Stanford Oregon Game thread - 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: Stanford Oregon Game thread (/thread-16465.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: Stanford Oregon Game thread (/thread-16465.html)
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - donkey687 - 09-24-2018
(09-24-2018, 11:21 AM)shinsengumi Wrote:This is interesting data and consistent with my impression that the power formation usually does get one yard or more. Scarlett in particular is adept at leaping for a yard or two. While it is frustrating that the play didn't work against Oregon, it is hard to argue with Shaw calling a play that works 70% of the time. I don't think there are a lot of other plays that he could have called that would have had greater than a 70% chance of working. The jumbo package doesn't always pick up a lot but it usually picks up one yard. It wasn't a stupid call. It just didn't work at that moment.(09-22-2018, 08:06 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-22-2018, 08:00 PM)shinsengumi Wrote: Feel like every time we've rolled out jumbo on 4th and 1 over the last couple of years, we've been stuffed. Probably not much the O-line can do in those tight quarters.
Remound and Gaffney could make it work - the others not as much.
We had four first downs in 6 rushing attempts on fourth down last year. We were 5 of 9 in Gaffney's year, and 7 in 10 when Remound was taking the handoffs from McCaffrey.
BC
Hey BC. Thanks for providing this during the game.
I could've sworn that we've had a distinct lack of success in jumbo situations the last couple of years. But I didn't know where I could get the situational data from. This is the closest proxy I found thanks to RJ Abeytia's article on 247 (https://247sports.com/college/stanford/LongFormArticle/Ten-Takeaways-From-7-Stanfords-38-31-Win-Over-19-Oregon-122417330/#122417330_3)
Football Outsiders tracks a metric called Power Success Rate (percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown). Here's what the numbers look like for the last few years.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol2017
Year Primary Short Yardage Back PSR % Rank 2014 Wright/Sanders 73.7 23 2015 Wright/McCaffrey 76.2 12 2016 Scarlett/McCaffrey 65.9 76 2017 Scarlett/Love 69.4 49
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - shinsengumi - 09-24-2018
(09-24-2018, 12:35 PM)donkey687 Wrote: This is interesting data and consistent with my impression that the power formation usually does get one yard or more. Scarlett in particular is adept at leaping for a yard or two. While it is frustrating that the play didn't work against Oregon, it is hard to argue with Shaw calling a play that works 70% of the time. I don't think there are a lot of other plays that he could have called that would have had greater than a 70% chance of working. The jumbo package doesn't always pick up a lot but it usually picks up one yard. It wasn't a stupid call. It just didn't work at that moment.
Perhaps so. I guess it depends on if you consider <70% conversion in these situations good enough. After all, on average, ~60 teams have done better than us in these situations over the last two full seasons.
OTOH, the actual % differences between our excellent short-yardage teams (2015) and middling short-yardage teams (2017) is not that great. So there's that.
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - SUBuddha - 09-24-2018
(09-24-2018, 12:24 PM)Publius Wrote: An excellent way to relive the game is to read the counterpart threat for Oregon from the 2nd half.
https://www.addictedtoquack.com/2018/9/22/17891664/second-half-game-thread-oregon-ducks-24-stanford-cardinal-7
That was epic. They really hate Stanford and Shaw over there.
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - French Rage - 09-24-2018
(09-24-2018, 01:23 PM)SUBuddha Wrote:(09-24-2018, 12:24 PM)Publius Wrote: An excellent way to relive the game is to read the counterpart threat for Oregon from the 2nd half.
https://www.addictedtoquack.com/2018/9/22/17891664/second-half-game-thread-oregon-ducks-24-stanford-cardinal-7
That was epic. They really hate Stanford and Shaw over there.
Though I am fond of the one post which said "Open up my eager eyes, Arcega-Whiteside!". Might steal that.
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - stupac2 - 09-24-2018
I'm watching the condensed replay on the Pac-12 Network right now, and it strikes me that our first drive was actually not bad at all. It took a good defensive play to prevent us from having a 1st down in Oregon territory. Heck, even the second drive had some plays in it (Costello sure looked like he can't really move on that sack, last year he would've ran for the first).
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - rudruff - 09-24-2018
(09-24-2018, 01:25 PM)French Rage Wrote:(09-24-2018, 01:23 PM)SUBuddha Wrote:(09-24-2018, 12:24 PM)Publius Wrote: An excellent way to relive the game is to read the counterpart threat for Oregon from the 2nd half.
https://www.addictedtoquack.com/2018/9/22/17891664/second-half-game-thread-oregon-ducks-24-stanford-cardinal-7
That was epic. They really hate Stanford and Shaw over there.
Though I am fond of the one post which said "Open up my eager eyes, Arcega-Whiteside!". Might steal that.
Most of a haiku. Now I am considering the challenge of haiku related game thread posts.
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - Langdude - 09-24-2018
The Oregon fans seem to disagree with the decisions of the referees.
-m.
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - CardinalSagehen - 09-24-2018
On ESPNU radio today, there was a lot of talk about Cristobal giving away the game by not taking a knee on theee plays and punting with ~10 seconds remaining. Neuheisel in particular was beside himself that any coach could give away sweet victory once it has been achieved.
I understand and agree with the point, all things considered. However, it’s worth noting that there are risks to that approach, too. The return team can basically pin their ears back, bring all 11 guys and not worry about roughing the punter. And this can rattle a punter.
For example, look what happened to Coach Harbaugh with 10 seconds remaining a few years ago against MSU... muffed punt, scoop and score. That was a pretty crazy ending to a game.
https://youtu.be/Dqv48MwEbaQ
In any case, I’m just glad everything happened the way it did...
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - fullmetal - 09-24-2018
(09-24-2018, 06:18 AM)stupac2 Wrote: Man, you don't remember which year that was? That was 2015 and it 100% kept us out of the playoffs. IIRC there were 3 botched snaps and, despite those normally being ~75% recovery rate for the offense, we lost at least 2 of them and I think all 3. It was a bad, bad game.
Terrible game. PTSD-induced amnesia. And man I hate Oregon all over again! Stanford deserved this one!
RE: An excellent way to relive the game - martyup - 09-25-2018
(09-24-2018, 12:24 PM)Publius Wrote: An excellent way to relive the game is to read the counterpart threat for Oregon from the 2nd half.
https://www.addictedtoquack.com/2018/9/22/17891664/second-half-game-thread-oregon-ducks-24-stanford-cardinal-7
That was the best entertainment I've had in a long time. Here are some Duck quotes that stood out:
Quote:I cannot put into words how much I hate Stanford.
Watching a bunch of guys that looks like extras from starsky and hutch move down the field just irritates me to no end.
Posted by BigServer1
Quote:I hate playing Stanford
Quote:Time to regroup
Unfortunately college OT favors these giant ahole Stanford receivers.
Quote:I’m just…gutted. This felt like a tide turning game. And we’re going to lose because we’re young, can’t cover their WRs and TEs, and the narrative will be about how Oregon blew their biggest game in several years. It hurts man. But I’m sure a lot of people will learn a lot of things from this fiasco, win or lose.
This is revenge for that 21-3 comeback.
Quote:Stanford is bullshit. The refs are bulkshit
Quote:Disgraceful
These refs should never officiate another game. Absolute disgrace and the worst I’ve seen in a decade.
Quote:I don't like football anymore
Quote:And I hate David Shaw and Stanford. Hate them.
I don’t care what you all say, they are 1b with washington. I hate Stanford even more these days because of how much they have f**ked us over the years. F**KING STANFORD.
Quote:smug david shaw face is more punchable than ryan appleby
Quote:Now that I've thrown my TV through the bay window and am in an armed standoff with the police, I feel way better.
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - ChicagoCard - 09-25-2018
+1. Those are precious. I don't get the Starsky and Hutch reference. Is that basically = Oregon cool, Stanford not?
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - fullmetal - 09-25-2018
I think the Starsky and Hutch reference is aimed at Trenton Irwin's hair. Also, it was funny to see his awkwardly-donned #36 jersey for those punt returns...no one straightened it out for him I guess!
I loved reading that Oregon fan thread...you could tell when certain plays broke Stanford's way. What an instant classic game for Stanford.
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - ChicagoCard - 09-25-2018
Oh, does Reagan Williams still also have the long hair... Maybe it reminds them of Hewitt, and Marecic.
RE: An excellent way to relive the game - Nan3cy - 09-25-2018
(09-24-2018, 12:24 PM)Publius Wrote: An excellent way to relive the game is to read the counterpart threat for Oregon from the 2nd half.
https://www.addictedtoquack.com/2018/9/22/17891664/second-half-game-thread-oregon-ducks-24-stanford-cardinal-7
Who do they hate most? Stanford, Shaw, or the refs?
RE: An excellent way to relive the game - ChicagoCard - 09-25-2018
(09-25-2018, 11:44 AM)Nan3cy Wrote:(09-24-2018, 12:24 PM)Publius Wrote: An excellent way to relive the game is to read the counterpart threat for Oregon from the 2nd half.
https://www.addictedtoquack.com/2018/9/22/17891664/second-half-game-thread-oregon-ducks-24-stanford-cardinal-7
Who do they hate most? Stanford, Shaw, or the refs?
Stanford. And that Stanford is annoyingly good at football right now.
RE: An excellent way to relive the game - Nan3cy - 09-25-2018
(09-25-2018, 12:05 PM)ChicagoCard Wrote:(09-25-2018, 11:44 AM)Nan3cy Wrote:(09-24-2018, 12:24 PM)Publius Wrote: An excellent way to relive the game is to read the counterpart threat for Oregon from the 2nd half.
https://www.addictedtoquack.com/2018/9/22/17891664/second-half-game-thread-oregon-ducks-24-stanford-cardinal-7
Who do they hate most? Stanford, Shaw, or the refs?
Stanford. And that Stanford is annoyingly good at football right now.
Maybe. But they sure blamed everything bad that happened to them on the refs.
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - CornFed - 09-25-2018
I'm really not a prude (really, I'm not). But the total reliance on invective and foul and coarse language in that thread is demeaning to those (few?) at Oregon who are more articulate. The thread is in every other respect very enjoyable.
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - BostonCard - 09-25-2018
Oregon fans might reasonably have been upset at the no-call on the first pass to the end zone in OT that Adebo defended. I don't think it was PI, and even though the announcers made a big point about Adebo not turning his head, he actually did turn his head, plus it was not clear there was a whole lot of contact. But I could see how a partisan might have complained.
I didn't see a ton more holding on our side than I saw on theirs. I mean the refs did let them play a lot up front, but both sides were getting away with a lot. Of course, most people only see the uncalled penalties that opponents commit.
On the pylon play, the rule seems clear and when ABC finally brought in their rules expert he was very explicit that the pylon is out of bounds and the play was dead as soon the Oregon receiver kicked the pylon, at which point the ball very clearly had not broken the plain. It was just the stupid announcers who were inexplicably unfamiliar with the rule (and, more critically, acted like they knew the rule but were wrong about it).
I think they may have had a legitimate beef about Love's touchdown. I don't think the ball crossed the plane within the pylons (since Love didn't get a chance to tap his foot in the end zone the plane doesn't extend beyond the pylons). However, it was impossible to know for sure from the replay, and the replay call (that the play stands) was correct. But I think the ball more likely didn't cross the plane within the pylons.
BC
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - stupac2 - 09-25-2018
(09-25-2018, 02:24 PM)BostonCard Wrote: On the pylon play, the rule seems clear and when ABC finally brought in their rules expert he was very explicit that the pylon is out of bounds and the play was dead as soon the Oregon receiver kicked the pylon, at which point the ball very clearly had not broken the plain. It was just the stupid announcers who were inexplicably unfamiliar with the rule (and, more critically, acted like they knew the rule but were wrong about it).
This is one of those things that utterly baffles me, I knew that rule just from watching previous games and having it come up. I never played, I've never read the rulebook, I've never gone through any kind of training about the game, and I'm certainly not paid millions of dollars to talk about the game. Why on earth don't these guys know these rules? That rule wasn't that obscure. It's their job, it's inexcusable that they don't know this stuff.
Quote:I think they may have had a legitimate beef about Love's touchdown. I don't think the ball crossed the plane within the pylons (since Love didn't get a chance to tap his foot in the end zone the plane doesn't extend beyond the pylons). However, it was impossible to know for sure from the replay, and the replay call (that the play stands) was correct. But I think the ball more likely didn't cross the plane within the pylons.
BC
Just another reason Love is awesome, he danced around the pylon instead of drop-kicking it.
RE: Stanford Oregon Game thread - BostonCard - 09-25-2018
(09-25-2018, 02:48 PM)stupac2 Wrote:(09-25-2018, 02:24 PM)BostonCard Wrote: On the pylon play, the rule seems clear and when ABC finally brought in their rules expert he was very explicit that the pylon is out of bounds and the play was dead as soon the Oregon receiver kicked the pylon, at which point the ball very clearly had not broken the plain. It was just the stupid announcers who were inexplicably unfamiliar with the rule (and, more critically, acted like they knew the rule but were wrong about it).
This is one of those things that utterly baffles me, I knew that rule just from watching previous games and having it come up. I never played, I've never read the rulebook, I've never gone through any kind of training about the game, and I'm certainly not paid millions of dollars to talk about the game. Why on earth don't these guys know these rules? That rule wasn't that obscure. It's their job, it's inexcusable that they don't know this stuff.
My guess is that they were confused because when the ball touches the pylon it is a touchdown, but that's because the pylon is on the other side of the plane, so if the ball touches the pylon it by definition had to cross the plane.
But the player's foot is not the ball.
BC