This team will never win a natty - 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: This team will never win a natty (/thread-14681.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: This team will never win a natty (/thread-14681.html)
This team will never win a natty - norcard - 10-26-2017
Not with Shaw at the helm. Ever. Idiotic stubborn coaching. QB plays like crap all game and yet he stays the course
Re: This team will never win a natty - stupac2 - 10-26-2017
If you can see the future you should really use it for better things than this.
Re: This team will never win a natty - norcard - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 09:12 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:If you can see the future you should really use it for better things than this.
It doesnt take a prescient psychic to see whats going on. And youre right, I have better things to do than to subject myself to this offensive torture
Re: This team will never win a natty - Mick - 10-26-2017
Oh, i think he could. He'd need a better QB coach, QB recruit and OC, but I think he could do it.
Re: This team will never win a natty - norcard - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 09:24 PM)Mick link Wrote:Oh, i think he could. He'd need a better QB coach, QB recruit and OC, but I think he could do it.
He has mills but hopefully that talent is not wasted
Re: This team will never win a natty - SamuelMcF - 10-26-2017
Duh. Why would you expect it to? No team will win a natty that isn't Bama/Clemson/Ohio State for the foreseeable future. Let's enjoy the renaissance of being relevant in the PAC-12. I'll keep watching Katie and the Ledeckies singlehandedly keep our natty streak alive for another 3 years and pull us ahead of UCLA for most all-time.
Re: This team will never win a natty - Trevmiesterj - 10-26-2017
Stanford doesn't, EVER, refer to it as "The Natty". That is for Oregon fans.
I suggest you post there.
Re: This team will never win a natty - Stymie - 10-26-2017
If Coach Shaw would step aside and focus on recruitment whilst we hired a passionate Head Coach like the OSU guy today, we have a chance. But probably no chance if $5.6mm is involved.....
Re: This team will never win a natty - washingtonismoney - 10-26-2017
Well of course he can. Gene Chizik won a national championship, fer heaven's sake. Shaw's put out playoff-quality teams in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. In 2014 the team had the talent but was waylaid in large part by the sad situation with Hogan's father. (Also, in large part, Shaw's poor coaching that year.)
So it's silly to declare he can't. Let's just give you this example to demonstrate why not: http://thecomeback.com/freezingcoldtakes/ncaaf/clemsons-dabo-swinney-is-one-of-the-best-today-but-in-2010-2011-some-wanted-him-gone.html
And I don't think the harsh critiques of Dabo back in the day were entirely unearned! The thing about Dabo, though, is that he's always been extremely and effectively adaptable. Shaw is...less so. Like the old Churchill line, he sometimes gets around to doing the right thing after all the other options are exhausted.
Re: This team will never win a natty - ChicagoCard - 10-26-2017
I suspect he posts under a different name on a UW fan board.
Re: This team will never win a natty - norcard - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 09:32 PM)Trevmiesterj link Wrote:Stanford doesn't, EVER, refer to it as "The Natty". That is for Oregon fans.
I suggest you post there.
You must be LSJU class of circa pre-2000
Re: This team will never win a natty - norcard - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 09:35 PM)ChicagoTree link Wrote:I suspect he posts under a different name on a UW fan board.
A small minority of us here are millenial stanford alums you know
Re: This team will never win a natty - OutsiderFan - 10-26-2017
Nothing illustrates the lack of imagination in the offense than throwing four straight fade routes, for the TD, and three attempts at a 2pt conversion. Really? That's all you have? Where are the slants? The play action passes? The roll-outs? The sprint draws?Â
Re: This team will never win a natty - Trevmiesterj - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 09:37 PM)norcard link Wrote:[quote author=ChicagoTree link=topic=17793.msg208460#msg208460 date=1509078940]
I suspect he posts under a different name on a UW fan board.
A small minority of us here are millenial stanford alums you know
[/quote]
millennial brah.
Re: This team will never win a natty - norcard - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 09:35 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Well of course he can. Gene Chizik won a national championship, fer heaven's sake. Shaw's put out playoff-quality teams in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. In 2014 the team had the talent but was waylaid in large part by the sad situation with Hogan's father. (Also, in large part, Shaw's poor coaching that year.)
So it's silly to declare he can't. Let's just give you this example to demonstrate why not: http://thecomeback.com/freezingcoldtakes/ncaaf/clemsons-dabo-swinney-is-one-of-the-best-today-but-in-2010-2011-some-wanted-him-gone.html
And I don't think the harsh critiques of Dabo back in the day were entirely unearned! The thing about Dabo, though, is that he's always been extremely and effectively adaptable. Shaw is...less so. Like the old Churchill line, he sometimes gets around to doing the right thing after all the other options are exhausted.
We got lucky despite coaching tonight - we were literally coaching to maximize the other opponents chance of winning. Yes chizick sucked but he didnt try to sandbag games this bad. See UDub with Nunez or this game or others with very questionable game management
Re: This team will never win a natty - cardcrimson - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 09:38 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Nothing illustrates the lack of imagination in the offense than throwing four straight fade routes, for the TD, and three attempts at a 2pt conversion. Really? That's all you have? Where are the slants? The play action passes? The roll-outs? The slants? The sprint draws?
Agree completely, though just ask Petey how that slant works on the goal line.
Re: This team will never win a natty - washingtonismoney - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 09:38 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Nothing illustrates the lack of imagination in the offense than throwing four straight fade routes, for the TD, and three attempts at a 2pt conversion. Really? That's all you have? Where are the slants? The play action passes? The roll-outs? The slants? The sprint draws?
This didn't bother me too much, actually. Arcega-Whiteside and Parkinson are genuinely good on those plays, and ... do you really want Chryst executing anything else? You do not.
Of course, this prompts the question, "Why is Chryst playing at all?" And this is a question I cannot answer.
Re: This team will never win a natty - CompSci87 - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 09:38 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Nothing illustrates the lack of imagination in the offense than throwing four straight fade routes, for the TD, and three attempts at a 2pt conversion. Really? That's all you have? Where are the slants? The play action passes? The roll-outs? The slants? The sprint draws?
Not really the best illustration. OSU couldn't stop that play other than via blatant pass interference.
On the other hand I suppose it was a good tactic for OSU to keep interfering on the conversion attempt until Stanford missed one.
Re: This team will never win a natty - ChicagoCard - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 09:37 PM)norcard link Wrote:[quote author=ChicagoTree link=topic=17793.msg208460#msg208460 date=1509078940]
I suspect he posts under a different name on a UW fan board.
A small minority of us here are millenial stanford alums you know
[/quote]
You're a Millennial? Don't like 'em.
Re: This team will never win a natty - gocard14 - 10-26-2017
(10-26-2017, 09:38 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Nothing illustrates the lack of imagination in the offense than throwing four straight fade routes, for the TD, and three attempts at a 2pt conversion. Really? That's all you have? Where are the slants? The play action passes? The roll-outs? The slants? The sprint draws?
To be fair, the fade to our big guys has been a >50% play for us this year. After 2 PIs and the ball on the half yard line, Id rather we just pound it in though. The problem is at that point the D.B. has no incentive not to play very aggressively, if he makes a play, great, if he draws another PI, the ball moves 9 inches.