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 - BostonCard - 11-22-2015

I thought it was a Jet Sweep, but we had nobody in motion at the snap.  What's amazing about the play is that we faked power to the right, which meant we had a pulling lineman away from the play and the fullback blocked away from the play, which meant we had only two play-side blockers.  If you look at it, there are four Cal defenders, but Love just outruns them, picks up 1 1/2 blocks (Garnett whiffs, but the defender has to hurdle him and by then Love has blown by).

BC

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

(11-22-2015, 12:35 AM)garvin link Wrote:Tonight had plenty of upside -- we won the division title while forcing the 59ers to ingest about a hundred pounds of fecal artifacts. But this is the second game in a row where our offense has looked iffy against a crummy-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt defense, and also the second in a row where the massive fault lines in our defense were exposed. The ESPN guys kept insisting that Shaw had a brilliant defensive game plan, to play well off the receivers and give up short passes in front while cutting off big ones behind. I guess that was the plan, but I don't know how brilliant it was. Eliminate the bad wave-off of the 59er touchdown in the first half and the brain-dead late hit in the second -- neither of which were created by our defense -- and we might have been looking at a 35-33 game. To me, that sounds more like luck than strategy.

Make that the third time in four games.  Only against the second worst team in the Pac-12 (Colorado) did we win convincingly (which is probably more than SC could say last week).  We are not firing on all cylinders, but good teams find a way to win despite that.

Still with or without Prosise, Notre Dame is going to be a big challenge.

BC

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - JohnR34231 - 11-22-2015

Yeah, I'm happy to get the victory, but the game didn't give me a lot of warm fuzzies as to how we are going to do against a really good team that doesn't shoot itself in the foot consistently. USB is presumably that team, although they didn't look like it against BC.

Take away the 49 yards that CMac got on the screen pass, and Hogan threw for less than 50 yards on the evening. Not, as the announcers pointed out, a recipe for success against the Domers.

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - M T - 11-22-2015

My impression of the game (from TV, not in person) was that Shaw had a strategy of winning with a minimum of risk.  To Shaw, this game may have been bigger than a Big Game.  Lose this, and we might not win the North.  Out goes the Rose Bowl (and any prayer of anything more).    A number of people here felt particularly anxious about this game.  Maybe Shaw saw Cal as a dangerous opponent that needed to be defeated, even if the win wasn't particularly gaudy.  I believe he minimized risk on both offense and defense.

At 21-6 by half, the important point was to avoid Cal getting quick scores. I believe Shaw was just fine to let Cal be the team that drained the clock.  Stanford's defense fought a battle of attrition throughout the second half:  the defense dropped well off the line.  I think the D is better at tackling than defending passes.  The important thing was to avoid quick Cal scores and let the clock drain.  Cal's longest pass play was the 31 yard pass for the meaningless score at the end of the game.

I went back and watched some of the early defense, when Stanford was up 7-0.  Our defenders were right up on the line rather than giving so much room.  We also almost gave up big gains on passes, but they weren't caught.

Once Stanford got the second touchdown, Cal was within a single touchdown only once.  That was short lived as Stanford's next possession resulted in a touchdown.

--------

I presume Shaw was as conservative on the offense in the second half for the same reason.  Passes can turn into quick scores by the opponent.  Even though passing may increase the effectiveness of your offense, why risk it if you're two scores ahead?  (As it was, Hogan threw a late pass that I thought should have been intercepted.)

So, while Garvin is concerned that "But this is the second game in a row where our offense has looked iffy against a crummy-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt defense, and also the second in a row where the massive fault lines in our defense were exposed," I see it as a tour-de-force of the coaching staff.  Maybe in the next game, the offense & defense will have to play with more risk & reward.  In this game, they just held the little kid at arm's length so they didn't get hit.

--------

The TV announcers made a big deal of Cal's time of possession, but when you're behind, your own ToP isn't terribly important.  If anything, it is counter-productive.
------

Regarding the pass that was ruled incomplete, which Garvin thought should have been a touchdown, the TV feed (and so I presume the review officials) had excellent video of the play (both of the ball coming out and the receiver's feet).  The TV feed didn't carry the announcement by the officials, and the announcer first said one thing that made it sound like the call was allowed to stand and then something that made it seem like it was confirmed.  I don't know the rules here, so I'll accept their judgement.

----------

I watched Sports Center talk about the game.  I wondered whether one guy was trying to play the straight man, or just really was that ignorant, when he said  "McCaffery does everything for them but throw the ball.".  But they cut to a commercial, so if the speaker was setting it up for a comment by the other announcer, the setup was for naught.

---------
One announcer (Chris Spielman) wondered why McCaffery was still on the field just before the end of the game.  Dave Flemming had just announced that the 23-yard run had given him the Stanford record for most total yardage in a single game.  Yes, it was a risk, but I expect the one play he ran will help in his Voldemort Trophy hunt.  Certainly it has to feel good to all that this record came in the Big Game.  (Can you imagine how we would moan if the coach had held him out, with less than 20 yards to break the record?)


Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - JohnR34231 - 11-22-2015

(11-22-2015, 07:57 AM)MT link Wrote:My impression of the game (from TV, not in person) was that Shaw had a strategy of winning with a minimum of risk.  To Shaw, this game may have been bigger than a Big Game.  Lose this, and we might not win the North.  Out goes the Rose Bowl (and any prayer of anything more).    A number of people here felt particularly anxious about this game.  Maybe Shaw saw Low APR U as a dangerous opponent that needed to be defeated, even if the win wasn't particularly gaudy.  I believe he minimized risk on both offense and defense.

At 21-6 by half, the important point was to avoid Low APR U getting quick scores. I believe Shaw was just fine to let Low APR U be the team that drained the clock.  Stanford's defense fought a battle of attrition throughout the second half:  the defense dropped well off the line.  I think the D is better at tackling than defending passes.  The important thing was to avoid quick Low APR U scores and let the clock drain.  Low APR U's longest pass play was the 31 yard pass for the meaningless score at the end of the game.

I went back and watched some of the early defense, when Stanford was up 7-0.  Our defenders were right up on the line rather than giving so much room.  We also almost gave up big gains on passes, but they weren't caught.

Once Stanford got the second touchdown, Low APR U was within a single touchdown only once.  That was short lived as Stanford's next possession resulted in a touchdown.

--------

I presume Shaw was as conservative on the offense in the second half for the same reason.  Passes can turn into quick scores by the opponent.  Even though passing may increase the effectiveness of your offense, why risk it if you're two scores ahead?  (As it was, Hogan threw a late pass that I thought should have been intercepted.)

So, while Garvin is concerned that "But this is the second game in a row where our offense has looked iffy against a crummy-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt defense, and also the second in a row where the massive fault lines in our defense were exposed," I see it as a tour-de-force of the coaching staff.  Maybe in the next game, the offense & defense will have to play with more risk & reward.  In this game, they just held the little kid at arm's length so they didn't get hit.

--------

The TV announcers made a big deal of Low APR U's time of possession, but when you're behind, your own ToP isn't terribly important.  If anything, it is counter-productive.
------

Regarding the pass that was ruled incomplete, which Garvin thought should have been a touchdown, the TV feed (and so I presume the review officials) had excellent video of the play (both of the ball coming out and the receiver's feet).  The TV feed didn't carry the announcement by the officials, and the announcer first said one thing that made it sound like the call was allowed to stand and then something that made it seem like it was confirmed.  I don't know the rules here, so I'll accept their judgement.

----------

I watched Sports Center talk about the game.  I wondered whether one guy was trying to play the straight man, or just really was that ignorant, when he said  "McCaffery does everything for them but throw the ball.".  But they cut to a commercial, so if the speaker was setting it up for a comment by the other announcer, the setup was for naught.

---------
One announcer (Chris Spielman) wondered why McCaffery was still on the field just before the end of the game.  Dave Flemming had just announced that the 23-yard run had given him the Stanford record for most total yardage in a single game.  Yes, it was a risk, but I expect the one play he ran will help in his Voldemort Trophy hunt.  Certainly it has to feel good to all that this record came in the Big Game.  (Can you imagine how we would moan if the coach had held him out, with less than 20 yards to break the record?)

Concerning the Kal TD pass that the officials ruled against, I remember a similar call on a TD pass for us that went in our favor and won the game for us in the 90's against Colorado (back in the days when the Buffs were good). Don't know if the rules have changed since then, but assuming they haven't, if that pass was ruled a TD, Kal's certainly should have been.

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

A few thoughts.

While it certainly didn't feel super effective, in non-garbage time our offense scored TDs on 4/7 possessions, averaged 6.5 ypp running and 8.0 ypp passing, only had one three-and-out, and those punts mostly gave Cal bad field position (9, 10, and 34 yard lines). Is that the best offensive performance ever? Not really, but Cal's defense isn't hot garbage any more. Even taking out McCaffrey's return TD (which was probably the biggest play in the game, turning it from a 1-score game at half into a two-score game) we still outscored Cal's offense. We might not beat ND with that performance, but it also wasn't a performance that was trying to beat ND.

I was definitely getting pissed off during the game about the bend-don't-break in the second half, but I sort of get it. We had a big lead, the clock is Cal's enemy, and we had been great in the red zone (Cal got one non-garbage-time TD on 4 trips). So the plan of "make them take forever to get down the field, then stop them" mostly worked. Sure, more punts would've been nice, but it's hard to argue with the result.

Also, one feature of "bend don't break" is that it gives the opponent a ton of opportunities to make a mistake. Sure, Cal isn't going to shoot themselves in the foot on any given play, but if you make them have to make 10, 12, 15 plays to get down the field, the odds of ursine foot-shooting increase asymptotically to 1. As we saw, it only takes one bone-headed penalty to scuttle a drive and blow open the game. It's not horribly surprising that we eventually got it.

Finally, I didn't get a good look at the incompletion Garvin thought should be a catch, but those sort of quick plays are tough. From the description it sounds like that wouldn't be a TD in the NFL, so it's not shocking to me that it was left incomplete after review. Maybe we got lucky with the initial call on the field, but that happens. I don't think we got the best of the referee luck tonight, though maybe we did, it was at least pretty close.

Oh, one amusing note. The loudest the stadium booed (besides at Cal players entering/exiting the field) was after the blown PI non-call on Cajuste (IIRC). The second-loudest they booed was when the refs added 6 seconds back onto the clock on Cal's penultimate drive. I found that funny.

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

Prevent defense the whole game. Guess our coaches think our db are slow.  :(

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

(11-22-2015, 12:35 AM)garvin link Wrote:Eliminate the bad wave-off of the 59er touchdown in the first half and the brain-dead late hit in the second -- neither of which were created by our defense -- and we might have been looking at a 35-33 game. To me, that sounds more like luck than strategy.

1. I wouldn't call it a bad wave off. It appears to me to be consistent with how such plays are called. There is a judgement as to just when a receiver has established "firm control" - and in this case there didn't seem to be much question in the mind of the backjudge. We don't really know if there was much question in the mind of the replay official other than clearly not enough to overturn in a case where the TV footage was 100% clear.

2. The brain-dead late hit turned a third and 10 into a second and 25. Either would be a fairly tough conversion - neither impossibly difficult. [5 yds per play needed vs about 8 yds/play]
EDIT (courtesy of stupac): That would  be turned a third and 10 into a third and 25. Still both are tough conversions - but the comparison changes a lot.

In either case, particularly the latter, the issue is one of tactics rather than strategy.
Given that both plays actually did happen, Stanford responded by deciding that the only way c.a.l. could win was if they managed quick scores - which we prevented.


It doesn't lead to exciting football, or more annoyingly, it didn't allow for a satisfying pounding of the rival - which I hated last night. But, it's a little hard to say it was wrong in any absolute sense when it worked.
[And it worked in a way that wasn't really a near-thing. The last time c.a.l. had possession of the ball within one score was in the middle of the second quarter.]

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

(11-22-2015, 09:06 AM)DC link Wrote:Prevent defense the whole game. Guess our coaches think our db are slow.  :(


I thought our DBs were as overmatched as I'd ever seen.  If we'd tried to crowd the WRs at the line, we would have been annihilated.

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

(11-22-2015, 09:39 AM)CTcard link Wrote:2. The brain-dead late hit turned a third and 10 into a second and 25. Either would be a fairly tough conversion - neither impossibly difficult. [5 yds per play needed vs about 8 yds/play]

Actually it was a dead ball foul, so it turned 3rd and 10 into 3rd and 25. They got 10 yards on 3rd then went for it on 4th and 15 and got nothing.

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

(11-22-2015, 07:57 AM)MT link Wrote:My impression of the game (from TV, not in person) was that Shaw had a strategy of winning with a minimum of risk.  To Shaw, this game may have been bigger than a Big Game.  Lose this, and we might not win the North.  Out goes the Rose Bowl (and any prayer of anything more).    A number of people here felt particularly anxious about this game.  Maybe Shaw saw Low APR U as a dangerous opponent that needed to be defeated, even if the win wasn't particularly gaudy.  I believe he minimized risk on both offense and defense.

At 21-6 by half, the important point was to avoid Low APR U getting quick scores. I believe Shaw was just fine to let Low APR U be the team that drained the clock.  Stanford's defense fought a battle of attrition throughout the second half:  the defense dropped well off the line.  I think the D is better at tackling than defending passes.  The important thing was to avoid quick Low APR U scores and let the clock drain.  Low APR U's longest pass play was the 31 yard pass for the meaningless score at the end of the game.

I went back and watched some of the early defense, when Stanford was up 7-0.  Our defenders were right up on the line rather than giving so much room.  We also almost gave up big gains on passes, but they weren't caught.

Once Stanford got the second touchdown, Low APR U was within a single touchdown only once.  That was short lived as Stanford's next possession resulted in a touchdown.

--------

I presume Shaw was as conservative on the offense in the second half for the same reason.  Passes can turn into quick scores by the opponent.  Even though passing may increase the effectiveness of your offense, why risk it if you're two scores ahead?  (As it was, Hogan threw a late pass that I thought should have been intercepted.)

So, while Garvin is concerned that "But this is the second game in a row where our offense has looked iffy against a crummy-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt defense, and also the second in a row where the massive fault lines in our defense were exposed," I see it as a tour-de-force of the coaching staff.  Maybe in the next game, the offense & defense will have to play with more risk & reward.  In this game, they just held the little kid at arm's length so they didn't get hit.

--------

The TV announcers made a big deal of Low APR U's time of possession, but when you're behind, your own ToP isn't terribly important.  If anything, it is counter-productive.
------

Regarding the pass that was ruled incomplete, which Garvin thought should have been a touchdown, the TV feed (and so I presume the review officials) had excellent video of the play (both of the ball coming out and the receiver's feet).  The TV feed didn't carry the announcement by the officials, and the announcer first said one thing that made it sound like the call was allowed to stand and then something that made it seem like it was confirmed.  I don't know the rules here, so I'll accept their judgement.

----------

I watched Sports Center talk about the game.  I wondered whether one guy was trying to play the straight man, or just really was that ignorant, when he said  "McCaffery does everything for them but throw the ball.".  But they cut to a commercial, so if the speaker was setting it up for a comment by the other announcer, the setup was for naught.

---------
One announcer (Chris Spielman) wondered why McCaffery was still on the field just before the end of the game.  Dave Flemming had just announced that the 23-yard run had given him the Stanford record for most total yardage in a single game.  Yes, it was a risk, but I expect the one play he ran will help in his Voldemort Trophy hunt.  Certainly it has to feel good to all that this record came in the Big Game.  (Can you imagine how we would moan if the coach had held him out, with less than 20 yards to break the record?)


Terrific post, MT.  Agreed on all points.  I don't think  there's any such thing as style points in a win of this nature.  We won by 13, let's be happy.

I thought Shaw's game plan was superb, and I don't give a rip about ToP, that's a highly overrated statistic.  I don't mind if a UCB WR gets 150 yards receiving with 0 TDs.  I thought the announcers were particularly ill informed about Stanford, McCaffrey, etc.

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

Any photos of Scarlett with the Axe? Someone with a BI account needs to get that posted over there.

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

(11-22-2015, 10:55 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Any photos of Scarlett with the Axe? Someone with a BI account needs to get that posted over there.

Stanford social media went all-in on trolling the 59ers on this point. TO WIT:

https://twitter.com/DjMosDev/status/668325795895472128

https://twitter.com/treeSIDjorge/status/668330673074102272

https://instagram.com/p/-YnXz2Cciu/

(Note the end of the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx47d3ytkU8)

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

How about hearing from Brennan Scarlett in person.  Be sure to watch the video too.  Coach Shaw appears to have had some special words for Scarlett in the post game locker room address.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOU76wz1NT8

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

Is Scarlett doing C-House in that top photo?

Re: Final: Stanford 35, weenies 22 - Bruce Wang - 11-22-2015

The message from Scarlett's participation should be "If you can't beat us, join us."  I wonder if this will get some other players thinking about the same opportunity.

Anybody else notice the Kal female fan/cheerleader reaction shots to CMac in the highlights?  They melted at the sight of him.  The cheerleaders giving him a look up and down was priceless.



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

Yeah, some good trollage out there...

https://twitter.com/LSJU97/status/668326628989112320

https://twitter.com/PacoTorresCA/status/668332537337376768

https://twitter.com/maeubanks/status/668361943082668034

https://twitter.com/GoMightyCard/status/668324682328768512

Nice one Hank.

BC

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

(11-22-2015, 10:55 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Any photos of Scarlett with the Axe? Someone with a BI account needs to get that posted over there.

All over Facebook.

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

Stat of the night - Jared Goff 7.1 YPA

Lance Anderson's bend don't break defensive gameplan was executed to near perfection.  A spread offense without a running game allows the pass coverage to keep the receivers in front of them and prevent over the top throws until they get in the red zone.  Once inside the 20, there's almost no over the top threat any more and the DBs can play tighter press coverage.

I think Goff only tried to go over the top 2 or 3 times last night, and was incomplete every time.

Yes Low APR U racked up all kinds of yardage - but almost all of it was between the 20s.

I was laughing inside at the buffoons sitting 2-3 rows above me.  Every time Goff completed a 10-yard pass they were yelling "oh come on" or worse.  By halftime I realized that they know as much (little) about college football as I do about field hockey.  It troubles me a little that I used to think they knew some of what they were talking about.

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

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 Cal this season and our team needed a stop.