The easily resistible force against the very movable object - 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: The easily resistible force against the very movable object (/thread-16751.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: The easily resistible force against the very movable object (/thread-16751.html)
Pages:
1
2
The easily resistible force against the very movable object - OutsiderFan - 11-07-2018
And so we have a match-up for the ages.
Stanford's run game averaging a paltry 3.29 yards per rushing attempt VS. Oregon State's run defense giving up a breathtaking 6.77 yards per rushing attempt.
Who prevails? And what must Stanford's rushing average be against the Beavs to be considered a win for Stanford's run game, 5 YPC, 6 YPC?
The only thing more shocking than OSU's run defense yielding 6.77 YPC is the fact they aren't last in the country with that mark. UConn is actually giving up a staggering 7.59 YPC! No team in the last 10 years has given up even 7 YPC!
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - qwerty49 - 11-07-2018
(11-07-2018, 01:59 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: And so we have a match-up for the ages.
Stanford's run game averaging a paltry 3.29 yards per rushing attempt VS. Oregon State's run defense giving up a breathtaking 6.77 yards per rushing attempt.
Who prevails? And what must Stanford's rushing average be against the Beavs to be considered a win for Stanford's run game, 5 YPC, 6 YPC?
The only thing more shocking than OSU's run defense yielding 6.77 YPC is the fact they aren't last in the country with that mark. UConn is actually giving up a staggering 7.59 YPC! No team in the last 10 years has given up even 7 YPC!
Well, we know what our first two plays from scrimmage are gonna be. So the only question is will they get us a first down?
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - SamuelMcF - 11-07-2018
(11-07-2018, 04:12 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Well, we know what our first two plays from scrimmage are gonna be. So the only question is will they get us a first down?
Do we? So far 4/9 first plays have been passes...
SDSU: pass, run
Toejams: run, run
UCD: pass, run
Oregon: run, run
Domers: run, run
Utah: pass, run
ASU: run, run
Cougs: pass, pass
UW: run, pass
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - BostonCard - 11-07-2018
(11-07-2018, 04:12 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Well, we know what our first two plays from scrimmage are gonna be. So the only question is will they get us a first down?
First two plays from scrimmage by game:
SDSU: pass - run (third down pass play resulted in a first down)
USC: run - run (third down pass play resulted in a first down)
Davis: pass - run (first down pass resulted in a first down)
Oregon: run - run (third down run play resulted in a first down)
Notre Dame: run - run (no first down)
Utah: pass - run (first down pass resulted in a first down)
ASU: run - run (no first down)
WSU: pass - pass (third down pass resulted in a first down)
UW: run - pass (no first down)
So, to answer your question:
In 9 games the first two plays were runs four times; we had a run and a pass in four games (3 times run - pass, once pass - run), and in one game we went pass-pass. 6/9 resulted in a first down (2/4 for run/run, 3/4 for run/pass, 1/1 for pass/pass).
The narrative that our first two plays are predictable is, predictably, stale.
BC
(11-07-2018, 04:26 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(11-07-2018, 04:12 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Well, we know what our first two plays from scrimmage are gonna be. So the only question is will they get us a first down?
Do we? So far 4/9 first plays have been passes...
Great minds think alike. But then again, so do feeble minds.
BC
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - cardcrimson - 11-07-2018
Hyperbole and sarcasm on his part. But fortunately we have folks with no sense of humor to set him straight. Conjecturing a bit, I think qwerty's point was that we've not been so hot early in games and we've been relatively predicable.
Going out on a limb and conjecturing a bit, I think qwerty's point was that we've not been so hot early in games because we've been somewhat predictable. Couldn't find the stats for first drive scoring, but Stanford ranks an impressive 113th in first quarter scoring, averaging 3.5 points. Last year, we were almost twice that.
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - qwerty49 - 11-07-2018
Gee why don’t we let qwerty explain his own point, BC:
Maybe our predilection for running will actually pay off for a change.
Sorry to be so feeble-minded for your tastes, BC. I bow to your obviously superior intellect.
And yes, CC has it right.
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - JJJ - 11-07-2018
(11-07-2018, 06:36 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Gee why don’t we let qwerty explain his own point, BC:
Maybe our predilection for running will actually pay off for a change.
Sorry to be so feeble-minded for your tastes, BC. I bow to your obviously superior intellect.
And yes, CC has it right.
I think you're misinterpreting BC's comment about feeble minds. I read it has him being self-deprecating.
But I could be wrong, because I KNOW I have a feeble mind. :)
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - OutsiderFan - 11-08-2018
Given you guys are more interested arguing about what the play calls will be, should I assume that against Oregon State, there is no YPC measure Stanford's run game can achieve that might be considered an indicator of improvement, given how truly awful the Beavs are stopping the run?
USC averaged 7.5 YPC agains the Beavs last week, and they aren't a great running team. They are now averaging 4.29 YPC on the season, so a yard better than Stanford. So maybe success would be something like 6.5 YPC by the Stanford run game?
As for play calling, you'd have to question any game plan that didn't run the ball on 60% of plays given how atrocious a run defense Stanford is facing this week. We all know if Stanford can't run the ball, they can pass it with the Pac-12's #1 rated passer!
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - cardcrimson - 11-08-2018
(11-08-2018, 05:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Given you guys are more interested arguing about what the play calls will be, should I assume that against Oregon State, there is no YPC measure Stanford's run game can achieve that might be considered an indicator of improvement, given how truly awful the Beavs are stopping the run?
USC averaged 7.5 YPC agains the Beavs last week, and they aren't a great running team. They are now averaging 4.29 YPC on the season, so a yard better than Stanford. So maybe success would be something like 6.5 YPC by the Stanford run game?
As for play calling, you'd have to question any game plan that didn't run the ball on 60% of plays given how atrocious a run defense Stanford is facing this week. We all know if Stanford can't run the ball, they can pass it with the Pac-12's #1 rated passer!
I don't really care what they call. Just as long as we're somewhat creative, and most importantly, score more than 3.5 points in the first quarter. And no, two safeties wouldn't cut it in my opinion.
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - BobK - 11-08-2018
I would be so nice to block for runs. But then I guess it’s the play calling and blocking is great.
Sarcasm wins
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - cardcrimson - 11-08-2018
(11-08-2018, 09:40 AM)BobK Wrote: I would be so nice to block for runs. But then I guess it’s the play calling and blocking is great.
Sarcasm wins
Are you saying "We didn't execute". I think I've heard that somewhere before ;-)
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - BobK - 11-08-2018
Yes. Red Hickey 1960 49ers lose to Packers in the mid at Kezar. And said many many many times since.
No Shaw didn’t invent the term. :)
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - cardcrimson - 11-08-2018
(11-08-2018, 10:08 AM)BobK Wrote: Yes. Red Hickey 1960 49ers lose to Packers in the mid at Kezar. And said many many many times since.
No Shaw didn’t invent the term. :)
Still the best though, was John McKay's comment regarding his Tampa Bay team's execution. "I'd be in favor of it". . . .
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - BobK - 11-08-2018
Great line crimson.
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - BostonCard - 11-08-2018
(11-08-2018, 09:40 AM)BobK Wrote: I would be so nice to block for runs. But then I guess it’s the play calling and blocking is great.
Sarcasm wins
I agree with this take. I think more than worrying how many runs per cary we have, the metric I'd like to see is PFF's stuff rate, or a count of how many times we see a running back first meet a defender in the backfield. If that happens a lot, but a few times RB breaks through and gets a big gain, then it might push our ypc average up, but would not be indicative of a better running game. On the other hand, if we get a bunch of 4, 5, 7 yard carries and that is why our ypc is up, then I'd feel a bit better about our running game, though it is worth keeping the opponent in mind.
BC
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - martyup - 11-08-2018
Our running plays develop too slowly. The backside is consistently blowing up our runs. Either block the backside or speed up the handoff. I recall in the past, perhaps with Hogan, the QB would quick pitch to the RB and then turn and block the backside. I recall it worked well.
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - GK3 - 11-08-2018
(11-08-2018, 10:30 AM)BobK Wrote: Great line crimson.
As much as I didn't like John McKay, he did have a way with words. Our offensive line will really be an interesting group, I am not sure any of them, even those starting are even half way healthy. I hope people get healed up before the Big Game. Cal could give our M*A*S*H a very hard time.
Other John McKay comments:
"We didn't tackle well today but we made up for it by not blocking."
"Hold when you're at home and don't hold when you're on the road."
a comment on OJ
"He doesn't belong to a union. Anyway, the ball doesn't weigh that much."
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - BobK - 11-08-2018
The problem will our run game is too often the inside rushers are in the backfield.
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - BostonCard - 11-08-2018
(11-08-2018, 11:45 AM)BobK Wrote: The problem will our run game is too often the inside rushers are in the backfield.
Agreed. I think WSU's success with outside rushers has been seared into people's mind. Yes, it is still an issue, but as you point out, the bigger problem is that the defensive tackles/inside linebackers are in the backfield before our running backs can even hit the hole.
BC
RE: The easily resistible force against the very movable object - SamuelMcF - 11-08-2018
(11-08-2018, 11:52 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-08-2018, 11:45 AM)BobK Wrote: The problem will our run game is too often the inside rushers are in the backfield.
Agreed. I think WSU's success with outside rushers has been seared into people's mind. Yes, it is still an issue, but as you point out, the bigger problem is that the defensive tackles/inside linebackers are in the backfield before our running backs can even hit the hole.
BC
Imo it's some of both. On runs in a goal line/3rd or 4th and short situation, the backside never gets blocked. (Scarlett has been ankle tackled by a backside rusher WAAAYYYY too many times.) Otherwise, the inside rushers get through.