GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - 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: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA (/thread-21161.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: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA (/thread-21161.html)
lex24 - lex24 - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 12:23 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-20-2020, 09:08 AM)lex24 Wrote: So, what’s all the fuss about. I only saw the first half and from the time of the pick 6 on. Missed third q and half of 4th. They looked good all day to me......:)
(12-19-2020, 09:44 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-19-2020, 09:17 PM)needle Wrote: I agree with an earlier poster, this game had a fever-ish quality that, for this fan, was not super fun but of course I could not look away.
1.) Fehoko played a great game. I am too mentally exhausted to think about next year, but the announcers said he set a school record for receptions that was well earned.
2.) The defense did its job, all things considered, and the defensive MVP for me is Dalyn Wade-Perry, who btw gets my vote on the All-Time Improved Player Team. I wasn't sure he would be more than a role player the first time I saw him play, but tonight he recovered a key fumble and made sure that UCLA's Brown wouldn't be able to drag Herron into the end zone.
All this while playing way, way more snaps than must be comfortable for the XXL crowd (Booker and Schafer, too, were iron men tonight).
3.) Mills wasn't brilliant even in the first half, but he is truly a gifted passer and that shines through even when he has an off day like today. Today's game, believe it or not, did almost nothing to lower his draft stock. It's more likely than not that we have seen the last of him in a Stanford uniform, as he has a second-round grade, for sure.
4.) The first two-point conversion attempt by UCLA was just plain weird, and I was shocked and delighted to see UCLA on the second try opt for the most unimaginative play in the playbook, a dive up the middle. I think some will second-guess Kelly tonight.
5.) As for Shaw, the time management was pretty bad and it's easy to second-guess the lack of carries for Jones in the third quarter. Also, Toner was clearly not 100% and so Karty should have been kicking those PATs. But the team came out with great focus and kept enough poise to rally for an improbable victory against a solid opponent on the road.
Some good thoughts. Overall, Fehoko had a monster game, but he also dropped a couple of easy catches. Weird.
Herron coming off the edge won us the game. But the defense, as a whole, had an atrocious game.
Nothing weird about Kelley calling the play that Stanford seemingly couldn't stop, even knowing it was coming. I actually thought we had a better shot on the pass play, because although Griffin was 9 of 11 to that point, there was always a chance that he'd throw one a bit off or his receiver would drop it or something like that. On a night that UCLA gained almost 300 yards on the ground, I would have put better than even money on UCLA being able to pick up 2.5. it is amazing that the last half yard was the difference in the game.
All's well that ends well for Shaw, but I had visions of Teejers with a blown aneurysm the way we were managing the clock on that last drive.
BC
I thought the clock management on the last drive was excellent. Scoring and leaving no time is perfect.
I wanted Shaw to go for 2 both times. Knew he wouldn’t. Knew Kelly would. That’s the way both roll.
I actually wondered, after the blitz/sack/grounding/defensive holding/"let's replay the down" if Kelly would stick with the 2 point try. The play he called had no chance. The one after that, didn't have much chance, either (unless the QB had kept the ball on read option - do ya think Herron sold out just a little bit on that one?).
I’ll have to watch again. But makes sense. Lucky DTR wasn’t in for that play.
Edit: Herron definitely crashed and sold out and it was Antoine that had responsibility on that edge if Griffin kept it. Would’ve been interesting because it might’ve ended up one on one. And that often didn’t end well for Stanford this year
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - JJJ - 12-20-2020
(12-19-2020, 10:38 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: For those interested, I just noticed Shaw's post-game press conference here:Thanks very much for sharing this. It was more moving for me than I thought it would be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVjxF4O5B4k
lex24 - lex24 - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 12:40 PM)JJJ Wrote:(12-19-2020, 10:38 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: For those interested, I just noticed Shaw's post-game press conference here:Thanks very much for sharing this. It was more moving for me than I thought it would be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVjxF4O5B4k
David Shaw certainly gets the “Big Picture.” Also, he will never come right out and say it but I think he is still pissed about what happened in that testing protocol. Particularly given the fact that this team remarkably went through the season without one positive test. Which is an even better achievement than running the table after starting off 0-2.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - martyup - 12-20-2020
When asked about our performance in the 3rd Q, Shaw's answer alluded to the fact that this is a young team. Perhaps they became over confident with such a dominating first half and mentally relaxed. I have to admit, I thought they had given up by the end of the 3rd. I was wrong. They were being overwhelmed by a fired up Bruin team that saw blood in the water. The fact that they were able to snap out of it and come back to win that game shows how well they trust each other and their coaches. They never stopped believing. That is a rare quality in a football team.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - BostonCard - 12-20-2020
It makes sense to gamble on a two point conversion defense. The penalty for guessing wrong is the same as for being one step slow, which is to say the try is converted. You probably wouldn't all out blitz on a random third and long at the opponent's 30; if you don't get to the QB, that can be a brobdingnagian gain. However, on a two point conversion, a big blitz makes sense, as if you get through (as we did) before the QB can get rid of it, you stop the conversion, and if you don't, the outcome (a conversion) is the same as if you rush four and the receiver catches the ball in the end zone and is immediately tackled. Likewise, selling out on a run blitz doesn't hurt you if the runner goes at the spot vacated by the blitzing linebacker any more than if you play it conservative and stop the runner after a 2.5 yard gain.
By the way, this is one place where Shaw has generally excelled in play calling. He often gambles successfully on two point conversion defenses (twice against Oregon, the play against UNC), and when he goes for a try, he often take advantage of the defense gambling (for example the two point conversion where we brought the heavy package against OSU, and proceeded to throw to Heimuli or in the past where we have run a naked bootleg).
BC
RE: lex24 - cardcrimson - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 01:03 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-20-2020, 12:40 PM)JJJ Wrote:(12-19-2020, 10:38 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: For those interested, I just noticed Shaw's post-game press conference here:Thanks very much for sharing this. It was more moving for me than I thought it would be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVjxF4O5B4k
David Shaw certainly gets the “Big Picture.” Also, he will never come right out and say it but I think he is still pissed about what happened in that testing protocol. Particularly given the fact that this team remarkably went through the season without one positive test. Which is an even better achievement than running the table after starting off 0-2.
Do you think that would have happened if they weren't playing? Of the 85 plus that are apart of the team, plus the coaches and support staff, how many would you conjecture would have become infected with the virus. How many will over the next couple of months without the strict protocols? Will be interesting to see.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - BostonCard - 12-20-2020
If we are going to engage in hypotheticals, how many people saw college football happening and concluded "the pandemic must not be that bad, they're playing football". How many people had their friends over to watch games and in so doing transmitted the virus?
There's no way of knowing, but the correct metric is not "how many football players got COVID".
BC
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - cardcrimson - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 01:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If we are going to engage in hypotheticals, how many people saw college football happening and concluded "the pandemic must not be that bad, they're playing football". How many people had their friends over to watch games and in so doing transmitted the virus?
There's no way of knowing, but the correct metric is not "how many football players got COVID".
BC
No hypothetical. We will have solid data, if it's released. The team had zero positive tests over the last several months. How many will they have over the next several months. Don't you think an important study?
Mudhead - Mudhead - 12-20-2020
[quote="BostonCard" pid='302352' dateline='1608497023']
If we are going to engage in hypotheticals, how many people saw college football happening and concluded "the pandemic must not be that bad, they're playing football". How many people had their friends over to watch games and in so doing transmitted the virus?
There's no way of knowing, but the correct metric is not "how many football players got COVID".
BC
[/quot
You know, if we all drove 15 mph instead of 70 , we could cut way down on traffic deaths too.
RE: lex24 - Hank 91 - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 01:03 PM)lex24 Wrote: David Shaw certainly gets the “Big Picture.” Also, he will never come right out and say it but I think he is still pissed about what happened in that testing protocol. Particularly given the fact that this team remarkably went through the season without one positive test. Which is an even better achievement than running the table after starting off 0-2.
That fact that he mentions the botched tests in every presser, midweek and postgame, and even corrects reporters when they refer to it as "Mills's Covid test" ("you mean his incorrect Covid test?") tells you that he's certainly still pissed about it.
RE: Mudhead - BostonCard - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 02:52 PM)Mudhead Wrote: You know, if we all drove 15 mph instead of 70 , we could cut way down on traffic deaths too.
So the answer is to drive as fast as we want? An estimated 38,000 people die each year from auto accidents, and we enforce regulations on automakers that cost up to $10 million per life saved.
We have lost 8 times as many people from COVID-19, and no one is saying we ought to cancel sports forever. It will be a mere 6 months until a vaccine is widely available.
BC
(12-20-2020, 02:47 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(12-20-2020, 01:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If we are going to engage in hypotheticals, how many people saw college football happening and concluded "the pandemic must not be that bad, they're playing football". How many people had their friends over to watch games and in so doing transmitted the virus?
There's no way of knowing, but the correct metric is not "how many football players got COVID".
BC
No hypothetical. We will have solid data, if it's released. The team had zero positive tests over the last several months. How many will they have over the next several months. Don't you think an important study?
My point is that football players aren’t the only people in this equation. They aren’t the only people whose COVID rates have to be considered, and you can’t look at Stanford in a vacuum (since Stanford playing meant that the rest of the PAC-12 practiced and played too). The New York Times had a piece on positive tests in collegiate athletics overall, and there were something like 6600 athletes with positive tests (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/sports/coronavirus-college-sports-football.html). I can’t tell you how many it would have been had they not been playing, nor how many transmissions occurred among people watching the game together. In some ways, it is immaterial. With ICU’s filled to capacity in Southern California, it is passed the time where we can determine what is ok with surgical precision; blunt tools are overdue.
Lastly, Economics is all about trade-offs, and the effort that went into protecting the football team didn’t go into other things, like more frequent testing of long term care facility staff. A full accounting of the cost of playing football has to take that into account.
BC
lex24 - lex24 - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 03:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-20-2020, 02:52 PM)Mudhead Wrote: You know, if we all drove 15 mph instead of 70 , we could cut way down on traffic deaths too.
So the answer is to drive as fast as we want? An estimated 38,000 people die each year from auto accidents, and we enforce regulations on automakers that cost up to $10 million per life saved.
We have lost 8 times as many people from COVID-19, and no one is saying we ought to cancel sports forever. It will be a mere 6 months until a vaccine is widely available.
BC
(12-20-2020, 02:47 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(12-20-2020, 01:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If we are going to engage in hypotheticals, how many people saw college football happening and concluded "the pandemic must not be that bad, they're playing football". How many people had their friends over to watch games and in so doing transmitted the virus?
There's no way of knowing, but the correct metric is not "how many football players got COVID".
BC
No hypothetical. We will have solid data, if it's released. The team had zero positive tests over the last several months. How many will they have over the next several months. Don't you think an important study?
My point is that football players aren’t the only people in this equation. They aren’t the only people whose COVID rates have to be considered, and you can’t look at Stanford in a vacuum (since Stanford playing meant that the rest of the PAC-12 practiced and played too). The New York Times had a piece on positive tests in collegiate athletics overall, and there were something like 6600 athletes with positive tests (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/sports/coronavirus-college-sports-football.html). I can’t tell you how many it would have been had they not been playing, nor how many transmissions occurred among people watching the game together. In some ways, it is immaterial. With ICU’s filled to capacity in Southern California, it is passed the time where we can determine what is ok with surgical precision; blunt tools are overdue.
Lastly, Economics is all about trade-offs, and the effort that went into protecting the football team didn’t go into other things, like more frequent testing of long term care facility staff. A full accounting of the cost of playing football has to take that into account.
BC
What about the other impact of strict lockdowns? The vast mental health cost being one. I just don’t think it’s as simple as “blunt tools are overdue”. I heard someone on KCBS talking about the higher incidence of drug overdoses. In SF there have been about 175 deaths from Covid. During the same period, according to this person (sorry I didn’t catch the name) over 600 overdose deaths. I realize SF is not indicative of the state, much less the country, on this. But the mental health strain has been significant. And if spectator TV sports (as I believe) helps on that front, than that is important as well.
RE: lex24 - JustAnotherFan - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 03:54 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-20-2020, 03:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-20-2020, 02:52 PM)Mudhead Wrote: You know, if we all drove 15 mph instead of 70 , we could cut way down on traffic deaths too.
So the answer is to drive as fast as we want? An estimated 38,000 people die each year from auto accidents, and we enforce regulations on automakers that cost up to $10 million per life saved.
We have lost 8 times as many people from COVID-19, and no one is saying we ought to cancel sports forever. It will be a mere 6 months until a vaccine is widely available.
BC
(12-20-2020, 02:47 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(12-20-2020, 01:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If we are going to engage in hypotheticals, how many people saw college football happening and concluded "the pandemic must not be that bad, they're playing football". How many people had their friends over to watch games and in so doing transmitted the virus?
There's no way of knowing, but the correct metric is not "how many football players got COVID".
BC
No hypothetical. We will have solid data, if it's released. The team had zero positive tests over the last several months. How many will they have over the next several months. Don't you think an important study?
My point is that football players aren’t the only people in this equation. They aren’t the only people whose COVID rates have to be considered, and you can’t look at Stanford in a vacuum (since Stanford playing meant that the rest of the PAC-12 practiced and played too). The New York Times had a piece on positive tests in collegiate athletics overall, and there were something like 6600 athletes with positive tests (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/sports/coronavirus-college-sports-football.html). I can’t tell you how many it would have been had they not been playing, nor how many transmissions occurred among people watching the game together. In some ways, it is immaterial. With ICU’s filled to capacity in Southern California, it is passed the time where we can determine what is ok with surgical precision; blunt tools are overdue.
Lastly, Economics is all about trade-offs, and the effort that went into protecting the football team didn’t go into other things, like more frequent testing of long term care facility staff. A full accounting of the cost of playing football has to take that into account.
BC
What about the other impact of strict lockdowns? The vast mental health cost being one. I just don’t think it’s as simple as “blunt tools are overdue”. I heard someone on KCBS talking about the higher incidence of drug overdoses. In SF there have been about 175 deaths from Covid. During the same period, according to this person (sorry I didn’t catch the name) over 600 overdose deaths. I realize SF is not indicative of the state, much less the country, on this. But the mental health strain has been significant. And if spectator TV sports (as I believe) helps on that front, than that is important as well.
What is the baseline for overdose deaths during the same period year over year?
It would be interesting to know the impact of strict lockdowns. Something that hasn't been tried yet.
RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 03:54 PM)lex24 Wrote: What about the other impact of strict lockdowns? The vast mental health cost being one. I just don’t think it’s as simple as “blunt tools are overdue”. I heard someone on KCBS talking about the higher incidence of drug overdoses. In SF there have been about 175 deaths from Covid. During the same period, according to this person (sorry I didn’t catch the name) over 600 overdose deaths. I realize SF is not indicative of the state, much less the country, on this. But the mental health strain has been significant. And if spectator TV sports (as I believe) helps on that front, than that is important as well.
The best way to have dealt with this virus is to do so early and decisively. Then you drive the virus levels so low that you can deal with small outbreaks with precision and allow the economy to otherwise reopen with minimal restrictions.
Instead, after a promising start in the spring, we tried to have it halfway, and in so doing wound up with both half-assed restrictions that many people are ignoring and a lots of COVID-19. Sad.
BC
(12-20-2020, 05:16 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: What is the baseline for overdose deaths during the same period year over year?
It would be interesting to know the impact of strict lockdowns. Something that hasn't been tried yet.
There have been 67,000 overdose deaths per year (about 5000 of which happened in California), on average, and, unfortunately, the trend has been going up. That number has been exacerbated by COVID-19 pandemic:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p1218-overdose-deaths-covid-19.html
It looks like from June 2019 to May 2020, there were 81,000 overdose deaths, and that is only a small part of the pandemic. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time this is over we see about 30,000 more overdose deaths in the US in 2020 than in earlier years.
BC
RE: lex24 - Goose - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 06:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The best way to have dealt with this virus is to do so early and decisively. Then you drive the virus levels so low that you can deal with small outbreaks with precision and allow the economy to otherwise reopen with minimal restrictions.Ideally, yes, that would work. It is also true that we tried to have it halfway, which basically doomed the effort. However, given that we didn't have and needed to develop the ability to track and trace small outbreaks it would have at best been June before we could have done it in SCC and even longer elsewhere. On top of that, since many (about 50% locally) people refuse to cooperate by isolating/quarantining when necessary and reporting their contacts honestly (or at all), it is difficult to believe that approach had any possibility of working.
Instead, after a promising start in the spring, we tried to have it halfway, and in so doing wound up with both half-assed restrictions that many people are ignoring and a lots of COVID-19. Sad.
BC
It is also true that in Europe who was better prepared to do the tracking and tracing has had things blow up on them. They also had a more compliant population and access to significantly greater enforcement. Still blew up. The "dance" has not been successfully executed in the West anywhere.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - SamuelMcF - 12-20-2020
Over to the Covid board?
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - winflop - 12-20-2020
Thoughts on the game:
1. 4 straight wins on the road to end the season is a tremendous accomplishment. Kudos to the coaches and the players
2. THAT WAS THE MOST PAC-12 REFS ENDING TO ANY GAME I'VE EVER SEEN
3. Mills' rally after throwing the pick-six reminded me of Andrew Luck in the 2011 game at U$C. That took real guts. I hope he stays another year
4. I would've gone for two at 34-33. I had no confidence in that defense to stop UCLA in OT after the way they played in the second half
5. Punting from the UCLA 33????? AGAIN?????????
Haven't read through others' insights yet.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - murky - 12-20-2020
Speaking of the refs, I heard the announcers said it was the first all Black officiating crew for a Pac12 game. It really struck me at the end when there were 5 or more in view.
Cool.
lex24 - lex24 - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 07:47 PM)winflop Wrote: Thoughts on the game:
1. 4 straight wins on the road to end the season is a tremendous accomplishment. Kudos to the coaches and the players
2. THAT WAS THE MOST PAC-12 REFS ENDING TO ANY GAME I'VE EVER SEEN
3. Mills' rally after throwing the pick-six reminded me of Andrew Luck in the 2011 game at U$C. That took real guts. I hope he stays another year
4. I would've gone for two at 34-33. I had no confidence in that defense to stop UCLA in OT after the way they played in the second half
5. Punting from the UCLA 33????? AGAIN?????????
Haven't read through others' insights yet.
Agree on all five. But Shaw doesn’t believe in forcing the issue. He only will go for two when he has to. His words, not mine. So it was in character. And expected. As was Kelly going for 2.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - CompSci87 - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 07:47 PM)winflop Wrote: Thoughts on the game:
1. 4 straight wins on the road to end the season is a tremendous accomplishment. Kudos to the coaches and the players
2. THAT WAS THE MOST PAC-12 REFS ENDING TO ANY GAME I'VE EVER SEEN
3. Mills' rally after throwing the pick-six reminded me of Andrew Luck in the 2011 game at U$C. That took real guts. I hope he stays another year
4. I would've gone for two at 34-33. I had no confidence in that defense to stop UCLA in OT after the way they played in the second half
5. Punting from the UCLA 33????? AGAIN?????????
Haven't read through others' insights yet.
I didn't like punting from the 33, but Toner had already missed an extra point and maybe was gimpy (?), so I could see not trying the 50-yard field goal. And it was pretty long yardage to make a first down, so I expected Shaw to play for field position by punting even though it made us fans grind our teeth. Sadly the punt didn't pin UCLA really deep, plus it only took them one play, a running play no less, to get out to the 33, so it ended up ineffective.