Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - 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: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game (/thread-16437.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: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game (/thread-16437.html)
Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - Snorlax94 - 09-17-2018
Apologies if someone already created a thread to discuss this aspect; I didn't see one.
I was at the game, and just finished re-watching much of the game on DVR.
Usually, I think I'm a real cheerleader about the team and the stadium game experience, but for whatever reason, Saturday was my least enjoyable time in the recent 3 years of being a season ticket holder. It wasn't the most frustrating game (in terms of recent games, the TD-less Colorado game in 2016 was infuriating), but it just was not very fun for me. Maybe it's the 11:30 kickoff time (I only got 5 1/2 hours of sleep), maybe it's hard getting pumped up for an FCS game, maybe the offense laying an egg the opening 3 drives with a stalled drive, a pick, and a pick (with a pick-6 being called back, which would have made the game 10-0 Davis), and maybe it's the low energy from an empty stadium.
I don't know. Even with the rain during the Rice Game in 2016, I felt pumped up, but not Saturday. Probably a combination of those things, coupled with a sinking feeling, watching the offense struggle against a Davis team that let SJState score 38, thinking that maybe the season won't be as good as I had hoped.
Normally I list the good parts first, but I'll flip it for an FCS opponent.
1) I am really worried about the running game, the lack of the running game, and the penalties. I keep thinking back to how the team struggled in 2016 when Daniel Marx was out, and it kept struggling until Marx got back. Well, there's no Marx coming back now.
2) Also, so many holding penalties. Drive-killing penalties. And so many of them are dumb penalties, like pulling a defender down which is too obvious.
3) And still the false starts and delay of games. At home! In the library! How will they survive the deafening boom of Autzen, South Bend and Husky Stadium?
4) Right when I start thinking Costello has IT, he opens with two picks, against an FCS team. He does show growth -- I seem him going through his progressions and I like his spirit. But consistency is so key. It still feels like he could burst into the next level, and then maybe even the next, but then this.
5) And even though the special teams have been great, they need to be better (although the blocked kick was cool). Too many near blocks and rushed punts. Too many punts into the end zone, or drifting out of bounds too early. When a team has super-dominant special teams, they can win even when they've been outgained in yardage by 150 yards. That's what the team is capable of. Defense, a running game, and dominant special teams can hush a crowd and re-ignite a visiting team when you have away games at some of the toughest stadiums, but it's not there yet.
The good:
1) Paulsen Adebo.
2) Getting to see some of the lower-string guys get a chance to play.
3) The defensive line, from this game, looked legit. If they can handle Notre Dame and Oregon as well as they've been holding up so far, I'll feel pretty good about the rest of the regular season. Thomas Booker, wow, how fast will he develop as a true frosh?
3) Osiris St. Brown. A legitimate deep threat? Ready for prime-time or just a second-half stat-builder against an FCS team. I guess we will find out.
4) Of course, and the usual great play we've grown to expect this season. Great special teams. JJAW and the tight ends. The defense as a whole, even though there were some blown assignments by the LBs.
The main take-away, this is the point in the season where I feel exasperated. If the offense plays like this, even with Bryce Love back, Oregon blows us up 28-14.
But I think one of the reasons Stanford does so well against the spread is that right when you feel like you're gonna lose hope, the team does something spectacular. Stanford sometimes plays just good enough to win, and starts to make you wonder, and then they show something you were beginning to think wasn't possible. And if that happens, Stanford unleashes the beast and rips Oregon 35-14.
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - donkey687 - 09-17-2018
My 4 takeaways.
1) We have serious depth issues on OL without Sarrel and Hamilton. I hope Hamilton can play this week. If not, we are down to our third string LG and have no depth at tackle. Fanaika is a good third string guard but he seemed rusty in his return to the lineup. In the second to last series agains Davis, Walker Little who wasn't even supposed to play was still in the game at LT with Hattis on the other side. For the last series, true frosh Pease came in to finally relieve Little.
2) Holder is still underappreciated. Adebo may appear more explosive but all Holder does is shut down the opposing team's best receiver.
3) Accuracy has been and continues to be Costello's weakness.
4) Limited sample size but boy was that a disappointing debut for the heralded Mills
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - Spiny_Norman - 09-17-2018
Another fan posted elsewhere that Stanford is averaging 10 yards to go on 2nd down this season. For those of you who look at advanced stats, is that accurate? Stanford would be just as well off with Costello spiking the ball on 1st down vs. actually running plays?
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - BostonCard - 09-17-2018
(09-17-2018, 09:42 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Another fan posted elsewhere that Stanford is averaging 10 yards to go on 2nd down this season. For those of you who look at advanced stats, is that accurate? Stanford would be just as well off with Costello spiking the ball on 1st down vs. actually running plays?
Well, except for the fact that some of those first downs result in a new first down >10 yards down the field. It also doesn't take into account penalties (though I guess if Costello just spikes it we don't wind up with a penalty)
On first down this year:
Rushing: 50 caries for 179 yards, 3.5 ypc, 2 TD's and 6 first downs
Passing: 19/30 (63% completion) for 278 yards (9.3 ypa), 2 TD, 0 INT, 8 first downs
Overall: 457 yards on 80 plays (5.7 ypp), 4 TD's and 14 first downs
So, in 80 first downs so far this year, 18 (22.5% resulted in either a brand new first down or a touchdown). It is possible that we have an average of 10 yards to go on the remaining second downs if the 457 yards we gained occurred on the 18 plays that resulted in a new set of downs or made up for a penalty.
BC
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - Renaissance Man - 09-17-2018
(09-17-2018, 10:40 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-17-2018, 09:42 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Another fan posted elsewhere that Stanford is averaging 10 yards to go on 2nd down this season. For those of you who look at advanced stats, is that accurate? Stanford would be just as well off with Costello spiking the ball on 1st down vs. actually running plays?
Well, except for the fact that some of those first downs result in a new first down >10 yards down the field. It also doesn't take into account penalties (though I guess if Costello just spikes it we don't wind up with a penalty)
On first down this year:
Rushing: 50 caries for 179 yards, 3.5 ypc, 2 TD's and 6 first downs
Passing: 19/30 (63% completion) for 278 yards (9.3 ypa), 2 TD, 0 INT, 8 first downs
Overall: 457 yards on 80 plays (5.7 ypp), 4 TD's and 14 first downs
So, in 80 first downs so far this year, 18 (22.5% resulted in either a brand new first down or a touchdown). It is possible that we have an average of 10 yards to go on the remaining second downs if the 457 yards we gained occurred on the 18 plays that resulted in a new set of downs or made up for a penalty.
BC
It looks like we would benefit from a better run/pass balance on first down.
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - Spiny_Norman - 09-17-2018
(09-17-2018, 10:40 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-17-2018, 09:42 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Another fan posted elsewhere that Stanford is averaging 10 yards to go on 2nd down this season. For those of you who look at advanced stats, is that accurate? Stanford would be just as well off with Costello spiking the ball on 1st down vs. actually running plays?
Well, except for the fact that some of those first downs result in a new first down >10 yards down the field. It also doesn't take into account penalties (though I guess if Costello just spikes it we don't wind up with a penalty)
On first down this year:
Rushing: 50 caries for 179 yards, 3.5 ypc, 2 TD's and 6 first downs
Passing: 19/30 (63% completion) for 278 yards (9.3 ypa), 2 TD, 0 INT, 8 first downs
Overall: 457 yards on 80 plays (5.7 ypp), 4 TD's and 14 first downs
So, in 80 first downs so far this year, 18 (22.5% resulted in either a brand new first down or a touchdown). It is possible that we have an average of 10 yards to go on the remaining second downs if the 457 yards we gained occurred on the 18 plays that resulted in a new set of downs or made up for a penalty.
BC
Thanks so much, BC. Where is this data available? You did not have to manually compile it from the Stanford drive charts, I hope.
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - BostonCard - 09-17-2018
Apologies for not linking the data. It is available at cfbstats.com, my favorite stat aggregator.
http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/team/674/index.html
They have a useful "situational stat" breakdown for rushing and passing stats that breaks things down by down (and for third down, by distance as well), as well as by quarter and situation (tied, trailing or leading), etc. Data goes back to 2009.
BC
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - BostonCard - 09-17-2018
(09-17-2018, 10:50 AM)Renaissance Man Wrote: It looks like we would benefit from a better run/pass balance on first down.
Forget the imbalance; given how much more effective we are passing on first down, we should do it more often. The imbalance itself is not concerning per se. In 2015 (when we had a really good offense), we ran the ball 314 times in 422 first downs (74.4%, in contrast to this year's rate of rushing 62.5% of the time). But we gained 1776 yard (5.7 ypc). You can be very successful running at a 5.7 ypc clip (we were even more successful passing on first down). In contrast, 3.5 ypc rushing on first down will leave you with a lot of second and longs, and is not sustainable.
BC
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - Austroturf - 09-17-2018
I am also bemused about the performance of the O-line and our running game. Throughout the entire pre-season, we were repeatedly apprised of the awesome O-line that would be bursting open wide holes for our H-man runner-up. The assemblage of size and experience would be prodigious; and our running game would be an irresistible force. Far from this to be true. And I don't think Shaw will depart anytime soon from Stanford's identity as a run-first team. So this needs to be fixed, pronto, or we will not be sniffing at a return to the conference championship game. Regarding the UC Davis game, I expected both Speights and Scarlett to run for over 100 yards each. Yes, Love was on the sidelines; but our supposedly vaunted O-line against an FCS team should have been opening truck lanes for our running backs. Didn't happen.
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - CTcard - 09-17-2018
(09-17-2018, 10:40 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Well, except for the fact that some of those first downs result in a new first down >10 yards down the field. It also doesn't take into account penalties (though I guess if Costello just spikes it we don't wind up with a penalty)
On first down this year:
Rushing: 50 caries for 179 yards, 3.5 ypc, 2 TD's and 6 first downs
Passing: 19/30 (63% completion) for 278 yards (9.3 ypa), 2 TD, 0 INT, 8 first downs
Overall: 457 yards on 80 plays (5.7 ypp), 4 TD's and 14 first downs
So, in 80 first downs so far this year, 18 (22.5% resulted in either a brand new first down or a touchdown). It is possible that we have an average of 10 yards to go on the remaining second downs if the 457 yards we gained occurred on the 18 plays that resulted in a new set of downs or made up for a penalty.
BC
It's a little tricky to see how the average-10 yards to go on second down squares with the numbers, though it's not impossible. I also am too tired to be sure I am not missing something (like how to count if there are two second downs because of a penalty).
First off, I cannot see it explicitly stated, but I think a first down play from outside the 10 yard line that results in a TD is both a first down and a TD. Less likely a TD from inside the 10 counts as a first down, but I don't know.
Stanford's 4 TDs on first downs were: from the 38 (pass - first TD vs SDSU), from the 6 (run - first TD vs $C), from the 8 (pass - second TD Davis), from the 5 (run - last TD Davis). One from outside the 10.
That seems likely to mean 17 plays went for either TDs or new first downs.
The four TDs cover 57 yards. The rest of the first down plays would cover a neat 400 yards. 13 of those.
I happen to remember the pass to St. Brown for another 53 yards, so now we're at 347 yards in 12 successful first down plays.
The average for those other 12 plays would have to be 29 yds. That seems too high, especially since I don't remember any other brobdingnagian gainers on first down.
At 20 yds/play on those successful first downs we would account for 240 yds.
That would mean 107 yards of penalty make-up.
That's seems too high as Stanford has 134 penalty yards on the year total. (Not all were on offense, not all on first down)
Maybe I'm missing another brobdingnagian first down gain and our successful first downs averaged 25 yds/play. Maybe the two second down scenario is a bigger factor than I think. Or maybe there were significant rounding issues in the original claim.
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - BostonCard - 09-17-2018
(09-17-2018, 07:16 PM)CTcard Wrote: First off, I cannot see it explicitly stated, but I think a first down play from outside the 10 yard line that results in a TD is both a first down and a TD. Less likely a TD from inside the 10 counts as a first down, but I don't know.
[..lots of great stuff...]
Maybe I'm missing another of immense proportions first down gain and our successful first downs averaged 25 yds/play. Maybe the two second down scenario is a bigger factor than I think. Or maybe there were significant rounding issues in the original claim.
That was my intuition as well, but I was too lazy to try and calculate it. I think it is implausible. However, the broader point that we are not very effective on first down and consequently are facing a lot of second-and-longs holds true.
cfbstats does do a nice breakdown of to-go distance on third down:
1 - 3 yards to go: 3 carries for 5 yards, 1 first down rushing; 1 pass for 0 yards (4 total 3rd and shorts, of which we converted 1)
4 - 6 yards to go: 1 carry for 2 yards; 8 passes for 75 yards, 6 first downs, 1 TD (9 total 3rd and mediums, of which we converted 6)
7 - 9 yards to go: 3 carries for 6 yards; 9 passes for 81 yards, 5 first downs, 1 TD (12 total 3rd and longs, of which we converted 5)
10+ yards to go: 6 carries for 29 yards; 11 passes for 131 yards, 2 first downs, 1 TD and 1 INT (17 total 3rd and forevers, which we converted 2)
Those are dreadful numbers. We shouldn't have more 3rd and 10+ to go situations than 3rd and shorts. I can't calculate the exact to go distance at third down, but taking the midpoint of the yardages and 11 as the average 3rd and 10+ to go, I get a whopping 8 yards to go (and probably more).
BC
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - JPR36 - 09-18-2018
(09-17-2018, 07:34 AM)donkey687 Wrote: My 4 takeaways.
1) We have serious depth issues on OL without Sarrel and Hamilton. I hope Hamilton can play this week. If not, we are down to our third string LG and have no depth at tackle. Fanaika is a good third string guard but he seemed rusty in his return to the lineup. In the second to last series agains Davis, Walker Little who wasn't even supposed to play was still in the game at LT with Hattis on the other side. For the last series, true frosh Pease came in to finally relieve Little.
2) Holder is still underappreciated. Adebo may appear more explosive but all Holder does is shut down the opposing team's best receiver.
3) Accuracy has been and continues to be Costello's weakness.
4) Limited sample size but boy was that a disappointing debut for the heralded Mills
1) Yeah, what was thought to be a strength at the beginning of the year has quickly turned into a problem area. Just goes to show you never know.
2) Both are excellent players. However, with 13 catches for 106 yards, it is hard to say Doss was shut down. Maybe controlled would be a better word as his longest catch was for 22 yards.
3) No argument there. The one upside according to Shaw is he doesn't get down on himself after a bad streak. He is as enthusiastic as ever.
4) Mills has missed an awful lot of workout/practice time in the last two years due to his knee problems. And, of course, he hasn't played in a game since 2016. Understandable that he would be very rusty and it may take him a while before he starts living up to his HS press clippings. Hopefully he will eventually.
RE: Thoughts on the UC Davis Game - cctop - 09-18-2018
(09-17-2018, 11:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: cfbstats does do a nice breakdown of to-go distance on third down:
1 - 3 yards to go: 3 carries for 5 yards, 1 first down rushing; 1 pass for 0 yards (4 total 3rd and shorts, of which we converted 1)
4 - 6 yards to go: 1 carry for 2 yards; 8 passes for 75 yards, 6 first downs, 1 TD (9 total 3rd and mediums, of which we converted 6)
7 - 9 yards to go: 3 carries for 6 yards; 9 passes for 81 yards, 5 first downs, 1 TD (12 total 3rd and longs, of which we converted 5)
10+ yards to go: 6 carries for 29 yards; 11 passes for 131 yards, 2 first downs, 1 TD and 1 INT (17 total 3rd and forevers, which we converted 2)
Small sample size and all that, but it's interesting that we're only 1 for 4 with less than 3 yards to go, and 6 for 9 from mid-range.
Those short-yardage conversions used to be almost taken for granted.