Stat of the 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: Stat of the game. . . . (/thread-18186.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: Stat of the game. . . . (/thread-18186.html)
Stat of the game. . . . - cardcrimson - 09-22-2019
KJ dropped back to pass 37 times for a net gain of 97 yards. That's 2.6 yards per pass play. UGH.
On the ground, our backs had 137 yards on 26 carries, for nearly 5.3 per running play.
RE: Stat of the game. . . . - martyup - 09-22-2019
In the past Shaw ran the ball when the run wasn't working and we had a good passing game. Now our running game is working and he won't run the ball. He keeps calling pass plays and KJ just stares down a double covered Colby and tries to force the ball to him. Scarlett could have had 200 yards yesterday. Or, Scarlett could have had 100 and Jones 100. We would have beat up the Ducks to the point of exhaustion, then throw the fade.
RE: Stat of the game. . . . - OutsiderFan - 09-22-2019
(09-22-2019, 07:35 AM)martyup Wrote: In the past Shaw ran the ball when the run wasn't working and we had a good passing game. Now our running game is working and he won't run the ball. He keeps calling pass plays and KJ just stares down a double covered Colby and tries to force the ball to him. Scarlett could have had 200 yards yesterday. Or, Scarlett could have had 100 and Jones 100. We would have beat up the Ducks to the point of exhaustion, then throw the fade.
Stanford ran 33 times and passed 30. Stanford did run the ball decently, and better than Oregon, but the problem is the passing game. The concepts are so easy to defend and defenses are never fooled. I didn’t see a single clearly open Stanford receiver all game other than I think one pass to OSB. Stanford was stuffed for no gain runs plenty of times to make passing necessary.
The overarching issue is not that Stanford doesn’t run or pass enough. It is that whoever is running the offense just isn’t very good at his job. That’s what all the evidence paints the picture to be.
RE: Stat of the game. . . . - SF_Cardinal_Fan - 09-22-2019
(09-22-2019, 08:41 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:It seems to me that (on both sides of the ball), Stanford has been losing the line of scrimmage battle. Yesterday Stanford's first offensive possession was good; including great OL play and runs from scrimmage, but that was only one drive.(09-22-2019, 07:35 AM)martyup Wrote: In the past Shaw ran the ball when the run wasn't working and we had a good passing game. Now our running game is working and he won't run the ball. He keeps calling pass plays and KJ just stares down a double covered Colby and tries to force the ball to him. Scarlett could have had 200 yards yesterday. Or, Scarlett could have had 100 and Jones 100. We would have beat up the Ducks to the point of exhaustion, then throw the fade.
Stanford ran 33 times and passed 30. Stanford did run the ball decently, and better than Oregon, but the problem is the passing game. The concepts are so easy to defend and defenses are never fooled. I didn’t see a single clearly open Stanford receiver all game other than I think one pass to OSB. Stanford was stuffed for no gain runs plenty of times to make passing necessary.
The overarching issue is not that Stanford doesn’t run or pass enough. It is that whoever is running the offense just isn’t very good at his job. That’s what all the evidence paints the picture to be.
RE: Stat of the game. . . . - qwerty49 - 09-22-2019
(09-22-2019, 12:12 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: KJ dropped back to pass 37 times for a net gain of 97 yards. That's 2.6 yards per pass play. UGH.
Well, when Saban saw that happening he sent Tua in for Jalen Hurts.
No reason why Shaw can't do that. Oh wait.....
RE: Stat of the game. . . . - SamuelMcF - 09-22-2019
Stat of the season so far: KJ has the 7th-worst pass efficiency rating in the FBS.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/collegeQuarterbackRating/order/false
RE: Stat of the game. . . . - Phogge - 09-22-2019
Stanford talent equality is a myth.
RE: Stat of the game. . . . - cardcrimson - 09-22-2019
(09-22-2019, 09:56 PM)Phogge Wrote: Stanford talent equality is a myth.
No, no. Shaw himself said the talent level in the last three games was equal.
RE: Stat of the game. . . . - Phogge - 09-23-2019
I would like to see SNL make a skit out of Shaw's press conferences. He could do one as Napoleon after the Russian retreat.... "Who knew it would snow," "We had just as many muskets as the Czar,"We travel well."
RE: Stat of the game. . . . - qwerty49 - 09-23-2019
(09-22-2019, 10:14 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(09-22-2019, 09:56 PM)Phogge Wrote: Stanford talent equality is a myth.
No, no. Shaw himself said the talent level in the last three games was equal.
Well that makes me feel better. That just means we had the wrong matchups. Our fastest guys must have been covering their linemen. Doh!
RE: Stat of the game. . . . - BostonCard - 09-24-2019
(09-22-2019, 10:14 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(09-22-2019, 09:56 PM)Phogge Wrote: Stanford talent equality is a myth.
No, no. Shaw himself said the talent level in the last three games was equal.
So, if the losses can be fully attributable to talent differentials, then what’s with all the causes for revamping our offensive system? It strikes me that other than pining for better and more aggressive recruitment, if the issue is one of talent, then talking about the coaching is misplaced. why are people complaining about play-calling or our offensive system, if the problem is simply that the players we have are not as good as the players our opponents have?
The truth, of course, is that although we have some talent holes in key areas, we do not have inferior players across the board, and we are capable of playing better.
BC
RE: Stat of the game. . . . - Phogge - 09-24-2019
LOL BC. The talent dip is at crucial spots. TE, DB especially at safety, breakaway back, blocking FB... all positions that were key to winning. Plus the OC was promoted without enough experience.
This is a complacent program without enough players to run an “intellectual brutality” system. But we all knew this was coming sometime because Stanford is, was and will be Stanford eventually.