The CardBoard
What a Quality Win - 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: What a Quality Win (/thread-14503.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: What a Quality Win - BostonCard - 10-08-2017

Here's ESPN's take in their Pac-12 power rankings

http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/109844/pac-12-week-6-power-rankings-wazzu-makes-a-statement

They have Utah ranked 5th, behind UW, WSU, USC, and Stanford, which seems about right.  They note there is a big gap behind #5, which I think is reasonable, though we will see if Oregon is ultimately a bottom-half of the Pac-12 team.

Oh, and the scheduling gods hate us.  We miss the #8 and #10 teams in the list.

BC

Re: What a Quality Win - stupac2 - 10-08-2017

OF, you are seriously underrating home field. Especially in a place at altitude and with such a rabid fanbase, that place was loud. If we're at home with quiet for the offense and a functioning play clock I think it's a much easier game. You can't take road games for granted.

Re: What a Quality Win - martyup - 10-08-2017

(10-08-2017, 01:25 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:OF, you are seriously underrating home field. Especially in a place at altitude and with such a rabid fanbase, that place was loud. If we're at home with quiet for the offense and a functioning play clock I think it's a much easier game. You can't take road games for granted.

I still think that the absence of a functioning play clock is very suspicious given our propensity to snap the ball with just a few seconds remaining. 

Outsider Fan - CowboyIndian - 10-08-2017

You are EN FUEGO today! That UW thumping must have brought out your inner Bear Insider:

- Troy Williams sucks donkey balls as a QB
- I don't see Utah as a quality team
- I haven't believed Utah is a Top 25 quality team at any time since the 2017 NFL Draft
- I know you guys don't like this kind of honestly, but this is the truth

Re: What a Quality Win - DC 86 - 10-08-2017

I actually agree with OF that Utah was a very overrated team (posted this earlier in the season) and that their undefeated record was misleading. Having said that, any conference road win is a quality win and the final score was misleading as well.

Re: What a Quality Win - OutsiderFan - 10-08-2017

IT WAS A GREAT WIN FOR THE STANFORD TEAM & FANS, NO DOUBT!

In the grander scheme of college football, it wasn't a quality win.  I'm judging through the playoff lens, because this is the context in which "quality win" really means anything, and to what Stanford aspires. 

I highly doubt when UW knocks off Utah, it will be called a quality win, though in UW's case, given how weak its schedule is Utah might be the 3rd best team UW faces during the season.  Utah is probably the 7th-8th best team Stanford plays in the regular season, after UW, WSU, U$C, SDSU, UCLA, and ND, maybe even ASU.

Re: What a Quality Win - terry - 10-08-2017

(10-08-2017, 12:45 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:The last time Stanford beat a top 25 team outside of the state of California was November 2012 at Oregon.  Beating Utah in SLC was a really important win for this team.

Yeah, I saw that stat somewhere too. And I agree that it really is good to beat a ranked team on the road.

But that stat is not quite right. Stanford's last win against a ranked team outside California was when Stanford defeated #11 Arizona State in Tempe in the 2013 Pac-12 championship game.

Since then, Stanford has played four games outside California against ranked teams -- three in 2014 (at #9 Notre.Dame, at #17 ASU, and at #5 Oregon), and one in 2016 (at #10 Washington). Stanford lost those four games. So, the win at Utah broke a 4-game losing streak in games outside California against ranked teams.

But I'm not really sure why it makes sense to look only at road games outside California. A road game in California is still a road game, and it's still meaningful to win on the road.

Stanford won road games in California against ranked teams in 2014 (at #9 UCLA) and in 2015 (at #6 U-S-C). So it really hasn't been all that long since Stanford won a road game against a ranked team.

In addition, Stanford won neutral site games against ranked teams in 2015 (vs. #24 U-S-C in the Pac-12 championship) and on Jan. 1, 2016 (vs. #6 Iowa in the Rose Bowl).

Re: What a Quality Win - Goose - 10-08-2017

(10-08-2017, 02:09 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:IT WAS A GREAT WIN FOR THE STANFORD TEAM & FANS, NO DOUBT!

In the grander scheme of college football, it wasn't a quality win.  I'm judging through the playoff lens, because this is the context in which "quality win" really means anything, and to what Stanford aspires. 

I highly doubt when UW knocks off Utah, it will be called a quality win, though in UW's case, given how weak its schedule is Utah might be the 3rd best team UW faces during the season.  Utah is probably the 7th-8th best team Stanford plays in the regular season, after UW, WSU, U$C, SDSU, UCLA, and ND, maybe even ASU.
OF, I can more or less agree with all of the above except the last part. I can't agree that Utah is worse than UCLA and ASU. No way. At the moment, UCLA brings very little to the table besides Rosen. That won't be enough.  We will find out Nov. 3 I guess. ND, I really don't know. Georgia, who is legit, beat them. They won ugly against Michigan State, but they won. I won't quibble there. But the other two, I don't buy.

Re: What a Quality Win - JohnR34231 - 10-09-2017

(10-08-2017, 02:09 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:IT WAS A GREAT WIN FOR THE STANFORD TEAM & FANS, NO DOUBT!

In the grander scheme of college football, it wasn't a quality win.  I'm judging through the playoff lens, because this is the context in which "quality win" really means anything, and to what Stanford aspires. 

I highly doubt when UW knocks off Utah, it will be called a quality win, though in UW's case, given how weak its schedule is Utah might be the 3rd best team UW faces during the season.  Utah is probably the 7th-8th best team Stanford plays in the regular season, after UW, WSU, U$C, SDSU, UCLA, and ND, maybe even ASU.

Given that Washington plays Utah in Seattle, I agree with you. If they were playing in SLC I would feel different.
They have one tough road game (us). Ar least I hope we are up to making it tough for them.

Re: What a Quality Win - JohnR34231 - 10-09-2017

(10-08-2017, 01:01 PM)SeattleTree link Wrote:OF, you're entitled to believe anything you'd like about Utah. I, for one, am going to celebrate a tough road win, in conference, against a team Stanford hasn't defeated in awhile. It's not clouding my judgment to do so. But I feel no need to diminish or embellish Stanford's win. I'm just going to enjoy it.

Maybe Stanford should go after that stellar coaching staff across the Bay to correct some of the mistakes that made what should have been an easy win on the road against a ranked, undefeated but apparently unworthy and overrated conference opponent such a difficult task?  It's clearly worked for the folks across the Bay the last couple of weeks.

Actually, IMO the coaching staff across the Bay is pretty good. Give them a couple of years and I think they will turn out some quality (no matter how you choose to define that word) teams.

Re: What a Quality Win - Redrum - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 03:59 AM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=SeattleTree link=topic=17613.msg205204#msg205204 date=1507492875]
OF, you're entitled to believe anything you'd like about Utah. I, for one, am going to celebrate a tough road win, in conference, against a team Stanford hasn't defeated in awhile. It's not clouding my judgment to do so. But I feel no need to diminish or embellish Stanford's win. I'm just going to enjoy it.

Maybe Stanford should go after that stellar coaching staff across the Bay to correct some of the mistakes that made what should have been an easy win on the road against a ranked, undefeated but apparently unworthy and overrated conference opponent such a difficult task?  It's clearly worked for the folks across the Bay the last couple of weeks.

Actually, IMO the coaching staff across the Bay is pretty good. Give them a couple of years and I think they will turn out some quality (no matter how you choose to define that word) teams.
[/quote]

Yup.  We are going to miss Sonny Dykes at Kal.  Exactly like I felt when USC threw Sarkisian into substance abuse rehab and that little known assistant coach took over.

Re: What a Quality Win - CTcard - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 03:59 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Actually, IMO the coaching staff across the Bay is pretty good. Give them a couple of years and I think they will turn out some quality (no matter how you choose to define that word) teams.

I also have a generally favourable opinion of the coaches across the Bay, mostly because I like coaches who realize that defenses also have an impact on the outcome of a . However, it seems impossible for anyone to have enough information yet to understand if they really are an overall upgrade, and if so how much. Certainly not anyone who is not inside the program.


On the topic of the thread more generally, yes it is likely true that Utah will not prove to be the kind of team for which a win over them would push a team into the playoff four. But that is hardly relevant for Stanford right now. Utah is clearly the best team Stanford has beaten. They have a good defense with plenty of experience, and in particular a stout front seven, though that is coupled to a below average offense. The match up, particular against their defense, is particularly tough for Stanford. Add in the road factor, the tough past few games against them, Utah coming off a bye - and it was a very good win for this team at this moment.

Re: What a Quality Win - stupac2 - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 08:43 AM)Redrum link Wrote:Yup.  We are going to miss Sonny Dykes at Kal.  Exactly like I felt when U$C threw Sarkisian into substance abuse rehab and that little known assistant coach took over.

Eh, I think Helton is a mediocre coach. My guess is that once Darnold is gone that'll be revealed (and don't forget that Helton initially didn't go with Darnold despite voluminous reporting that he was the better QB).

Re: What a Quality Win - washingtonismoney - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 09:11 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Eh, I think Helton is a mediocre coach. My guess is that once Darnold is gone that'll be revealed (and don't forget that Helton initially didn't go with Darnold despite voluminous reporting that he was the better QB).

Yeah, Helton did bupkis with Cody Kessler (a 3rd rounder), Max Browne (admittedly mediocre)...and only started doing stuff once Darnold came on the scene. A coach at SC who can't win with a 3rd rounder QB may be many things -- a raconteur, a philanthropist, a hobbyist piano player -- but he's probably not *good.*

And even saying Helton is good with Darnold is giving Clay more credit than he deserves. Certainly the second half of 2016 was thrilling. But SC has hardly been great so far this year -- +12 ppg margin, +1.25 yards per play -- solid, rather than great, despite a top-five pick at QB and a bunch of other great players.

Re: What a Quality Win - stupac2 - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 09:16 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17613.msg205335#msg205335 date=1507565472]
Eh, I think Helton is a mediocre coach. My guess is that once Darnold is gone that'll be revealed (and don't forget that Helton initially didn't go with Darnold despite voluminous reporting that he was the better QB).

Yeah, Helton did bupkis with Cody Kessler (a 3rd rounder), Max Browne (admittedly mediocre)...and only started doing stuff once Darnold came on the scene. A coach at SC who can't win with a 3rd rounder QB may be many things -- a raconteur, a philanthropist, a hobbyist piano player -- but he's probably not *good.*

And even saying Helton is good with Darnold is giving Clay more credit than he deserves. Certainly the second half of 2016 was thrilling. But SC has hardly been great so far this year -- +12 ppg margin, +1.25 yards per play -- solid, rather than great, despite a top-five pick at QB and a bunch of other great players.
[/quote]

Right, I think people here overrate them because they shellacked us, but I think there are two things about that game:

1) Darnold and his receivers played out of their minds that game. There were hardly any miscues, and this defense isn't good enough to consistently get stops when that happens. U$C has mostly not played that well against anyone else. Lucky us.

2) We played badly on both sides of the ball.

When you get that combination, yeah the other team is going to look good. But it's not terribly surprising to me that they've come down from that high, it's just too damn bad that we're the team they put it all together against.

Re: What a Quality Win - BostonCard - 10-09-2017

Also, darnold seems to have regressed this year.  To what extent that is helton’s fault, I don’t know, but it does make one wonder what USC would do without a first round QB.

Then again, this is USC, and they will get some darned good players.  Helton may not be a great coach, but he is better than his two predecessors, i’m afraid (low bar, to be fair).  I expect USC to contend for the pac-12 south every year, even if they are not routinely competing for the CF playoff, which is good enough to make them a threat to us.

BC

Re: What a Quality Win - Goose - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 09:55 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Also, darnold seems to have regressed this year.  To what extent that is helton’s fault, I don’t know, but it does make one wonder what U$C would do without a first round QB.
I am not sure Darnold has regressed. Last year, he had some stellar athletes at receiver, many of whom were experienced, and a good offensive line. This year he has neither. I am not saying the receivers aren't good, but they are a notch below. The line isn't as good, and right now is injured. Last year Darnold threw many passes that he shouldn't. His receivers caught them. This year, they get intercepted. What I have been saying for some time on this board is that his team made him look better than he was, and that he sometimes made bad decisions under pressure. That is still true. I think a more valid criticism is that Darnold hasn't matured under Helton. I also think the U$C offense has lacked scheme. They rely on their athletes. Against us, they played light's out, and it worked. Against WSU they didn't/got hurt. It didn't work.
Quote:Then again, this is U$C, and they will get some darned good players.  Helton may not be a great coach, but he is better than his two predecessors, i’m afraid (low bar, to be fair).  I expect U$C to contend for the pac-12 south every year, even if they are not routinely competing for the CF playoff, which is good enough to make them a threat to us.

BC
Sadly, you are probably correct. Helton can be just "average" and U$C will be a threat. However, average probably won't cut it with the alumni after a couple of years, so it won't be a problem for long. We can then hope they screw up the next hire. Perhaps they can save a few bucks by recycling the last two Dean's of the medical school?