Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football

Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - 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: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football (/thread-23351.html)

Pages: 1 2

Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - Maple Leaf - 08-12-2022

Stanford football looks for reset ahead of 2022 season | The Stanford Daily

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - cardcrimson - 08-12-2022

Well, at least there is a little optimism. But two questions remain after reading the article.

Will Shaw, Tavita and the O-line magically transform the number 3 projected QB in the land into a late round draft choice or perhaps a redshirt Junior?

Will E J Smith ever lose the "son of Hall of Famer, Emmitt Smith" moniker that always seems attached to his name?

(08-12-2022, 08:48 AM)Maple Leaf Wrote: Stanford football looks for reset ahead of 2022 season | The Stanford Daily

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - SamuelMcF - 08-12-2022

(08-12-2022, 09:22 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Well, at least there is a little optimism. But two questions remain after reading the article.

Will Shaw, Tavita and the O-line magically transform the number 3 projected QB in the land into a late round draft choice or perhaps a redshirt Junior?

Will E J Smith ever lose the "son of Hall of Famer, Emmitt Smith" moniker that always seems attached to his name?

(08-12-2022, 08:48 AM)Maple Leaf Wrote: Stanford football looks for reset ahead of 2022 season | The Stanford Daily

I actually have a bunch more questions, but the main one is: why isn't an actual Daily Sports writer writing this article?

"Wyatt Bose is a high school student writing for The Daily's journalism workshop. Contact the Sports section at sports 'at' stanforddaily.com."

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - Phogge - 08-12-2022

So as it says why don’t you contact the Daily and ask why.

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - Goose - 08-12-2022

Just guessing, but school hasn't started yet. Probably the Daily's "actual" staff is mostly gone for the summer. The High School kid is at a summer workshop. He is there, nobody else is. He wanted to write the story and they published it. It isn't exactly "next man up" but it is close.

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - MV72018 - 08-12-2022

(08-12-2022, 08:48 AM)Maple Leaf Wrote: Stanford football looks for reset ahead of 2022 season | The Stanford Daily

Has Shawvita does anything impressive with the O the last few years?
I can't recall anything noteworthy that this unimaginative duo has done
with the O except make it predictable and boring, especially in the Red Zone --
and perfect punting on 4th and 2 from inside the adversary's 40 yard line.

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - SamuelMcF - 08-12-2022

(08-12-2022, 01:57 PM)MV72018 Wrote: Has Shawvita does anything impressive with the O the last few years?
I can't recall anything noteworthy that this unimaginative duo has done
with the O except make it predictable and boring, especially in the Red Zone --
and perfect punting on 4th and 2 from inside the adversary's 40 yard line.

Was this written like a poem on purpose? I like the formatting.

Pop quiz:
1. What % of drives this past season started with a run play? If the offense "was so predictable," surely you could tell me that or get in the right ballpark. We ALWAYS run the ball first, right? R2P2, right?
2. How many punts on 4th down "from inside the adversary's 40 yard line" were there this past season?
3. How many of those punts were on 4th and 4 or closer?

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - gailtate - 08-12-2022

(08-12-2022, 03:13 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(08-12-2022, 01:57 PM)MV72018 Wrote: Has Shawvita does anything impressive with the O the last few years?
I can't recall anything noteworthy that this unimaginative duo has done
with the O except make it predictable and boring, especially in the Red Zone --
and perfect punting on 4th and 2 from inside the adversary's 40 yard line.

Was this written like a poem on purpose? I like the formatting.

Pop quiz:
1. What % of drives this past season started with a run play? If the offense "was so predictable," surely you could tell me that or get in the right ballpark. We ALWAYS run the ball first, right? R2P2, right?
2. How many punts on 4th down "from inside the adversary's 40 yard line" were there this past season?
3. How many of those punts were on 4th and 4 or closer?

Pop answer to quiz questions 1-3: Not enough to generate an offense that could avoid a last-place finish. (I could not resist that slow, center-cut hangin' curve.)

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - Goose - 08-12-2022

(08-12-2022, 04:30 PM)gailtate Wrote: Pop answer to quiz questions 1-3: Not enough to generate an offense that could avoid a last-place finish. (I could not resist that slow, center-cut hangin' curve.)

However you did ably resist actually answering the questions. Hopefully somebody will, because I think they are interesting ones.

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - cardcrimson - 08-12-2022

It's a fan board. Facts are irrelevant. Opinion is the key. Just ask O never mind. . . .

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - BostonCard - 08-12-2022

Yeah, it’s a fan board. But it is worth noting that when certain posters (Sam, Matt, etc.) criticize the coaching staff (and they do so), I am much more likely to sit up and pay attention because their criticism probably comes for a good, thoughtful reason. OTOH, when certain posters beclown themselves by using outdated stereotypes of the Stanford offense, and reflexive one-note criticisms of everything the coaching staff does, it is much easier to write off.

To answer the questions: we had 155 rushing attempts on first down and 152 passing attempts. The offense was not good, but it wasn’t because we reflexively ran on first and second down and passed on third and long. FWIW, I think we were near the bottom of the pac-12 in terms of proportion of plays that were runs. Yeah, we were often behind and we were frequently facing second or third and long. Still, the stereotype of “Shawvita” always calling running plays is not just wrong, it’s about a 180 from the truth.

I don’t know the answer to the punting question, but I doubt Sam would have asked it without knowing the answer.

I do think that historically, Shaw has been a bit too conservative for my liking on fourth down. Then again, given how bad our offensive line push in short yardage situations was last year, it’s hard to blame him.

BC

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - old spanish trail - 08-12-2022

Not a bad article for a high schooler and good info about the frosh.

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - Phogge - 08-13-2022

Sam has inside information. He reads Twitter and ID’s offers in FB and hoops. Seems like a useful hobby around here.

Squeri writes grad level essays. I don’t understand how he has the time. I could write one about how to shoot a football game (700 plus in the can) but I would probably fall asleep writing it.

Sometimes I like to tweak the guys but in the end I really appreciate what they post about. For humor I love the clash between Ball Boy and the Opinion Oracle. Keep it coming.

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - gailtate - 08-13-2022

(08-12-2022, 07:44 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: It's a fan board. Facts are irrelevant. Opinion is the key. Just ask O never mind. . . .

I propose yet another irrelevant fact for the minutiae-minded here: No D = No W's. Ask John Elway about his post-seasons at Stanford.

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - cardcrimson - 08-13-2022

"Ball Boy and the Opinion Oracle"

Nice. . . .

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - Goose - 08-13-2022

(08-13-2022, 07:23 AM)gailtate Wrote: I propose yet another irrelevant fact for the minutiae-minded here: No D = No W's. Ask John Elway about his post-seasons at Stanford.

It is a very relevant fact. John Elway may be a poster boy for it but there are several other Stanford QBs who could attest to the fact that winning a lot of games with a below-average (or even average) defense can be real difficult. In the more distant past Stanford often had a few really good defensive players and a lot of inadequate to bad defensive players. Some years there weren't a few really good defensive players. This next year we undoubtedly have a few defensive guys (DBs mostly) who are considered really good. We also have a lot of young unknowns in many positions. Without doubt, there is cause for concern IMHO.

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - Maple Leaf - 08-13-2022

(08-13-2022, 09:06 AM)Goose Wrote:
(08-13-2022, 07:23 AM)gailtate Wrote: I propose yet another irrelevant fact for the minutiae-minded here: No D = No W's. Ask John Elway about his post-seasons at Stanford.
It is a very relevant fact. John Elway may be a poster boy for it but there are several other Stanford QBs who could attest to the fact that winning a lot of games with a below-average (or even average) defense can be real difficult. In the more distant past Stanford often had a few really good defensive players and a lot of inadequate to bad defensive players. Some years there weren't a few really good defensive players. This next year we undoubtedly have a few defensive guys (DBs mostly) who are considered really good. We also have a lot of young unknowns in many positions. Without doubt, there is cause for concern IMHO.

With Stanford Football there is always cause for concern!

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - SamuelMcF - 08-13-2022

(08-12-2022, 09:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Yeah, it’s a fan board. But it is worth noting that when certain posters (Sam, Matt, etc.) criticize the coaching staff (and they do so), I am much more likely to sit up and pay attention because their criticism probably comes for a good, thoughtful reason. OTOH, when certain posters beclown themselves by using outdated stereotypes of the Stanford offense, and reflexive one-note criticisms of everything the coaching staff does, it is much easier to write off.

To answer the questions: we had 155 rushing attempts on first down and 152 passing attempts. The offense was not good, but it wasn’t because we reflexively ran on first and second down and passed on third and long. FWIW, I think we were near the bottom of the pac-12 in terms of proportion of plays that were runs. Yeah, we were often behind and we were frequently facing second or third and long. Still, the stereotype of “Shawvita” always calling running plays is not just wrong, it’s about a 180 from the truth.

2nd-fewest runs by % in the conference. 14th-fewest in the nation. Go ahead and tell me that's "predictable."

To many critics, "predictable" and "bad" are synonymous. Only one of those two words was true.

(08-12-2022, 09:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I don’t know the answer to the punting question, but I doubt Sam would have asked it without knowing the answer.

I do think that historically, Shaw has been a bit too conservative for my liking on fourth down. Then again, given how bad our offensive line push in short yardage situations was last year, it’s hard to blame him.

5 punts on 4th down inside the opponent's 40, all from between the 37-40. Not a single one was closer than 4th & 5. (4/5 were on 4th & 8 or worse.) Karty has the leg from the 35, and attempted 5 FGs from 50+.

Our 1.25 4th down conversion attempts per game were the most EVER under Shaw.

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - Goose - 08-13-2022

(08-13-2022, 11:48 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: 2nd-fewest runs by % in the conference. 14th-fewest in the nation. Go ahead and tell me that's "predictable."

To many critics, "predictable" and "bad" are synonymous. Only one of those two words was true.

OK, I will tell you it was "predictable". Our running game was totally ineffective. Our passing game was, at times, even at a minimum, good. It isn't what many associate with "vintage" Shaw but as has repeatedly been pointed out on this board Stanford has not been run-heavy for a while. So yes, people knew we were going to pass a lot, and we knew it too. Obviously this situation was exacerbated by the fact we were often behind on the scoreboard.

RE: Stanford Daily Article on Stanford Football - Phogge - 08-13-2022

Worst blow last year (with the exception that they actually did play the season) was losing Treymane who might have been the best player on the team.