FB -- Notre Dame 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: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread (/thread-25185.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: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread (/thread-25185.html)
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - Spiny_Norman - 10-12-2024
Results vs. Notre Dame
2018 - Notre Dame 38, Stanford 17
2019 - Notre Dame 45, Stanford 24
2020 - no game
2021 - Notre Dame 45, Stanford 14
2022 - Stanford 16, Notre Dame 14
2023 - Notre Dame 56, Stanford 23
2024 - Notre Dame 49, Stanford 7
This "rivalry" has been very one-sided for some time. Stanford is not really competitive with Notre Dame. Maybe it's just as well that the series ended today, at least for the foreseeable future.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - SkiBum80 - 10-12-2024
Pretty discouraging situation
I didn’t expect a win today but was hoping for a more competitive game
The few good plays we had were washed away by mistakes & bad plays
The injury situation isn’t good and seems getting worse not better
With the vague hope that Brown returns soon, which seems a slim straw to grasp onto
Injuries to RB’s and DB’s especially concerning
While yes surely we still should have a good chance for a win vs Wake, my impression is with this situation nothing is assured
And yes another win or two is possible
Long ago, at end last season and seeing recruits and transfers coming in, I said a 2 win season this year would be a disaster.
And that is still on the table
And that a 3-win season, which now might be the most likely outcome, would be like barely treading water.
And you know you only can tread water for so long before you go under
A 4-win season, still possible, of course, but likely?
Even with achieving that, which might be an optimistic thought at this point, it would achieve the smallest possible step to be able to claim with any believability that the team is improving, is moving forward
I’m hoping for better days and I’ll still be a supportive fan but right now is pretty bleak.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - old spanish trail - 10-12-2024
I agree, Metal. There's a chance, I think a good chance, we will see significant improvement with Brown.
Question: Why do we insist on putting ourselves behind the 8 ball by going for 4th and 5 near midfield throughout the first half in many games? The D is better than the O, especially with an injured OL.
Oh well, I await Brown.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - CardinalSagehen - 10-12-2024
(10-12-2024, 08:59 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Pretty discouraging situation
I didn’t expect a win today but was hoping for a more competitive game
The few good plays we had were washed away by mistakes & bad plays
The injury situation isn’t good and seems getting worse not better
With the vague hope that Brown returns soon, which seems a slim straw to grasp onto
Injuries to RB’s and DB’s especially concerning
While yes surely we still should have a good chance for a win vs Wake, my impression is with this situation nothing is assured
And yes another win or two is possible
Long ago, at end last season and seeing recruits and transfers coming in, I said a 2 win season this year would be a disaster.
And that is still on the table
And that a 3-win season, which now might be the most likely outcome, would be like barely treading water.
And you know you only can tread water for so long before you go under
A 4-win season, still possible, of course, but likely?
Even with achieving that, which might be an optimistic thought at this point, it would achieve the smallest possible step to be able to claim with any believability that the team is improving, is moving forward
I’m hoping for better days and I’ll still be a supportive fan but right now is pretty bleak.
Now, now. Let's not get too discouraged. There can be a tendency to overreact after a tough loss like this one.
Nah, I'm just kidding, we totally suck.
If I ever again feel compelled to keep watching a game in which we're down 6 touchdowns and our second-string QB needs three tries on the same series to hit wide-open receivers in the right flat who are just a few yards directly in front of him... please, do me a favor and slap me.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - newguy - 10-12-2024
does anyone have any info on Levi Rogers' injury?
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - CardinalSagehen - 10-13-2024
(10-12-2024, 11:18 PM)newguy Wrote: does anyone have any info on Levi Rogers' injury?
I saw him walk off the field on the play where he was hurt vs. Virginia Tech. Then I saw him walking to the locker room a little gingerly but under his own power. After the game, I read here or elsewhere that he was wearing a boot on one foot/ankle in the second half. The boot suggests an ankle sprain to me although it could be worse. The medical team also put a boot on Ashton Daniels when he was hurt toward the end of the Clemson game, and he practiced this week and played today. That was probably an ankle sprain.
To me, there’s hope that Rogers might return sometime soon based on the fact that he made that long walk to the locker room. That said, the least optimistic factor was the level of evasiveness from TT in last Tuesday’s press conference when asked about Rogers. He had no updates on Rogers.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - Maple Leaf - 10-13-2024
(10-12-2024, 05:00 PM)gailtate Wrote: The woebegone plight that is Stanford Football at this moment should be no shock to anyone who's been paying attention since 2018, if not a few years before. It sure as hell is no sudden out-of-the-blue collapse. The trainwreck has been in process for some time. What we're looking at today is the sum of multiple seasons of smug complacence and inattention, manifest in obliviousness as to best practices on how to keep what was once a genuinely elite program (read: staff) in good repair (see Nick Saban et.al.) year in and year out. Season after season of jaw-dropping personnel decisions and conceit speak for themselves. The chickens came home to roost.
agree 1000%, that said I think the chickens entered the transfer portal sometime ago and are roosting some place else.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - needle - 10-13-2024
(10-12-2024, 09:01 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: I agree, Metal. There's a chance, I think a good chance, we will see significant improvement with Brown.
Question: Why do we insist on putting ourselves behind the 8 ball by going for 4th and 5 near midfield throughout the first half in many games? The D is better than the O, especially with an injured OL.
Oh well, I await Brown.
The D gave up three TD runs of 15+ yards, and the secondary is now a shell of itself with Green and Manley both out, plus injuries in the Notre Dame to Aaron Morris and Mitch Leigber. (Did Leigber return? A Stanford Daily article says no, but I thought I saw him out there again.)
But to your point...
Stanford offense No. 129 (out of 134 ranked teams) in points per play, per TeamStats.
Stanford defense No. 120 in points per play allowed, same data source.
So, I guess you are correct, old spanish trail.
EDIT: Just because their name gets invoked a lot on this message board: Wake Forest is No. 87 in points per play and No. 110 in points per play allowed. Who, again, is going to be the favorite when Stanford plays Wake Forest?
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - JohnR34231 - 10-13-2024
Well, one more buttkicking in store (against SMU) and then we start playing some teams that we might actually have a chance of beating. Well, maybe not Louisville.
Didn't think we had much of a chance against ND, but I kept telling myself that's what I thought two years ago and look what happened.
It will be interesting to see if Brown can make a difference when he gets in there. I worry a little about the fact that he is used to playing with physically superior teams and won't be now.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - MV72018 - 10-13-2024
(10-13-2024, 05:39 AM)needle Wrote:(10-12-2024, 09:01 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: I agree, Metal. There's a chance, I think a good chance, we will see significant improvement with Brown.
Question: Why do we insist on putting ourselves behind the 8 ball by going for 4th and 5 near midfield throughout the first half in many games? The D is better than the O, especially with an injured OL.
Oh well, I await Brown.
The D gave up three TD runs of 15+ yards, and the secondary is now a shell of itself with Green and Manley both out, plus injuries in the Notre Dame to Aaron Morris and Mitch Leigber. (Did Leigber return? A Stanford Daily article says no, but I thought I saw him out there again.)
But to your point...
Stanford offense No. 129 (out of 134 ranked teams) in points per play, per TeamStats.
Stanford defense No. 120 in points per play allowed, same data source.
So, I guess you are correct, old spanish trail.
EDIT: Just because their name gets invoked a lot on this message board: Wake Forest is No. 87 in points per play and No. 110 in points per play allowed. Who, again, is going to be the favorite when Stanford plays Wake Forest!
You already KNOW the answer to that question: Wake Forest, clearly. 2 and 10 looks quite possible if not likely. Didn’t TT crow that we had improved a lot this year, “in all three phases”? LOL.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - newguy - 10-13-2024
(10-13-2024, 12:00 AM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:(10-12-2024, 11:18 PM)newguy Wrote: does anyone have any info on Levi Rogers' injury?
I saw him walk off the field on the play where he was hurt vs. Virginia Tech. Then I saw him walking to the locker room a little gingerly but under his own power. After the game, I read here or elsewhere that he was wearing a boot on one foot/ankle in the second half. The boot suggests an ankle sprain to me although it could be worse. The medical team also put a boot on Ashton Daniels when he was hurt toward the end of the Clemson game, and he practiced this week and played today. That was probably an ankle sprain.
To me, there’s hope that Rogers might return sometime soon based on the fact that he made that long walk to the locker room. That said, the least optimistic factor was the level of evasiveness from TT in last Tuesday’s press conference when asked about Rogers. He had no updates on Rogers.
thanks for that. hopefully he'll be back in time for Wake.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - Goose - 10-13-2024
(10-13-2024, 08:08 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: It will be interesting to see if Brown can make a difference when he gets in there. I worry a little about the fact that he is used to playing with physically superior teams and won't be now.Totally agree. Obviously he is aware of the limitations the receivers and OL have, but until you are out there actually experiencing it you don't really know what adjustments you must make and what you can realistically expect. Your "play clock" will be different for sure.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - Goose - 10-13-2024
Stanford went for it on fourth down four times during the game. They succeeded once.
1) 13:37 in the 2nd quarter, fourth and one at the ND 49. Lamson ran three yards for a first down. Score was 7-7.
2) 11:13 in the 2nd quarter, fourth and five at the ND 41. Daniels sacked for a seven yard loss. Score still 7-7.
3) 3:54 in the 2nd quarter, fourth and three at the ND 44. Daniels pass incomplete. Score was 14-7.
4) 4:51 in the 4th quarter, fourth and two at the ND 43. Lamson sacked for a four yard loss. Score was 49-7.
To be clear, no matter what Stanford did on these downs the path to victory (at the time) was either very narrow or non-existent.
All these attempts took place in "no man's land". A field goal from the ND 41 has to travel 58 yards. That isn't absolutely impossible, but it is a low-probability outcome. A punt from the 41 will most probably gain about 30 yards in field position. If it goes into the end zone it will be less. From further back a punt should gain expected yards pretty linearly. For those reasons going for it on fourth down becomes a consideration.
IMO the second and third attempts were very, very "questionable". The second was ill-advised because of the need to get five yards. Stanford's average yards per play in this game was 3.4. It wasn't even a 50/50 event. At the time the score was tied and Stanford had moved the ball fairly well. We weren't desperate. College teams make mistakes frequently. These mistakes often "kill" drives. Long drives are therefore difficult to execute. Giving your opponent a "short" field to work with is a very bad idea. The "bend but don't break" defense has less opportunity for the opponent to stop themselves. These factors IMO argued very strongly to punt the ball. Daniels getting sacked for a loss of seven wasn't a directly foreseeable event but it wasn't exactly a surprise either. ND of course scored on the ensuing possession. Going for it on fourth down didn't "cause" that, but it sure made it a lot easier for ND.
The third attempt was very questionable for somewhat different reasons. The distance was three yards. That was a bit better than a 50/50 shot based on YPP. There were some psychological arguments in favor of going for it. ND had fumbled and given Stanford the ball near midfield. Stanford undoubtedly wanted to capitalize on the "short field" and score a TD to tie the game. The counter-arguments to that psychology are that the wheels had started to come off the Stanford offense. The previous possession had ended in a 3 and out. In the current possession Daniels had been forced to scramble twice. The third down play was a designed run by Daniels that was stopped for no gain. We weren't moving the ball, period.
At that point in time, our "expected yards per play" wasn't good. We needed to regroup. There was 3:54 remaining in the half. We were only behind by 7. Punt the ball and bet that ND can't go 85-90 yards. At that moment the match-up of the ND offense vs the Stanford defense was much better than visa-versa. We didn't punt and ND took 2:37 to go the 56 yards to score. Had we done so ND would have needed to go say 86 yards, which perhaps they couldn't. Time could have also become a factor. In summary, three yards was way too far given how we were playing and making ND drive the entire field possibly would have got us out of the half trailing only by 7.
The first time we went for it on fourth down IMO it was "aggressive but reasonable". Of course, that opinion is influenced by the fact it was successful :-). The two main considerations making it "reasonable" are 1) we only needed a yard and 2) our offense had gone down the field and scored a touchdown fairly readily. Lamson has shown repeatedly he can find a crack and get a yard. It isn't asking much and the chance of success could be rated as "very high". Our offense was also playing better than most of us expected. We were on a bit of a roll and wanted to stay on it. I wouldn't have been outraged had we punted. We were just barely over the 50. The field would be quite short had we failed. Either choice would have been "reasonable" IMO.
The fourth time was basically after the game was over. We were behind 49-7 with 4:51 remaining. It didn't matter what we did.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - CardinalSagehen - 10-13-2024
(10-13-2024, 05:39 AM)needle Wrote: The D gave up three TD runs of 15+ yards, and the secondary is now a shell of itself with Green and Manley both out, plus injuries in the Notre Dame to Aaron Morris and Mitch Leigber. (Did Leigber return? A Stanford Daily article says no, but I thought I saw him out there again.)
I caught up to a recording of the first half by skipping between the plays, but I didn't notice Leigber getting hurt at all. He was definitely on the field in the second half and recorded a tackle.
The other injury was to backup DB Omari Porter. So we are down Green, Manley, Morris, and Porter. Other than QB, I'd say our defensive backfield was already the weakest and thinnest position group on the team, and now it's just laughably thin. Maybe we have some WRs that played DB in high school. Trying to defend SMU with very inexperienced corners (with Wright at the nickel) and nobody to spell them is going to be an adventure.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - SamuelMcF - 10-13-2024
(10-13-2024, 12:11 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: The other injury was to backup DB Omari Porter. So we are down Green, Manley, Morris, and Porter. Other than QB, I'd say our defensive backfield was already the weakest and thinnest position group on the team, and now it's just laughably thin. Maybe we have some WRs that played DB in high school. Trying to defend SMU with very inexperienced corners (with Wright at the nickel) and nobody to spell them is going to be an adventure.
Recall that we cut 4 DBs over the off-season because they were that much worse than what we currently have.
We have also been down S Che Ojarikre, who is out for the season, this whole time.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - MV72018 - 10-13-2024
(10-13-2024, 01:13 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(10-13-2024, 12:11 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: The other injury was to backup DB Omari Porter. So we are down Green, Manley, Morris, and Porter. Other than QB, I'd say our defensive backfield was already the weakest and thinnest position group on the team, and now it's just laughably thin. Maybe we have some WRs that played DB in high school. Trying to defend SMU with very inexperienced corners (with Wright at the nickel) and nobody to spell them is going to be an adventure.
Recall that we cut 4 DBs over the off-season because they were that much worse than what we currently have.
We have also been down S Che Ojarikre, who is out for the season, this whole time.
When a team suffers a large number of serious injuries, questions are sometimes raised about that team's physical trainer and his training strategy. Of course, it could be just bad luck, but maybe not. Anyone have a perspective on that?
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - msqueri - 10-13-2024
I will save my highest confidence injury takes for after the season but my basic thought right now is that we aren’t experiencing an unusual amount of injuries but rather notice them more because we suck.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - Goose - 10-13-2024
(10-13-2024, 02:48 PM)msqueri Wrote: I will save my highest confidence injury takes for after the season but my basic thought right now is that we aren’t experiencing an unusual amount of injuries but rather notice them more because we suck.Agree. Since we suck and have no depth it is almost assured the replacement players will suck even more, possibly lots more. That calls attention to the injuries.
RE: FB -- Notre Dame Game Thread - martyup - 10-13-2024
(10-13-2024, 03:16 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-13-2024, 02:48 PM)msqueri Wrote: I will save my highest confidence injury takes for after the season but my basic thought right now is that we aren’t experiencing an unusual amount of injuries but rather notice them more because we suck.Agree. Since we suck and have no depth it is almost assured the replacement players will suck even more, possibly lots more. That calls attention to the injuries.
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2FbGr5p...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2FbGr5pLCTNvQAAAAC%2Fwelcome-to-the-suck-olya.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=688d1359ff1ab92aa092a736cc2955bfcf75ef81dc8300099c4cdfa55c13cf19&ipo=images)