The CardBoard
Blogging with the Trojans - 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: Blogging with the Trojans (/thread-12641.html)

Pages: 1 2

Blogging with the Trojans - Hank 91 - 09-16-2016

I couldn't find anyone from Kansas State to help with a preview last week, so here's the season's first Blogging with the Enemy. Good stuff.

http://www.gomightycard.com/2016/09/blogging-with-the-enemy-usc-trojans.html

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - fullmetal - 09-16-2016

Wow...even the diehards seem to have woken up.  (Spoiler: she predicted against U$C.)

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - Extra Point - 09-16-2016

Thank you Hank! I really appreciate your blogging with the enemy articles.

Is there a U$C site somewhere where you responded to similar questions?

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - CompSci87 - 09-16-2016

(09-16-2016, 06:24 PM)Extra Point link Wrote:Thank you Hank! I really appreciate your blogging with the enemy articles.

Is there a U$C site somewhere where you responded to similar questions?

Hank has the link to it in his article.  Here it is. http://reignoftroy.com/2016/09/16/usc-vs-stanford-2016-qa-go-mighty-card/

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - CTcard - 09-16-2016

Interesting read.

Still, I am going to take issue with your rivalry statements.

Quote:It's hard to imagine that the U[$]C Trogans have become one of Stanford's biggest rivals.

No it's not. They have been so since they started playing in 1905. An important enough rivals that both sides insisted on messing up the Pac 12 scheduling to insist upon continuing to play every year.

Quote:sorry, Cal, but Big Game has lost its luster

I know many feel this way, but I never will. Traditional rivals are traditional rivals, and $C and c.a.l. are firmly entrenched as two of three members of the axis of evil. 


Other items of interest,
Quote:I don't think the Trojan defense will be able to contain the Stanford offense

So far, I don't see much evidence that there is anything in particular to contain. In teejers style yds/game stat, Stanford is 126 out of 128 in Division 1. Yeah, that isn't a good way to do offense stats, and yeah right now these are determined at least as much by whom you have played as who you are - but there's nothing impressive about the offense so far.

I do have hope that will start to change.


Quote: [Reign of Troy]
the Cardinal will win 24-10.

Seems the Trojans are particularly unenthusiastic about their offense right now.
What's the O/U?
I'm starting to think another low scoring game.


And my apologies if I am being too picky, but I think it's an interesting point. From your interview on Reign of Troy,
Quote:With his [Burns'] size and strength he could be a real weapon, and the offense ran a few read-option plays against Kansas State to exploit that.

While Stanford ran several plays that nominally looked like inside and outside read-options, I am not sure that Burns was actually reading anything. The only time he appeared to even think about keeping the ball was the fumble. For the game, Burns had 4 official carries - the fumble, one scramble for 4 yards, and two sacks.

However, it looked to me as if the proper read on several of those plays would have been for Burns to keep the ball, so I am hoping to see that a few times this weekend and going forward.

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - washingtonismoney - 09-16-2016

(09-16-2016, 08:16 PM)CTcard link Wrote:While Stanford ran several plays that nominally looked like inside and outside read-options, I am not sure that Burns was actually reading anything. The only time he appeared to even think about keeping the ball was the fumble.

Burns would've had a nice gain had he kept on that play, too. A shame.

Anyway, I have my own nitpick of the interview: the ridiculous idea that SC was somehow in control of the game "well into the second quarter." SC kicked a field goal on the opening drive off of a single bomb, and then the game devolved into a slugfest. The following SC drives:

10 plays, 48 yards (4.8 ypp)
3 plays, 0 yards
3 plays, -3 yards
3 plays, -8 yards
3 plays, 0 yards

Then Alabama scored its first TD and the avalanche began. Of course Alabama's drive chart up to that point would look little better. But the fact that the teams were barely different belies the idea that SC had the game under control.

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - CompSci87 - 09-16-2016

It was similar to their usual level of institutional control.

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - BostonCard - 09-16-2016

(09-16-2016, 08:49 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15680.msg171371#msg171371 date=1474082175]
While Stanford ran several plays that nominally looked like inside and outside read-options, I am not sure that Burns was actually reading anything. The only time he appeared to even think about keeping the ball was the fumble.

Burns would've had a nice gain had he kept on that play, too. A shame.

Anyway, I have my own nitpick of the interview: the ridiculous idea that SC was somehow in control of the game "well into the second quarter." SC kicked a field goal on the opening drive off of a single bomb, and then the game devolved into a slugfest. The following SC drives:

10 plays, 48 yards (4.8 ypp)
3 plays, 0 yards
3 plays, -3 yards
3 plays, -8 yards
3 plays, 0 yards

Then Alabama scored its first TD and the avalanche began. Of course Alabama's drive chart up to that point would look little better. But the fact that the teams were barely different belies the idea that SC had the game under control.
[/quote]

I don't think anyone really thought SC was in control.  It was more like "SC 'hung with' Alabama through the second quarter"

BC

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - washingtonismoney - 09-16-2016

(09-16-2016, 09:13 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I don't think anyone really thought SC was in control.  It was more like "SC 'hung with' Alabama through the second quarter"

Quote:...Alabama played up for USC because it was such a marquee match up and Lane Kiffin used to opportunity to pile on his former program, producing a dramatic scoreline which probably wouldn't have been so big if not for the personal connections. That the Trojans were actually in control of the game well into the second quarter.

To be fair, it's presented as an alternate potential view of the game (that the blogger doesn't necessarily believe), but it's a very aggressive view of the game. Your hypothetical view is, I think, the most plausible pro-SC argument possible.

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - BostonCard - 09-16-2016

As far as the rivalry is concerned, yes we always looked at USC as rivals, but for many years, it was more of an aspirational rivalry than a true rivalry.  It's only in the last 10 years that it has become a really competitive, hard fought rivalry, where most games are close (especially a recent stretch through 2014).

Fox has a piece on the 7 most iconic games of the recent (Harbaugh/Shaw vs. Carroll/Kiffin/Orgeron/Sarkisian/Helton) era, which is when the rivalry has really flourished.  Darned, that's a lot of coaches since 2007.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/gallery/usc-stanford-game-time-preview-tv-history-david-shaw-andrew-luck-lane-chiffon-091616

BC

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - CTcard - 09-16-2016

(09-16-2016, 09:22 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:As far as the rivalry is concerned, yes we always looked at University of Seventh Choice as rivals, but for many years, it was more of an aspirational rivalry than a true rivalry.  It's only in the last 10 years that it has become a really competitive, hard fought rivalry, where most games are close (especially a recent stretch through 2014).

It's not that I didn't understand what he meant.

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - Spiny_Norman - 09-16-2016

I am anxious about the game because it feels oddly like last year's game at the Coliseum with the roles reversed.  The Trojans were riding their high preseason expectations and two wins over Sun Belt teams.  They and their fans were confident.  Stanford fans were concerned that the offense still was misfiring like it had in 2014. We had little reason to expect that Stanford would roll up 470 yards, go 8-12 on 3rd downs and score 41 points.  It was a shocking road victory that served as the springboard for the rest of the season.

U.S.C is a dangerous opponent as an underdog.  And Clancy Pendergast defenses at UW and U.S.C have had success against Stanford in the recent past. This will be a tough game.

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - washingtonismoney - 09-17-2016

(09-16-2016, 10:57 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:University of Seventh Choice is a dangerous opponent as an underdog.  And Clancy Pendergast defenses at UW and University of Seventh Choice have had success against Stanford in the recent past. This will be a tough game.

Wilcox was at Washington (and gave Stanford a lot of trouble.) Pendergast was at cal (and never troubled Stanford there). Here's Pendergast's work against Stanford:

2010 Big Game: 48 points surrendered, 6.77 yards per play. Stanford averaged 40 points and 6.71 ypp. Pendergast "meh."

2011 Big Game: 31 points surrendered, 6.14 ypp. Stanford averaged 43 ppg and 6.8 ypp. Book this as a solid performance for Pendergast -- it was a close game, so the defense was just good enough to give cal a chance. On the other hand, Stanford was coming off the Oregon loss and was, at the time, missing tons of players. Hard for me to give Pendergast *that* much credit.

2012 Big Game: 21 points surrendered, 6.09 yards per play. This was deep in the Nunes era -- it's about the average offense performance for Stanford under Nunes. No points to Pendergast.

2013 SC: 17 points surrendered, 5.62 ypp. Again, another game after an emotional performance versus Oregon -- have long felt that Gaffney looked a bit tired, as did the rest of the defense. On the other hand, if I recall correctly, SC's depth was facing a major crunch in that game and they played like 13 players total all game. (Not at the same time.) We'll give some points to Pendergast.


Overall it's hard to say Pendergast had some special skill or voodoo for Stanford. He's a good defensive coordinator, however, and if the offense doesn't play well, SC can shut it down.

"Want More Trojans?" (Promo on USC site) - Redrum - 09-17-2016

In my dreams

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - shinsengumi - 09-17-2016

(09-16-2016, 10:57 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:It was a shocking road victory...

On that note, I was quite surprised to see that Stanford has much more success on the road in this series. Probably going to add to my nerves even more tonight.

Series: Stanford trails, 31-60-3 (.346)
At Stanford: Stanford trails, 10-34-2 (.239)
At USC: Stanford trails, 19-26-1 (.424)
Neutral: Stanford leads, 2-0 (1.000)

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2016/9/1/usc-series-fb16.aspx


Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - BostonCard - 09-17-2016

I think the moral of that story is to play every year at a neutral site.

BC

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - Hank 91 - 09-17-2016

I know it's blasphemy to declare this game to be more interesting than Big Game, but a lot of that probably has to do with geography. Because I live in Southern California, not only do I go to the game at the Coliseum every other year, I hear from Trjan fans on a daily basis -- friends, co-workers, students, people on the street wearing their gear. Remember the heartbreaker in 2013? Walking out of the Coliseum I ran into two teachers from my children's elementary school, and they laughed at me. Seriously. Meanwhile, I only know and have contact with two Cal alums, my sister and my nephew, whom I love, and (warning: more blasphemy ahead) I haven't been to Big Game since 1998. Finally, it doesn't help that Cal is awful.

So here's how I rank Stanford opponents in terms of anticipation for the game:
1. U.S.C.
2. N.D.
3. Oregon
4. Cal

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - washingtonismoney - 09-17-2016

I can't remember where I first heard this cliche, but adapted to Stanford purposes: I love to beat SC and ND; I hate to lose to cal.

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - SUBuddha - 09-18-2016

My family raised me with this mantra in Husky territory during the Dirty Don James era:

The Huskies are our nemesis, Cal is our Rival, U$C is the enemy, but above all else ND is just evil.

Re: Blogging with the Literature's Most Famous Losers - SamAtoms1980 - 09-18-2016

(09-16-2016, 10:57 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:I am anxious about the game because it feels oddly like last year's game at the Coliseum with the roles reversed.  The Literature's Most Famous Losers were riding their high preseason expectations and two wins over Sun Belt teams.  They and their fans were confident.  Stanford fans were concerned that the offense still was misfiring like it had in 2014. We had little reason to expect that Stanford would roll up 470 yards, go 8-12 on 3rd downs and score 41 points.  It was a shocking road victory that served as the springboard for the rest of the season.

I'd be inclined to say that this was more like the 2014 game with the roles reversed.  We mangled their offense when points were on the line, and we took all of what their defense gave us