Sun Bowl takeaways? - Printable Version

Sun Bowl takeaways? - 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: Sun Bowl takeaways? (/thread-17088.html)

Pages: 1 2

Sun Bowl takeaways? - OutsiderFan - 01-01-2019

Stanford has played some ugly games, and bowl games in particular, but that was one for the record books. Just 205 yards of total offense, 1-10 on 3rd down. Gave up over 200 yards rushing. They bent and bent and bent, but didn't fully break on defense, and did nothing to show any physical superiority outside of a few Okereke plays. At one point being down 6 starters on offense made things difficult and a little tough to judge, and frankly, Pitt deserved to win. So what to make of it all?

First and foremost, the vibe was the game just wasn't that meaningful for Stanford. Stanford SI didn't think the game was that important, very little discussion about the game on this board leading up to it, maybe because so many starters were out, but whatever, it seemed Pitt players were much more excited and emotionally engaged for it than Stanford was at the start. But you could tell Stanford's players actually cared when faced with the prospect of losing, because they showed some fight and that they wanted it when they had their backs against the wall. This is what I would call a "program win," the type of game a team wins because of its experience and culture forged over years of winning, more than a great performance. Just doing what you need to do to win. WSU and UW are better than Pitt. Stanford has to play much, much better to beat those teams.

More specific observations:
- Michael Wilson isn't a Punt Returner
- Maddox really has some juice to his game
- The Safeties everyone has been lamenting looked pretty good to me; and they rotated Antoine, Buncom, Wiliams, and Head
- Neither Andres Fox and Gabe Reid did a damn thing
- Wasn't expecting to see Alfieri play, but he did
- Toohill looked pretty good, better than Alfieri
- Really wanted to see Meizan and Magnum-Farrar get some snaps at ILB, but that didn't happen
- The OL seemed to be better run blocking after Hattis came in for Hall
- Costello looked uncomfortable the entire game
- David Shaw, it's a bowl game. Do something creative that give the fans a reason to watch! Or just go for it on 4th down once?
- Did Stanford ever have 8 in the box to stop the run, or did they want Pitt to pass because they suck at it?
- What is the deal with Curtis Robinson? He's now missed the entire season, I think the only guy who did?

All in all, I don't feel this game does anything to influence my outlook on 2019. The schedule is outrageously difficult in 2019, and it's hard to know what the team is going to look like in terms of departures and additions. I do feel confident saying the lack of physicality Stanford is showing in the trenches is cause for alarm. Turley had better re-double his efforts to make Stanford players bigger and stronger at the LOS starting tomorrow, if Shaw has any hope of competing for the Pac-12 North in 2019.

Walker Little and Foster Sarell simply must set the tone for this offseason. It's on those two 5 star recruits to raise their games and set the standard for much improved OL play in 2019.

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - Hurlburt88 - 01-01-2019

As I commented in the game thread I thought Hattis looked ok. Upon reflection I do wonder he he performed better than Hall.

lex24 - lex24 - 01-01-2019

Agree completely on getting back to being physical. And on Sarrel and Little. Skill positions (assuming Costello returns) should be fine next year. O-line is a big ?

Toohill btw is a heck of a player. Just seems to be in the right place all the time. I sure hope he comes back.

I also thought Scarlett looked good.

Shaw never going for it on 4th down is a myth. He does so a fair amount. Depends on circumstances. I thought he should have gone for it on fourth and three at Pitts 33. First down maybe seals the game. But I understand his reasoning. Pass blocking non-existent. Too long to run on 4th. Stanford defense playing well. Bailey is very good at punts inside the 20. Pitt passing game ineffective. I disagreed with the decision. But it was certainly defensible.

(01-01-2019, 08:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Stanford has played some ugly games, and bowl games in particular, but that was one for the record books. Just 205 yards of total offense, 1-10 on 3rd down. Gave up over 200 yards rushing. They bent and bent and bent, but didn't fully break on defense, and did nothing to show any physical superiority outside of a few Okereke plays. At one point being down 6 starters on offense made things difficult and a little tough to judge, and frankly, Pitt deserved to win. So what to make of it all?

First and foremost, the vibe was the game just wasn't that meaningful for Stanford. Stanford SI didn't think the game was that important, very little discussion about the game on this board leading up to it, maybe because so many starters were out, but whatever, it seemed Pitt players were much more excited and emotionally engaged for it than Stanford was at the start. But you could tell Stanford's players actually cared when faced with the prospect of losing, because they showed some fight and that they wanted it when they had their backs against the wall. This is what I would call a "program win," the type of game a team wins because of its experience and culture forged over years of winning, more than a great performance. Just doing what you need to do to win. WSU and UW are better than Pitt. Stanford has to play much, much better to beat those teams.

More specific observations:
- Michael Wilson isn't a Punt Returner
- Maddox really has some juice to his game
- The Safeties everyone has been lamenting looked pretty good to me; and they rotated Antoine, Buncom, Wiliams, and Head
- Neither Andres Fox and Gabe Reid did a damn thing
- Wasn't expecting to see Alfieri play, but he did
- Toohill looked pretty good, better than Alfieri
- Really wanted to see Meizan and Magnum-Farrar get some snaps at ILB, but that didn't happen
- The OL seemed to be better run blocking after Hattis came in for Hall
- Costello looked uncomfortable the entire game
- David Shaw, it's a bowl game. Do something creative that give the fans a reason to watch! Or just go for it on 4th down once?
- Did Stanford ever have 8 in the box to stop the run, or did they want Pitt to pass because they suck at it?
- What is the deal with Curtis Robinson? He's now missed the entire season, I think the only guy who did?

All in all, I don't feel this game does anything to influence my outlook on 2019. The schedule is outrageously difficult in 2019, and it's hard to know what the team is going to look like in terms of departures and additions. I do feel confident saying the lack of physicality Stanford is showing in the trenches is cause for alarm. Turley had better re-double his efforts to make Stanford players bigger and stronger at the LOS starting tomorrow, if Shaw has any hope of competing for the Pac-12 North in 2019.

Walker Little and Foster Sarell simply must set the tone for this offseason. It's on those two 5 star recruits to raise their games and set the standard for much improved OL play in 2019.

RE: lex24 - terry - 01-01-2019

(01-01-2019, 08:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: - What is the deal with Curtis Robinson? He's now missed the entire season, I think the only guy who did?

My recollection is that Curtis Robinson started out the season injured, came back for a game or two, then was injured again. This year will be a redshirt year for him.

(01-01-2019, 08:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: David Shaw, it's a bowl game. Do something creative that give the fans a reason to watch! Or just go for it on 4th down once?

The end-around to Michael Wilson was a very un-Shaw-like call. Almost invariably, Shaw runs between the tackles in that situation. The end-around got the first down that iced the game.

By the way, has anyone ever seen a kicker miss a field goal as badly as the Pitt kicker did? That was really atrocious. It was an important situation in the game -- Pitt was trailing by one point mid-way through the fourth quarter. I wonder whether the pressure just got to him.

RE: lex24 - OutsiderFan - 01-01-2019

(01-01-2019, 10:21 AM)terry Wrote:
(01-01-2019, 08:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: - What is the deal with Curtis Robinson? He's now missed the entire season, I think the only guy who did?

My recollection is that Curtis Robinson started out the season injured, came back for a game or two, then was injured again. This year will be a redshirt year for him.

(01-01-2019, 08:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: David Shaw, it's a bowl game. Do something creative that give the fans a reason to watch! Or just go for it on 4th down once?

The end-around to Michael Wilson was a very un-Shaw-like call. Almost invariably, Shaw runs between the tackles in that situation. The end-around got the first down that iced the game.

LOL - when I typed that point about creativity, I thought "I'll bet someone is going to point out the last play reverse as creative." I don't classify that as creative in the sense of making the game entertaining or rolling the dice on a big play. Pitt had no timeouts and I don't know what the exact time on the clock was, but two knees would have ended the game too, right?

RE: lex24 - terry - 01-01-2019

(01-01-2019, 10:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: LOL - when I typed that point about creativity, I thought "I'll bet someone is going to point out the last play reverse as creative." I don't classify that as creative in the sense of making the game entertaining or rolling the dice on a big play. Pitt had no timeouts and I don't know what the exact time on the clock was, but two knees would have ended the game too, right?

No, I don't think so. There was something like 1:33 on the clock. Two or three knees wouldn't have done it.

Seriously, you weren't surprised by the end-around? I was shocked.

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - BostonCard - 01-01-2019

Shaw has in the past been creative in bowl games. The first touchdown drive against Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl featured these back to back plays.

https://youtu.be/7mcrwjHDi14?t=600

Watch the next play too, which was an endaround off a fake to the running back.

And then of course, there was the fake fumble play fake in the Iowa game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3V93JHehrs

The key is that you have guys who can execute those plays. Tough to run trick plays when, as you noted, you are missing half of your starting offense. At that point, you just want your guys to be able to execute the basics; forget devoting practice time to a trick play.

BC

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - Spiny_Norman - 01-01-2019

Wasn't the 2nd Stanford TD a trick play? I'll bet they practiced that Costello-fumble-to-Scarlett play all season. They executed it just like the coaches drew it up.

In this 10 year bowl game run, Stanford is now 6-4. Results by conference:
vs ACC - 3-0
vs Big 10 - 3-1
vs Big 12 - 0-3

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - UltimateCard - 01-01-2019

Another aspect of Shaw’s “program” that stood out by contrast - pass protection by running backs. I remember Pitt’s RB (Hall?) being blown up at least twice. IIRC, those plays may have turned 7 points into 3 and hence we win 14-13 instead of losing 14-21. Made me appreciate Shaw’s insistence that RBs must be able to pass protect.

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - SF_Cardinal_Fan - 01-01-2019

(01-01-2019, 11:01 AM)UltimateCard Wrote: Another aspect of Shaw’s “program” that stood out by contrast - pass protection by running backs. I remember Pitt’s RB (Hall?) being blown up at least twice. IIRC, those plays may have turned 7 points into 3 and hence we win 14-13 instead of losing 14-21. Made me appreciate Shaw’s insistence that RBs must be able to pass protect.

Excellent !

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - d4cohn - 01-01-2019

(01-01-2019, 10:52 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Wasn't the 2nd Stanford TD a trick play? I'll bet they practiced that Costello-fumble-to-Scarlett play all season. They executed it just like the coaches drew it up.

In this 10 year bowl game run, Stanford is now 6-4. Results by conference:
vs ACC - 3-0
vs Big 10 - 3-1
vs Big 12 - 0-3

Spread teams (also evidenced by 3 game slide against Wazzu) remain a problem for our team. Not the best matchup for Stanford, which perhaps doesn't have as much depth as other teams' defenses.

(01-01-2019, 11:01 AM)UltimateCard Wrote: Another aspect of Shaw’s “program” that stood out by contrast - pass protection by running backs. I remember Pitt’s RB (Hall?) being blown up at least twice. IIRC, those plays may have turned 7 points into 3 and hence we win 14-13 instead of losing 14-21. Made me appreciate Shaw’s insistence that RBs must be able to pass protect.

Only reason Hall was getting that many snaps (likely in pass protect, in addition to carries) was that the starting RB Ellison went out with a sprained ankle. Did not return, finishing with only 5 carries for 23 yards.

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - qwerty49 - 01-01-2019

I actually think Wilson is a good punt returner. He's quicker than Shaggy. Keep in mind that Wedington was the #1 PR until he got hurt.

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - Spiny_Norman - 01-01-2019

Does Stanford move up and finish in the final top 25? Stanford was 30th in the week 15 AP poll. Teams ahead of Stanford that lost - #18 Mississippi State, #20 Utah, #24 Missouri, #25 Iowa State, #28 North Carolina State.

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - martyup - 01-01-2019

(01-01-2019, 07:43 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Does Stanford move up and finish in the final top 25? Stanford was 30th in the week 15 AP poll. Teams ahead of Stanford that lost - #18 Mississippi State, #20 Utah, #24 Missouri, #25 Iowa State, #28 North Carolina State.

Not really deserving moving up given our poor offensive performance.

lex24 - lex24 - 01-01-2019

I thought then and now that it was a horrible play call. Way too high of a risk. The announcers praised the call. I couldn’t disagree more.

“ Creative” is overrated. Oregon’s bizarre fake punt was certainly “creative”. It was also flat out dumb.

(01-01-2019, 10:39 AM)terry Wrote:
(01-01-2019, 10:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: LOL - when I typed that point about creativity, I thought "I'll bet someone is going to point out the last play reverse as creative." I don't classify that as creative in the sense of making the game entertaining or rolling the dice on a big play. Pitt had no timeouts and I don't know what the exact time on the clock was, but two knees would have ended the game too, right?

No, I don't think so. There was something like 1:33 on the clock. Two or three knees wouldn't have done it.

Seriously, you weren't surprised by the end-around? I was shocked.

RE: lex24 - Goose - 01-01-2019

(01-01-2019, 08:21 PM)lex24 Wrote: I thought then and now that it was a horrible play call. Way too high of a risk. The announcers praised the call. I couldn’t disagree more.

“ Creative” is overrated. Oregon’s bizarre fake punt was certainly “creative”. It was also flat out dumb.

(01-01-2019, 10:39 AM)terry Wrote:
(01-01-2019, 10:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: LOL - when I typed that point about creativity, I thought "I'll bet someone is going to point out the last play reverse as creative." I don't classify that as creative in the sense of making the game entertaining or rolling the dice on a big play. Pitt had no timeouts and I don't know what the exact time on the clock was, but two knees would have ended the game too, right?

No, I don't think so. There was something like 1:33 on the clock. Two or three knees wouldn't have done it.

Seriously, you weren't surprised by the end-around? I was shocked.

I was not. Some kind of a sweep or slow developing play was a great idea. The end around had the additional advantage that just maybe we would get a first down, and then the game would for sure be over. As others have stated, the only real risk was a fumble, which as Oregon proved can happen on a "safe" inside run. It was a compromise between "normal turtle" and "Leach turtle".

RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 01-01-2019

(01-01-2019, 08:21 PM)lex24 Wrote: I thought then and now that it was a horrible play call. Way too high of a risk.

Way too high a risk of what? Obviously a fumble would have been the risk, but I don't think the risk was that much higher than any other play. The only other risk would have been that Wilson would have gotten shoved out of bounds, stopping the clock and given Pitt more of a chance than they would have had otherwise.

But in other ways, the play wasn't especially risky. If Pitt had snuffed the play out, and Wilson had been dropped for a 6 yard loss, no big deal. Third and 13 from the 28 yard line is not that different than third and six from the 22. The play was run with a shade over a minute left on the clock, and being fairly slow-developing, would have resulted in more time coming off the clock than a run up the middle. We probably still would have had to punt without converting a first down, but if Bailey just kicks it into the end zone, I think the game would have ended without Pitt being able to run a play, so those extra seconds we ticked off with the reverse would have been well have been beneficial.

BC

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - murky - 01-01-2019

(01-01-2019, 05:55 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I actually think Wilson is a good punt returner. He's quicker than Shaggy. Keep in mind that Wedington was the #1 PR until he got hurt.

It was a small sample, but he looked like he was running in place. He took a lot of steps for the 4 yards or whatever that he gained on punt returns.

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - fullmetal - 01-02-2019

IIRC, Wilson had to break a jersey tackle on his way back to the LOS, so does that mean that Pitt's defense had him accounted for? If so, then that means the playcall was bad but that Wilson was good enough to make a play and salvage the situation.

I felt that was the case many times during the game -- terrible playcalling salvaged by player athleticism and skill.

RE: Sun Bowl takeaways? - ADPinWDC - 01-02-2019

Maybe the Offense just did not practice that much leading up to Sun Bowl ?
Costello was slow and off the mark all day (6 of 17 for 105y -- his worst ever), and the run game didn't gel at all.
The Defense did not need as much practice.
And after Chryst went down in Q1 of Sun Bowl 2016, our offense with Burns was horrible also.
Defensive scores won that game.

Shaw still needs some new blood in the playbook on Offense.
Go get Troy Walters (he setup the potent UCF Offense before exiting to NEBR with Scott Frost regime).
UCF looked credible vs LSU in Fiesta yesterday, and beat AUBN last year.
Sure, UCF doesn't play a tough schedule; but they aren't loaded with 4 and 5 star talent, either.
As recent as 2015, they went 0-12, a doormat, like Stanford in 2006.
Does Walters (Stanford '99; Biletnikoff Award) really want to toil in Lincoln another three years?