The CardBoard
There's got to be a morning after... - 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: There's got to be a morning after... (/thread-15140.html)

Pages: 1 2

There's got to be a morning after... - Langdude - 12-02-2017

...if we can hold on through the night.
We have a chance to find the sunshine;
Let's keep on looking for the light.

Stupid Poseidon.

Anyway, here's some thoughts after sleeping fitfully:

1) Folks said that it would be Stanford brawn vs. SC athleticism. I don't think it played out exactly like that, but there is something to it. There were several times that our DBs or LBs got juked out of first-down saving tackles or lost yardage. And some of our DBs and LBs seemed to have trouble covering athletic receivers and backs. Now, that's not unusual; lots of teams had trouble doing that against SC this year! But if we are going to be elite, we have to cover elite backs and receivers. And frickin' finish tackles. Anyway, all that to say that I wonder if our DBs are really as great as we thought they'd be.

2) The pass rush. When their backup RG went in, I had a good feeling that we were going to be able to get to Darnold. And it seemed toward the end of the 1H that I was right. But then, in the second half, we didn't pressure as much. We only had one sack. In a 3-4, unless you are blitzing, it is the OLBs that pressure the QB, whichever one is free, while the opposite side DL contains. The OLBs don't have to be world-class fast, but they have to be strong and smart. Think Chase Thomas. Anyway, we didn't get much pressure from Kalambayi and Tyler and Alfieri. Of course, some of that has to do with SC's OL, of course. And Darnold is really good.

3) Our WRs and TEs (except Kaden). I just don't know. Irwin, one catch. Schultz, one catch. Stewart, a critical drop. Parkinson, invisible. JJAW shut out in 2H. Not sure if this is scheme or gameplan. But we can't just rely on our WRs being taller than DBs. We also have to, you know, get open.

4) I'll refrain from second-guessing play calling, but I will say that, here and there, we should perhaps play-action or QB scramble/run (if we have an athletic QB, which we do) when they have an 8-man box rather than run into it between the tackles so our injured all-world RB can get 2 yards. The TV commentators remarked that Stanford is horrible on first down. For the most part, we all know exactly what Stanford is going to run on first down. Against SC, we do not have the personnel to do it.

5) I can't believe we had a DL with Solomon Thomas AND Harrison Phillips. Wow. So ... is Phillips a second-rounder yet? First? In this game, DL was not the problem. Kudos to Dub-H, Swann, and Dylan Jackson, who has been under-rated. I think a DL next year of Swann, Jackson, and Michael Williams will be fair, but no depth at all.

6) I agree with other posters that we missed Barton more than Holder. I also think our OL played pretty well, actually. Point taken that we have trouble with weakside pressure, but that is not the fault of the OL. Weakside backer, if not picked up by an uncovered tackle, is the responsibility of the back - or the QB to audible if scheme/play is wrong. This is why we often play multiple TEs. (And, speaking of which, this game shows why we will miss Schultz so badly. What TE is going to block? Not Parkinson.)

7) Looks like Scarlett is going to be our feature back next year and not Speights. I have been pleasantly surprised by his development second half of this year.

8.) I think we lost this game not because of officiating (which was not good), not because of SC's bye or a short week (though they were more rested), but for two main reasons, and I reserve the right to be wrong. First, we gave up chunk plays, and that, in turn, is for three reasons: 1) no rush allows play to develop; 2) missed tackles; 3) blown coverage to athletic receivers. And second, we did not convert a TD with excellent field position (which, really, we had no reason to have given YPP disparity), and I think that was because ... USC was better. First-and-goal inside the 10, we really need to be Stanford and get a few yards running the ball. And, if not, then we need to play-action to TE. That's our game. They defended it. Game over.

9) I so wanna hate Helton, but he's the first non-douche USC coach in as long as I can remember.

10) Great game! I love rooting for our team and coaches, in all their excellence and flaws. I look forward to doing so one more game this year.

-m.

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - Phogge - 12-02-2017

Great post. God love Al Davis. You have to knock the QB down.

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - French Rage - 12-02-2017

Also, and maybe this was covered in the game thread, but it was cool seeing the kid win the $100K scholarship.

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - Snorlax94 - 12-02-2017

Langdude,
Great post and I agree with most of your sentiments.

The one difference I’d say is why they got those chunk plays and why we missed those tackles, and I think the disparities in prep time played a role.

Yes, USC’s receivers got open, caused penalties, and got an obscene amount of YAC due to missed tackles. I was thinking about it, and yes, especially late in the season, we should be making those tackles.

But we’re also supposed to get to prep for each team. With a full week before USC, I’d imagine we’d have more time to recognize and prepare for their routes and we could conduct more drills tackling big, fast receivers in space. On the flipside, USC has extra time to add new plays when we didn’t even have the normal prep time for their old plays.

We played a top ten Washington, then played a rivalry game against a team that had two weeks to prepare, then a top ten Notre Dame, then had a short week to prepare for a top 10 USC team that had two weeks to prepare.

It’s not intended as an excuse. You wanna be a champion, you gotta win regardless of the circumstances. But it’s context. I was frustrated USC receivers got so open, Stanford missed so many tackles, USC got so many YAC, and USC occasionally stuffed some bread-and-butter signature Stanford plays, but I recognize there was a ridiculous disparity in prep time.

Imagine if Stanford had two weeks to add new plays, and our opponent had just completed that gauntlet and had a short week to prepare for our power run and tall pass game combo. We’d probably make that defense look like paper.


Re: There's got to be a morning after... - pcgoode - 12-02-2017

A few thoughts:

1. Kaden Smith is going to be a beast next year.

2. Justin Reid didn’t have a great game. He got beaten a number of times in pass coverage. Lots of talent, but I think he could clearly use another year of college ball before he goes to the NFL.

3. Okereke has really blossomed this year. Hoping he returns next year with a healthy Barton.

4. We are going to miss Phillips big time. DL is going to be a big question make going into next season.

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - cctop - 12-02-2017

(12-02-2017, 11:47 AM)Langdude link Wrote:...AND Harrison Phillips. Wow. So ... is Phillips a second-rounder yet? First?

Before the game someone on the radio crew (John Platz?) said Phillips is being talked about as a late first-rounder.

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - lex24 - 12-02-2017

Great stuff.

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - teejers1 - 12-02-2017

Didn't see the whole game due to NY client obligations, but did see most of the 2H.  The territory is well-covered in these parts.  The D was the bigger problem yesterday (though I agree with Lex that the 2H D seemed good enough to win).

But my main difference with (what appears to be) the prevailing mood is on the fourth and goal.  Forget about second-guessing the play calls leading up to that point (maddening in their own right).  Bur real time, when third down was stopped a yard short, I said "kick the FG" immediately and loudly.  And it's not a "conservative" vs. "aggressive" thing, it's a "I know the play Shaw will call on fourth down (as will everyone else), and the chances of it getting stuffed are greater than 50%."  Admit it, you all knew that was coming.  I mean, why do you think the edge rusher got there so quickly?  Because he ALSO knew what we all knew.  It's just so predictable and so frustrating.

Another reason to kick the FG:  maintain a sense of momentum by tying the score.  No guarantee Stanford wins in (or even gets to) OT, but I think the whole momentum/tenor of the game would have been different had Stanford tied it in Q4.

BTW, agree that Shaw had to challenge the lateral pass ruling; and that refs mysteriously upheld the erroneous call.

Maybe some day I'll "see the wisdom" in running into the teeth of a stacked defense, subjecting the best/most explosive player to more tacklers in a tighter space (and greater risk of shenanigans in pileup tackles).  It just seems that perhaps getting Love in space (even a straight pitch sweep) would be at least as effective.

Bottom line:  you can say SC played better and "deserved" to win, but only if you also acknowledge the game was "right there" for Stanford to take itself.  Maybe it's because I watched only 2H action, but SC didn't look like the appreciably better team to me.  They did look like the team that did not make as many defensive mistakes (and of course had a more varied offense - the teams' respective fourth down calls really says it all).

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - Snorlax94 - 12-02-2017

Teejers,
I did consider a path along the same lines you suggest, and I think it’s a reasonable criticism.

For my own part, now the day after, I lean toward agreeing with Shaw’s call.

1) first of all, this had the feel of that old triple overtime game, but this time we don’t have luck. We needed the lead. I feel like we lose a tie game in overtime. Or, given a shot at overtime or given the odds of converting a 2 yarder on 4th, I’d take the run.

2) second, my feeling was that the run game was getting stronger and stronger. I felt the momentum and the surge. And on watching the replay, running into the teeth of the defense was not the problem. The left o line won and drove their opponents back and the endzone was there for the taking.

3) there’s some criticism of that specific call because we’ve been denied short conversions that way before. On the one hand, if the o line splits on the right side were just two inches wider each, maybe Scarlett makes it. Or maybe if the qb gets a chip block, maybe we make it. But also recall Love had just hobbled out. Maybe they’d practiced this with Love and Love has the lower center of gravity, faster speed, and faster play mechanics to make it (the handoff could take a split second longer to Scarlett) but because Love was hurt, we had to plug in whoever was next, and the play ends up taking a tiny fraction of a second too long.

Also many uninformed Cardinal fans screaming during our offense, which could hurt the timing and aid the defense, was not helpful either.

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - Hey - 12-02-2017

I completely agree that Helton is the first non-douche coach in a long time. Same is probably true for Lynn Swann and Athletic Coordinators. I'm glad this finally happened.

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - winflop - 12-02-2017

U$C's big players were largely the result of bad plays by Stanford defenders. Reid & Perez were the most culpable but there were others, and when more than one or two players have a bad game, I look for other factors. In this case I point to the schedule disadvantage. Not only does Stanford have one less week to prepare but it's shortened by a stupid decision to have the game on Friday night vs. Saturday.

I'll have to just fundamentally disagree with this post. I think the root causes for Stanford's loss are
1. Pac-12 refs
2. Pac-12 scheduling
3. Shawgren

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - Langdude - 12-02-2017

(12-02-2017, 02:03 PM)winflop link Wrote:U$C's big players were largely the result of bad plays by Stanford defenders. Reid & Perez were the most culpable but there were others, and when more than one or two players have a bad game, I look for other factors. In this case I point to the schedule disadvantage. Not only does Stanford have one less week to prepare but it's shortened by a stupid decision to have the game on Friday night vs. Saturday.

I'll have to just fundamentally disagree with this post. I think the root causes for Stanford's loss are
1. Pac-12 refs
2. Pac-12 scheduling
3. Shawgren

And you could be fundamentally right!

-m.

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - dabigv13 - 12-02-2017

I think before those factors you have to put SC playing a heck of a game.

I don't think we were the better team last night, as close as we came to winning it. Maybe the schedule is a part of it, but they played a heck of a game against us last time too.

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - Langdude - 12-02-2017

(12-02-2017, 02:31 PM)dabigv link Wrote:I think before those factors you have to put SC playing a heck of a game.

I don't think we were the better team last night, as close as we came to winning it. Maybe the schedule is a part of it, but they played a heck of a game against us last time too.

Yeah, I think that's the point I was trying to make. Dbigv's points could be compatible with mine as well. IOW, refs, sked, and playcalling could be the reasons that we gave up chunk plays and didn't convert the TD. (Though I would personally suggest that, if we were the better team, we should have done so, even with the refs, sked, and playcalls.)

-m.

This one hurts more - lex24 - 12-02-2017

For some reason this one keeps bugging me. More than any game they have lost during this run. Probably cause I value the Pac 12 Championship above all. And it was SC. And there were so many plays that could have changed the outcome.

Silly I know.  It’s a game .  And I’m just a fan.

Re: This one hurts more - Embo - 12-02-2017

That's why we're called fanatics.

We'll always find something we'll rue.  To have taken the lead in the fourth would have been brought delirium to this fan.  But I had nightmares of OT at ND 2012 in mind.  No, not four straight plunges .... 

Disappointed, yes.  Fortunately, I was able to sleep last night.  I couldn't say the same after the Fiesta Bowl January 2012.  Victory was there and it was given away.  Tossed and turned all night.

I'll be back for the 2018 season.  And optimistic.

Re: This one hurts more - dabigv13 - 12-02-2017

I'll be honest. If the Rose Bowl was on the line, I would've cared a lot more.

Fiesta Bowl? Alamo? Holiday? Of those three, I may actually go to the Holiday. I loathe losing to the Trojans, and winning the P12 would have been nice, but I think we were lucky to even be there. I've put this loss out of my mind quicker than the OSU "win".

Re: This one hurts more - VFRing98 - 12-02-2017

(12-02-2017, 03:22 PM)lex24 link Wrote:For some reason this one keeps bugging me. More than any game they have lost during this run. Probably cause I value the Pac 12 Championship above all. And it was SC. And there were so many plays that could have changed the outcome.

Silly I know.  It’s a game .  And I’m just a fan.

I’m with you. Last night I was ok, but there’s a cloud over today that Xmas decorating with the kids couldn’t even lift. I need to re-examine my life I think...

The game was there for the taking. And it’s $C.

Re: There's got to be a morning after... - 81alum - 12-02-2017

(12-02-2017, 01:48 PM)Snorlax94 link Wrote:3) there’s some criticism of that specific call because we’ve been denied short conversions that way before. On the one hand, if the o line splits on the right side were just two inches wider each, maybe Scarlett makes it. Or maybe if the qb gets a chip block, maybe we make it. But also recall Love had just hobbled out. Maybe they’d practiced this with Love and Love has the lower center of gravity, faster speed, and faster play mechanics to make it (the handoff could take a split second longer to Scarlett) but because Love was hurt, we had to plug in whoever was next, and the play ends up taking a tiny fraction of a second too long.
I continue to like the commentary of Todd Husak and listen to him over the TV announcers every time.  He unfailingly offers insight. 

On this particular play he approved of going for the touchdown on fourth down, but even before the play was run he had identified the formation and criticized it.  Setting the gaps so narrow on a deep handoff permits defensive players to come around the end of the line unblocked and tackle the running back from behind--which is exactly what happened.  The same thing happened in the Rose Bowl against Michigan State, he noted.  The formation is fundamentally flawed.

During the rest of the game, he was openly critical of the pitch back to a runner heading straight into the line that we did over and over on first downs.  He thinks we need to mix in greater use of the counter and of play action as ways to slow down the defenses.  Love would benefit immensely if defenses were all given a split second delay as they had to determine where the ball was going, he said.

In the passing game, Husak indicated that he wished we ran more slants and crossing patterns.  Costello was doing reasonably well during the game but had insufficient opportunities to get into rhythm.

Over the course of the year I am left thinking that Husak would make a terrific offensive coordinator.  I don't fundamentally think he would abandon our power running mentality, but that he thinks that power running works much better with more misdirection mixed in.   

As for me, I told my wife that we should kick the field goal.  However, in my view we lost the game not because we didn't get any points on that fourth down play, but because we let SC drive 99 yards for a touchdown after we failed.  It has been the decline of our defense and not our offense that should be this season's main story.

On another point related to that play--did anyone see that Scarlett actually got the ball to break the plane before any part of him touched the ground?  He was called down when he was on top of another player and not touching the ground.  They probably blew a whistle but he was not actually down.

Or, to paraphrase someone's moniker, he knee was NOT down.  Reminiscent of the infamous 4th down play with Taylor at Notre Dame.


Re: This one hurts more - qwerty49 - 12-02-2017

(12-02-2017, 03:43 PM)dabigv link Wrote:I'll be honest. If the Rose Bowl was on the line, I would've cared a lot more.

Fiesta Bowl? Alamo? Holiday? Of those three, I may actually go to the Holiday. I loathe losing to the Literature's Most Famous Losers, and winning the P12 would have been nice, but I think we were lucky to even be there. I've put this loss out of my mind quicker than the OSU "win".

Um, think of it this way — the Rose Bowl was indeed on the line. Only this year they’ll play it in Phx.

This year was maddening for the usual somewhat predictable reasons — coaching decisions, unlucky injuries, winning games we didn’t expect to, losing games we didn’t expect to. We keep waiting for perfection.

But like my phone, Stanford Football has an annoying auto.correct. :)

I was expecting 7-5 this year, so 9-4 with a bowl game possibly in San Diego is a bonus for me. But I am guilty of getting caught up in high expectations after the ND win. My only regret is Bryce got hurt and what might have been for him.

Edited to try to circumvent the annoying and juvenile board software substitutions. Sheesh.