers., but maybe Im weird. Maybe this board would have been much less freaked out if Chryst had actually thrown 5 interceptions, been sacked 9 times and we would have been heading home with a loss.
BC
Ooo! Ooo!, I've got one! - CowboyIndian - 10-26-2017
Here's the only positive thought I've had in the last 4+ hours:
Maybe this shitshow win means we're the proverbial "team of destiny". That's all I've got.
Re: So, here the positives - d4cohn - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 10:06 PM)lex24 link Wrote:2. They laid a steamer - and won. WSU lost 37-3 in their equivalent effort.
Problem is this is our second horrific performance of the season (first against SDSU). Washington State have "coug'd" it only once this year.
Re: So, here the positives - washingtonismoney - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 10:43 PM)Card15 link Wrote:Problem is this is our second horrific performance of the season (first against SDSU). Washington State have "coug'd" it only once this year.
Hm, I'd say third. If you have conference title winning aspirations, let alone playoff-qualifying ones -- as the team say they do -- then any blowout is de facto a horrific performance. Ergo I put the SC performance up there as a horrific one.
Not all losses are horrific. For example, in retrospect, neither loss in 2015 was. But every loss since 2016 has been horrific. That suggests there are some problems in the state of the problem that need fixing.
Re: So, here the positives - lex24 - 10-26-2017
Agree. And the run blocking wasnt bad either. Holes were missed.
(10-26-2017, 10:11 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:lex, I actually thought the offensive line did a solid job in pass protection. Thoughts there?
Re: So, here the positives - lex24 - 10-26-2017
I dont consider SC a bad loss. Not at that time. In 15 Northwestern was pretty darn bad.
The big differences are that the defense has dropped a couple notches and the QB play has dropped dramatically. Bad combo.
(10-26-2017, 10:50 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Card15 link=topic=17800.msg208555#msg208555 date=1509082998]
Problem is this is our second horrific performance of the season (first against SDSU). Washington State have "coug'd" it only once this year.
Hm, I'd say third. If you have conference title winning aspirations, let alone playoff-qualifying ones -- as the team say they do -- then any blowout is de facto a horrific performance. Ergo I put the SC performance up there as a horrific one.
Not all losses are horrific. For example, in retrospect, neither loss in 2015 was. But every loss since 2016 has been horrific. That suggests there are some problems in the state of the problem that need fixing.
[/quote]
Re: So, here the positives - Spiny_Norman - 10-26-2017
Big positive - Stanford is now bowl eligible!
Re: So, here the positives - BostonCard - 10-27-2017
(10-26-2017, 10:50 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Card15 link=topic=17800.msg208555#msg208555 date=1509082998]
Problem is this is our second horrific performance of the season (first against SDSU). Washington State have "coug'd" it only once this year.
Hm, I'd say third. If you have conference title winning aspirations, let alone playoff-qualifying ones -- as the team say they do -- then any blowout is de facto a horrific performance. Ergo I put the SC performance up there as a horrific one.
Not all losses are horrific. For example, in retrospect, neither loss in 2015 was. But every loss since 2016 has been horrific. That suggests there are some problems in the state of the problem that need fixing.
[/quote]
USC played its best game of the year against us. Sometimes the opponent shows up and plays a great game. We got blown up, and the defense did not play well. But that game was as much about USC playing well as it was about us laying an egg.
BC
Re: So, here the positives - winflop - 10-27-2017
(10-26-2017, 10:11 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:lex, I actually thought the offensive line did a solid job in pass protection. Thoughts there?
They absolutely did which is what makes Chryst's god awful performance all the more troubling.
Re: So, here the positives - qwerty49 - 10-27-2017
A national prime time stage all to ourselves. And we lay an egg.
Sigh.
Re: So, here the positives - OutsiderFan - 10-27-2017
(10-27-2017, 04:17 AM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17800.msg208517#msg208517 date=1509081075]
lex, I actually thought the offensive line did a solid job in pass protection. Thoughts there?
They absolutely did which is what makes Chryst's god awful performance all the more troubling.
[/quote]
Most QBs would envy the protection and time Chryst was afforded in the OSU game. Yet, still, he was slow, indecisive, telegraphed his passes, and by all rights should have thrown at least 4 picks.
It was really maddening to hear Shaw claim OSU's DBs were "just making great plays on the ball" to explain away how poorly Chryst was. We can only hope that when Shaw goes back and watches the ugliness on video, that he will see what everyone else saw, a QB who played a truly terrible game for which no excuses should ever be made.
Re: So, here the positives - washingtonismoney - 10-27-2017
(10-27-2017, 05:18 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:It was really maddening to hear Shaw claim OSU's DBs were "just making great plays on the ball" to explain away how poorly Chryst was. We can only hope that when Shaw goes back and watches the ugliness on video, that he will see what everyone else saw, a QB who played a truly terrible game for which no excuses should ever be made.
Did he say that? Really bizarre and weird.