The CardBoard
Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - 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: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 (/thread-10741.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - winflop - 11-22-2015

(11-22-2015, 09:49 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:Could have been me.

Watching Goff carve up our Defensive Backs with 5 yard outs throughout the 3rd quarter tested my patience.  Yes, I could see the "keep the play in front of you with no RAC" strategy but it looked darn risky when Ca.l made its run.  Press coverage has worked against Low APR U this season and our team needed a stop.

Low APR U's "run" was as much a function of Shaw's bad decision to punt on 4th & 1 near midfield.  Given that the Stanford defense was allowing them to move the ball almost at will between the 20s, what did it matter whether they got the ball at midfield or their own 20?  Not much.  However, if Stanford had converted that 4th down, it could have continued to march down the field and keep a bigger scoring margin that never would have allowed the Weenies to get within a single score.

Also keep in mind that "run" was back-to-back scoring drives.  Not like they ran off 17 straight or anything.

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - jacketree - 11-23-2015

Yeah, I was arguing in the game thread that with the BBDB strategy, Stanford should never punt.

Won't be seeing that again this Saturday.

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - winflop - 11-23-2015

I don't know about never, but 4th & <2 against a porous run defense like that absolutely NEVER.  UDFG's run defense will be a different challenge, but I think 4th & <2 will be ripe for play action against any future opponents.  Fake the Remound dive over the top and somebody is gonna be WIDE open.

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - Stymie - 11-23-2015

(11-23-2015, 06:56 AM)winflop link Wrote:I don't know about never, but 4th & <2 against a porous run defense like that absolutely NEVER.  UDFG's run defense will be a different challenge, but I think 4th & <2 will be ripe for play action against any future opponents.  Fake the Remound dive over the top and somebody is gonna be WIDE open.

That is far too obvious for the under-intellectualizing/risk-averse coaching staff.

+1

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - stupac2 - 11-23-2015

(11-23-2015, 06:56 AM)winflop link Wrote:I don't know about never, but 4th & <2 against a porous run defense like that absolutely NEVER.  UDFG's run defense will be a different challenge, but I think 4th & <2 will be ripe for play action against any future opponents.  Fake the Remound dive over the top and somebody is gonna be WIDE open.

Cal actually did a decent job defending those. Granted we converted all of them, IIRC, but some were really close. Then again, I believe that was a "4th and <1 yard" which you'd think would be automatic, so I was perplexed by punting there too. I guess Shaw figured we were the better team so no need to take risks, though as you say the way we were defending it didn't seem to matter much.

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - fullmetal - 11-23-2015

(11-23-2015, 06:56 AM)winflop link Wrote:I don't know about never, but 4th & <2 against a porous run defense like that absolutely NEVER.  UDFG's run defense will be a different challenge, but I think 4th & <2 will be ripe for play action against any future opponents.  Fake the Remound dive over the top and somebody is gonna be WIDE open.

Hush...our future bowl opponent shouldn't be tipped off ;)

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - yvonne - 11-23-2015

Because we can't get enough of this

https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/668826535000846336

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - BostonCard - 11-23-2015

(11-23-2015, 06:56 AM)winflop link Wrote:I don't know about never, but 4th & <2 against a porous run defense like that absolutely NEVER.  UDFG's run defense will be a different challenge, but I think 4th & <2 will be ripe for play action against any future opponents.  Fake the Remound dive over the top and somebody is gonna be WIDE open.

You know, like we did against Colorado?

BC

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - Mick - 11-23-2015

(11-23-2015, 07:35 AM)Stymie link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=13704.msg143170#msg143170 date=1448286972]
I don't know about never, but 4th & <2 against a porous run defense like that absolutely NEVER.  UDFG's run defense will be a different challenge, but I think 4th & <2 will be ripe for play action against any future opponents.  Fake the Remound dive over the top and somebody is gonna be WIDE open.

That is far too obvious for the under-intellectualizing/risk-averse coaching staff.

+1
[/quote]


And while we're on that topic, we may as well have done an onside kick every time.  When teams aren't expecting an onside kick, the success rate is 60%, but it's still 20% when they are expecting it.

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - jacketree - 11-23-2015

(11-23-2015, 06:56 AM)winflop link Wrote:I don't know about never, but 4th & <2 against a porous run defense like that absolutely NEVER.  UDFG's run defense will be a different challenge, but I think 4th & <2 will be ripe for play action against any future opponents.  Fake the Remound dive over the top and somebody is gonna be WIDE open.

I wasn't thinking about Stanford's offense with my never punt comment, but rather its defense.  If you are going to essentially give the other team all they want to your own 20 before tightening up, you might as well never punt since the odds would be in your favor.  Time of possession isn't as important as what you do with those possessions, as the Oregon and California games both demonstrated.

I don't think we will see the same strategy on Saturday, but I do like the idea of play action out of the Ogre on 3rd and short.

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - Spiny_Norman - 11-23-2015

(11-23-2015, 01:38 PM)jacketree link Wrote:I don't think we will see the same strategy on Saturday, but I do like the idea of play action out of the Ogre on 3rd and short.

Who could Hogan throw to?  In short yardage situations, Stanford has pulled all the WRs and TEs and added three offensive linemen - Davidson, Bright and Fanaika.  Are any of them eligible receivers? 

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - CompSci87 - 11-23-2015

(11-23-2015, 02:03 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=jacketree link=topic=13704.msg143243#msg143243 date=1448311092]
I don't think we will see the same strategy on Saturday, but I do like the idea of play action out of the Ogre on 3rd and short.

Who could Hogan throw to?  In short yardage situations, Stanford has pulled all the WRs and TEs and added three offensive linemen - Davidson, Bright and Fanaika.  Are any of them eligible receivers?
[/quote]

Do they really pull all the backs and TEs for OLs normally? In the Colorado game when Hogan threw from the goal line formation off play action,  Schultz had stayed in at one TE and he was the target.

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - winflop - 11-23-2015

(11-23-2015, 02:03 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=jacketree link=topic=13704.msg143243#msg143243 date=1448311092]
I don't think we will see the same strategy on Saturday, but I do like the idea of play action out of the Ogre on 3rd and short.

Who could Hogan throw to?  In short yardage situations, Stanford has pulled all the WRs and TEs and added three offensive linemen - Davidson, Bright and Fanaika.  Are any of them eligible receivers?
[/quote]

If the defense commits all 11 to stop the run, it doesn't matter who's out there.  But just to be safe I would put Schultz or Hooper in there.

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - Spiny_Norman - 11-23-2015

(11-23-2015, 03:27 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Do they really pull all the backs and TEs for OLs normally? In the Colorado game when Hogan threw from the goal line formation off play action,  Schultz had stayed in at one TE and he was the target.

In this ogre or hippo formation, you see Schultz as an eligible receiver on the right side of the line.  Yes, that is exactly what they ran vs. Colorado.

https://twitter.com/JB_Long/status/658715244760436737

But I recall some plays vs. C.al that I thought had another lineman subbing for Schultz.  Stanford lined up Hogan, Marx, Wright and a lineman in the backfield with 7 OLs on the line.  I'll confirm when Pac 12 Network replays the game this evening.

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - winflop - 11-23-2015

Yes sometimes they go with 8OL instead of 7 + TE

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - Leftcoast - 11-23-2015

I sit five rows behind the team on Stanford's side of the field with the O-Line in front of me.  Due to the number restrictions for linemen and eligible receivers 1-2 players need to change jerseys when we run the jumbo package.  Rather than change jersey alone the team changes pads as well and there are always 3-4 pad/jersey combos with alternate numbers prepped and sitting behind the O-Line benches. 

Jersies are tightly fit over pads to eliminate opportunities for grabbing/holding so changing the whole set is probably easier than pulling on and off a tightly fit jersey .... but it's still not easy.  The player usually has two or three coaches and assistants helping to get the pads off, new set on and straps adjusted.  All of this within the constraints of a quickly ticking play clock.



Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - winflop - 11-23-2015

Yep I saw this at the Fiasco bowl when I sat five rows behind the Stanford bench.  It takes a village to make a Heavy Jumbo.