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)
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - JohnR34231 - 12-21-2020
(12-20-2020, 11:55 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:(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$C. That took real guts. I hope he stays another year
4. I would've gone for two at 34-33. I had no confidence in that defense to stop UCLA in OT after the way they played in the second half
5. Punting from the UCLA 33????? AGAIN?????????
Haven't read through others' insights yet.
I didn't like punting from the 33, but Toner had already missed an extra point and maybe was gimpy (?), so I could see not trying the 50-yard field goal. And it was pretty long yardage to make a first down, so I expected Shaw to play for field position by punting even though it made us fans grind our teeth. Sadly the punt didn't pin UCLA really deep, plus it only took them one play, a running play no less, to get out to the 33, so it ended up ineffective.
Any reason not to let Toner's back up try the field goal?
He was known for hitting 55 yarders in HS.
If you have a lock down defense punting from the opponents 33 makes sense. We clearly don't.
Then again, that's what Shaw does and will continue to do.
And, I suppose, Cardboarders will continue to complain about it.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - BostonCard - 12-21-2020
(12-21-2020, 05:15 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(12-20-2020, 11:55 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:(12-20-2020, 07:47 PM)winflop Wrote: Thoughts on the game:
1. 4 straight wins on the road to end the season is a tremendous accomplishment. Kudos to the coaches and the players
2. THAT WAS THE MOST PAC-12 REFS ENDING TO ANY GAME I'VE EVER SEEN
3. Mills' rally after throwing the pick-six reminded me of Andrew Luck in the 2011 game at U$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.
Any reason not to let Toner's back up try the field goal?
He was known for hitting 55 yarders in HS.
If you have a lock down defense punting from the opponents 33 makes sense. We clearly don't.
Then again, that's what Shaw does and will continue to do.
And, I suppose, Cardboarders will continue to complain about it.
Actually, there are two circumstances where it doesn't make sense to play for field position and one case where it does (aside from when game circumstances support it or don't). If you have a really good or really bad defense, field position doesn't make much of a difference. In the extreme case (a perfect defense), no matter where you give the ball up, the expected value of the opponent's possession is 0, as a perfect defense will give up no points. In the other extreme, where you have a completely porous defense, the expected value of an opponent's possession is 7 (or 8 if they go for 2), again, no matter where they get the ball. Our defense is probably close to that, as witnessed by the fact that it took UCLA one play to get back to the place we punted from.
Where playing for position makes sense is when you have a good but not great defense, and the expected point value of a drive starting at the opponents 10 is much lower than one starting at the opponents 40. The BCF tools have a look at defensive points per drive for long drives (those starting within an opponents 20) and medium drives (those starting between the opponents 20 and its own 40). If there is a large delta between those two, then it makes some sense to punt.
Otherwise, better to just go for it.
BC
RE: lex24 - Goose - 12-21-2020
(12-20-2020, 11:27 PM)lex24 Wrote: 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.Shaw made it clear he would prefer to kick the extra point until he can't do so by rule. He will only go for 2 when he has to. Kelly going for 2 was driven significantly (if you take him at his word) because he was running out of bodies. In other words, his ability to play "the long game" was degrading on each series faster than Stanford's was. It can be argued that when a team reaches that point, one "has to" go for 2. I think there is no question that we had momentum. We had just come back from the dead and clearly "believed". I think that if Shaw felt the same way about his team's capabilities, he would do the same. It was "now or never" for UCLA.
RE: lex24 - needle - 12-21-2020
At first glance, I thought Toner missed the XP near the end of regulation. Then there was the doink off the post in OT. Of course, this was after he actually missed an XP in the first half.
The TV camera also caught him much earlier in the game riding the stationary bike on the sideline.
Honestly, I don't think he was close to 100% to look so bad on multiple XPs. I believe it was an error by Shaw to send him out there when the game was on the line.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - BostonCard - 12-21-2020
One thing is that in overtime it is always an advantage to go second because you know what you have to get to at least tie. If the other team scores a touchdown, then you have four downs to match them. If, on the other hand, the other team fails to score (say, turns the ball over), you can play more conservatively and play for a field goal. The team on offense second winds up winning 55% of the time.
Because of this advantage, if the other team scores and gets the extra point, and you score, you know that if you go for the PAT and get it, you will be on offense first and thus disadvantaged (win probability of 45%), plus there is a small probability of missing the PAT. The probability of converting the 2 is about 43%, so it is about the same either way.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/295214-why-you-should-go-for-two-instead-of-a-tie-in-overtime
BC
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - Goose - 12-21-2020
(12-21-2020, 11:19 AM)BostonCard Wrote: One thing is that in overtime it is always an advantage to go second because you know what you have to get to at least tie. If the other team scores a touchdown, then you have four downs to match them. If, on the other hand, the other team fails to score (say, turns the ball over), you can play more conservatively and play for a field goal. The team on offense second winds up winning 55% of the time.This analysis is even more germane if your team is getting tired and you have no halfway good substitutes available. Stanford's defense really had gone all out to create the 4th and 18. They also stopped the initial 2 pt conversion with a maximum pass rush effort but offsetting fouls gave UCLA another chance. I am not sure Stanford had another defensive stand in them. Apparently Kelly didn't think UCLA had any more gas in the tank either or else I am pretty sure he would expect Stanford's 3 DL with no backups to fold up first. I actually think he made a mistake going for 2 because I think we were about done on defense. However, he may have had better intel on the state of his team and known they were about done too.
Because of this advantage, if the other team scores and gets the extra point, and you score, you know that if you go for the PAT and get it, you will be on offense first and thus disadvantaged (win probability of 45%), plus there is a small probability of missing the PAT. The probability of converting the 2 is about 43%, so it is about the same either way.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/295214-why-you-should-go-for-two-instead-of-a-tie-in-overtime
BC
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - terry - 12-21-2020
Not sure what was going on with Toner. The extra point that Toner missed in the first half was the first miss of his career. He had made 113 straight extra points until then. Then he knocked one in off the upright. Glad it didn't matter in the end.
lex24 - lex24 - 12-21-2020
(12-21-2020, 10:49 AM)Goose Wrote:(12-20-2020, 11:27 PM)lex24 Wrote: 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.Shaw made it clear he would prefer to kick the extra point until he can't do so by rule. He will only go for 2 when he has to. Kelly going for 2 was driven significantly (if you take him at his word) because he was running out of bodies. In other words, his ability to play "the long game" was degrading on each series faster than Stanford's was. It can be argued that when a team reaches that point, one "has to" go for 2. I think there is no question that we had momentum. We had just come back from the dead and clearly "believed". I think that if Shaw felt the same way about his team's capabilities, he would do the same. It was "now or never" for UCLA.
I would have gone for 2. Cause I didn’t see Stanford stopping UCLA . But kicking is a completely defensible decision. And in the end, Stanford did “stop” UCLA on the one play they absolutely had to. Shaw is, given the choice, going to take the “safe” route. I know many don’t like that. (And he takes it too far - 33 yard line punts coming to mind). But it has worked for Shaw. So I don’t expect that to change. Riverboat Ron he ain’t!!
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - winflop - 12-21-2020
(12-21-2020, 11:40 AM)terry Wrote: Not sure what was going on with Toner. The extra point that Toner missed in the first half was the first miss of his career. He had made 66 straight until then. Then he knocked one in off the upright. Glad it didn't matter in the end.
I think Toner's been hurt all year. The 4 misses at Oregon were not all in his head. Kudos for him to gutting it out, but he's not the only scholarship kicker on the roster. Karty has a leg and it's not like you're burning his redshirt sending him in.
It took UCLA all of 2 plays to move the ball back to where they would have gotten it with a missed FG.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - JJJ - 12-21-2020
I should read the Daily more often.
https://stanforddaily.com/2020/12/19/were-exhausted-cardinal-concludes-tumultuous-season-on-a-high-note/
lex24 - lex24 - 12-21-2020
(12-21-2020, 12:23 PM)winflop Wrote:(12-21-2020, 11:40 AM)terry Wrote: Not sure what was going on with Toner. The extra point that Toner missed in the first half was the first miss of his career. He had made 66 straight until then. Then he knocked one in off the upright. Glad it didn't matter in the end.
I think Toner's been hurt all year. The 4 misses at Oregon were not all in his head. Kudos for him to gutting it out, but he's not the only scholarship kicker on the roster. Karty has a leg and it's not like you're burning his redshirt sending him in.
It took UCLA all of 2 plays to move the ball back to where they would have gotten it with a missed FG.
But had they run those same two plays starting from the 33....
No way I would have tried a 50 yard FG with Toner not right. And that’s not the time to try a new kicker (we also have no idea of his range). To me the option was go for it or punt. Given that they were moving the ball very well at that point and this promised to be a high scoring game, I thought punting was the wrong move. Still do.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - Eucalyptus72 - 12-22-2020
Some really nice photos from Stanford-UCLA can be viewed here: link is to thumbnail previews.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - JohnR34231 - 12-22-2020
(12-21-2020, 12:31 PM)JJJ Wrote: I should read the Daily more often.
https://stanforddaily.com/2020/12/19/were-exhausted-cardinal-concludes-tumultuous-season-on-a-high-note/
A Stanford sportswriter from Berkeley. Cool.
RE: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - Mick - 12-22-2020
(12-19-2020, 08:01 PM)Treefence Wrote: Well there's a good chance Mills destroyed his draft stock with this game. Wouldn't be surprised if he was a mid round prospect going into this game, but man he's been especially horrible with those three picks.
His NFL stock dropped so much this game, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually increased the odds that he comes back next year.
lex24 - lex24 - 12-22-2020
(12-22-2020, 12:27 PM)Mick Wrote:(12-19-2020, 08:01 PM)Treefence Wrote: Well there's a good chance Mills destroyed his draft stock with this game. Wouldn't be surprised if he was a mid round prospect going into this game, but man he's been especially horrible with those three picks.
His NFL stock dropped so much this game, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually increased the odds that he comes back next year.
Actually, if I’m an NFL exec the UCLA game raised his stock. Every QB makes poor throws and/or bad decisions at times. But how does he react? Does he rebound? He did. Tremendously. And he was darn near perfect in the last 4 drives. Including some tremendous throws.