09-11-2021, 11:38 PM
What? no shaw complaints?
Awfully Quiet Tonight
09-11-2021, 11:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-12-2021, 09:33 AM by JohnR34231.)
(09-11-2021, 11:38 PM)norcard Wrote: What? no shaw complaints?
Going to be a tough week for the Negative Nellies.
We will see what they come up with; or perhaps they will just stay away as they do sometimes when Stanford is playing well.
Actually it will probably be something like one good game does not change the fact that Shaw is running this program off a cliff.
Update: Some of them did show up and actually were quite complimentary toward Shaw and the team's effort. Maybe leopards can change their spots.
(This post was last modified: 09-12-2021, 09:33 AM by JohnR34231.)
(09-11-2021, 11:38 PM)norcard Wrote: What? no shaw complaints?
Going to be a tough week for the Negative Nellies.
We will see what they come up with; or perhaps they will just stay away as they do sometimes when Stanford is playing well.
Actually it will probably be something like one good game does not change the fact that Shaw is running this program off a cliff.
Update: Some of them did show up and actually were quite complimentary toward Shaw and the team's effort. Maybe leopards can change their spots.
(09-11-2021, 11:42 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-11-2021, 11:38 PM)norcard Wrote: What? no shaw complaints?
Going to be a tough week for the Negative Nellies.
We will see what they come up with; or perhaps they will just stay away as they do sometimes when Stanford is playing well.
Actually it will probably be something like one good game does not change the fact that Shaw is running this program off a cliff.
No, this game is actually bad for Stanford football. This game was just an anomaly. This will only lengthen the time of suffering we will all endure under Shaw. We are all fools for thinking Shaw might have done a good job and we might have a good team. </sark>
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(09-11-2021, 11:42 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-11-2021, 11:38 PM)norcard Wrote: What? no shaw complaints?
Going to be a tough week for the Negative Nellies.
We will see what they come up with; or perhaps they will just stay away as they do sometimes when Stanford is playing well.
Actually it will probably be something like one good game does not change the fact that Shaw is running this program off a cliff.
No, this game is actually bad for Stanford football. This game was just an anomaly. This will only lengthen the time of suffering we will all endure under Shaw. We are all fools for thinking Shaw might have done a good job and we might have a good team. </sark>
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-12-2021, 12:02 AM
(09-11-2021, 11:50 PM)martyup Wrote:(09-11-2021, 11:42 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-11-2021, 11:38 PM)norcard Wrote: What? no shaw complaints?
Going to be a tough week for the Negative Nellies.
We will see what they come up with; or perhaps they will just stay away as they do sometimes when Stanford is playing well.
Actually it will probably be something like one good game does not change the fact that Shaw is running this program off a cliff.
No, this game is actually bad for Stanford football. This game was just an anomaly. This will only lengthen the time of suffering we will all endure under Shaw. We are all fools for thinking Shaw might have done a good job and we might have a good team. </sark>
Suffering our way to a 5-1 record in 6 straight road games, beating every Cali rival on the road and beating UW having to run the walkthrough in a park.
(09-11-2021, 11:50 PM)martyup Wrote:(09-11-2021, 11:42 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-11-2021, 11:38 PM)norcard Wrote: What? no shaw complaints?
Going to be a tough week for the Negative Nellies.
We will see what they come up with; or perhaps they will just stay away as they do sometimes when Stanford is playing well.
Actually it will probably be something like one good game does not change the fact that Shaw is running this program off a cliff.
No, this game is actually bad for Stanford football. This game was just an anomaly. This will only lengthen the time of suffering we will all endure under Shaw. We are all fools for thinking Shaw might have done a good job and we might have a good team. </sark>
Suffering our way to a 5-1 record in 6 straight road games, beating every Cali rival on the road and beating UW having to run the walkthrough in a park.
09-12-2021, 12:06 AM
i'm fairly certain that marty is being sarcastic.
or is it ironic? either way, i enjoy it.
or is it ironic? either way, i enjoy it.
Cal delenda est
09-12-2021, 12:13 AM
That's exactly what USC fans say when Helton wins a game. And they're right.
That's exactly what USC fans say when Helton wins a game. And they're right.
09-12-2021, 12:44 AM
I was at the game and it may be a while before the smile leaves my face. As I celebrated each big play, the Trojan fan next to me was riled enough to ask me to tone down my cheering for Stanford. God, it felt good. Amazing how much David Shaw learned in a week.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
I was at the game and it may be a while before the smile leaves my face. As I celebrated each big play, the Trojan fan next to me was riled enough to ask me to tone down my cheering for Stanford. God, it felt good. Amazing how much David Shaw learned in a week.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
09-12-2021, 03:45 AM
Shaw is an awful football coach for continuing to fail to develop his players and staff, or for under-preparing for early season games against teams with inferior talent.
Shaw is a great coach.
These can't both be true.
Shaw is a great coach.
These can't both be true.
Shaw is an awful football coach for continuing to fail to develop his players and staff, or for under-preparing for early season games against teams with inferior talent.
Shaw is a great coach.
These can't both be true.
Shaw is a great coach.
These can't both be true.
09-12-2021, 07:08 AM
(09-12-2021, 12:44 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I was at the game and it may be a while before the smile leaves my face. As I celebrated each big play, the Trojan fan next to me was riled enough to ask me to tone down my cheering for Stanford. God, it felt good. Amazing how much David Shaw learned in a week.
That's awesome. Few things related to Stanford football give me more pleasure than a U$C beatdown
(09-12-2021, 12:44 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I was at the game and it may be a while before the smile leaves my face. As I celebrated each big play, the Trojan fan next to me was riled enough to ask me to tone down my cheering for Stanford. God, it felt good. Amazing how much David Shaw learned in a week.
That's awesome. Few things related to Stanford football give me more pleasure than a U$C beatdown
09-12-2021, 07:51 AM
I watched a bit more of this game than KSU. And I went to bed at midnight ET, so saw most of it and the whole 2nd half on dvr this morning.
That might have been the best Shaw-coached game I've ever seen. I was shocked that he took the FG off the board to go for TD on 4th and Goal from 4. Never imagined I'd ever seen that. So glad it paid off, and gave him believe taking calculated risks can pay off, and maybe even inspire your team!
The game plan worked to perfection and there was a nice mix that wasn't predictable, outside of the Filkins reverse that absurdly wasn't flagged flagged for tripping.
Stanford was clearly hell bent on not allowing USC to beat them with deep passes like KSU did. And Slovis never really challenged Stanford's deep coverage. I couldn't see very well from TV how the teams were playing their safeties (2 deep or single), but clearly it was single for USC on the Homerun Peat TD.
But let's be honest, Stanford's game plan was only possible with a QB as proficient as McKee. How the hell was he not the starter against KSU? Just based on his pedigree, he should have been named the starter in training camp. He was impressively poised in pocket and his accuracy was off the charts. So many of his passes were delivered like handoffs to the receivers, or only where his guys could get them.
Still, a very weird game. Tim Brando claimed Stanford had "manhandled" USC when it was 42-13, but I thought USC pretty well dominated the trenches. In any case, did Stanford's OL have even one penalty, after its flag-fest against KSU?
K-B Kelly is the best CB I've ever seen play for Stanford. Yes, there have been some good ones, but man is he damn impressive. Just a brilliant athlete.
If McKee is as good as he showed in the Coliseum, Stanford is going to win more games than most people have assumed. If the OL can start opening some holes, an 8+ win season could be possible.
That might have been the best Shaw-coached game I've ever seen. I was shocked that he took the FG off the board to go for TD on 4th and Goal from 4. Never imagined I'd ever seen that. So glad it paid off, and gave him believe taking calculated risks can pay off, and maybe even inspire your team!
The game plan worked to perfection and there was a nice mix that wasn't predictable, outside of the Filkins reverse that absurdly wasn't flagged flagged for tripping.
Stanford was clearly hell bent on not allowing USC to beat them with deep passes like KSU did. And Slovis never really challenged Stanford's deep coverage. I couldn't see very well from TV how the teams were playing their safeties (2 deep or single), but clearly it was single for USC on the Homerun Peat TD.
But let's be honest, Stanford's game plan was only possible with a QB as proficient as McKee. How the hell was he not the starter against KSU? Just based on his pedigree, he should have been named the starter in training camp. He was impressively poised in pocket and his accuracy was off the charts. So many of his passes were delivered like handoffs to the receivers, or only where his guys could get them.
Still, a very weird game. Tim Brando claimed Stanford had "manhandled" USC when it was 42-13, but I thought USC pretty well dominated the trenches. In any case, did Stanford's OL have even one penalty, after its flag-fest against KSU?
K-B Kelly is the best CB I've ever seen play for Stanford. Yes, there have been some good ones, but man is he damn impressive. Just a brilliant athlete.
If McKee is as good as he showed in the Coliseum, Stanford is going to win more games than most people have assumed. If the OL can start opening some holes, an 8+ win season could be possible.
I watched a bit more of this game than KSU. And I went to bed at midnight ET, so saw most of it and the whole 2nd half on dvr this morning.
That might have been the best Shaw-coached game I've ever seen. I was shocked that he took the FG off the board to go for TD on 4th and Goal from 4. Never imagined I'd ever seen that. So glad it paid off, and gave him believe taking calculated risks can pay off, and maybe even inspire your team!
The game plan worked to perfection and there was a nice mix that wasn't predictable, outside of the Filkins reverse that absurdly wasn't flagged flagged for tripping.
Stanford was clearly hell bent on not allowing USC to beat them with deep passes like KSU did. And Slovis never really challenged Stanford's deep coverage. I couldn't see very well from TV how the teams were playing their safeties (2 deep or single), but clearly it was single for USC on the Homerun Peat TD.
But let's be honest, Stanford's game plan was only possible with a QB as proficient as McKee. How the hell was he not the starter against KSU? Just based on his pedigree, he should have been named the starter in training camp. He was impressively poised in pocket and his accuracy was off the charts. So many of his passes were delivered like handoffs to the receivers, or only where his guys could get them.
Still, a very weird game. Tim Brando claimed Stanford had "manhandled" USC when it was 42-13, but I thought USC pretty well dominated the trenches. In any case, did Stanford's OL have even one penalty, after its flag-fest against KSU?
K-B Kelly is the best CB I've ever seen play for Stanford. Yes, there have been some good ones, but man is he damn impressive. Just a brilliant athlete.
If McKee is as good as he showed in the Coliseum, Stanford is going to win more games than most people have assumed. If the OL can start opening some holes, an 8+ win season could be possible.
That might have been the best Shaw-coached game I've ever seen. I was shocked that he took the FG off the board to go for TD on 4th and Goal from 4. Never imagined I'd ever seen that. So glad it paid off, and gave him believe taking calculated risks can pay off, and maybe even inspire your team!
The game plan worked to perfection and there was a nice mix that wasn't predictable, outside of the Filkins reverse that absurdly wasn't flagged flagged for tripping.
Stanford was clearly hell bent on not allowing USC to beat them with deep passes like KSU did. And Slovis never really challenged Stanford's deep coverage. I couldn't see very well from TV how the teams were playing their safeties (2 deep or single), but clearly it was single for USC on the Homerun Peat TD.
But let's be honest, Stanford's game plan was only possible with a QB as proficient as McKee. How the hell was he not the starter against KSU? Just based on his pedigree, he should have been named the starter in training camp. He was impressively poised in pocket and his accuracy was off the charts. So many of his passes were delivered like handoffs to the receivers, or only where his guys could get them.
Still, a very weird game. Tim Brando claimed Stanford had "manhandled" USC when it was 42-13, but I thought USC pretty well dominated the trenches. In any case, did Stanford's OL have even one penalty, after its flag-fest against KSU?
K-B Kelly is the best CB I've ever seen play for Stanford. Yes, there have been some good ones, but man is he damn impressive. Just a brilliant athlete.
If McKee is as good as he showed in the Coliseum, Stanford is going to win more games than most people have assumed. If the OL can start opening some holes, an 8+ win season could be possible.
09-12-2021, 08:19 AM
Yep, key to the season is keeping McKee healthy. With him in there we are a good team.
Without him, well......
Without him, well......
Yep, key to the season is keeping McKee healthy. With him in there we are a good team.
Without him, well......
Without him, well......
09-12-2021, 08:23 AM
(09-12-2021, 01:04 AM)CompSci87 Wrote:(09-12-2021, 12:15 AM)martyup Wrote:(09-12-2021, 12:06 AM)newguy Wrote: i'm fairly certain that marty is being sarcastic.
or is it ironic? either way, i enjoy it.
Probably the </sark> at the end gave it away.
I thought that had something to do with Steve Sarkesian. ;-)
Sarkasm: that moment of intense pleasure when you see that Steve Sarkesian loses another game (Texas got whipped last night by Arkansas 21-40; their first 7 drives were 6 punts and a missed FG)
(09-12-2021, 01:04 AM)CompSci87 Wrote:(09-12-2021, 12:15 AM)martyup Wrote:(09-12-2021, 12:06 AM)newguy Wrote: i'm fairly certain that marty is being sarcastic.
or is it ironic? either way, i enjoy it.
Probably the </sark> at the end gave it away.
I thought that had something to do with Steve Sarkesian. ;-)
Sarkasm: that moment of intense pleasure when you see that Steve Sarkesian loses another game (Texas got whipped last night by Arkansas 21-40; their first 7 drives were 6 punts and a missed FG)
09-12-2021, 08:26 AM
(09-11-2021, 11:38 PM)norcard Wrote: What? no shaw complaints?
Believe it or not, it's good to see the Shawpologists out in force. That means good things for the program, which last night certainly was.
I relayed my thoughts on game in CTC's Morning After thread. Great win; a little caution on how it translates going forward, mainly because McKee was off-the-charts great last night. Is that sustainable, even if he's healthy? (I shudder to think about him not being healthy).
And to specifically answer your question: No. From what I saw of last night's game (2H), no complaints re: Shaw. He did a stellar job running the O.
(09-11-2021, 11:38 PM)norcard Wrote: What? no shaw complaints?
Believe it or not, it's good to see the Shawpologists out in force. That means good things for the program, which last night certainly was.
I relayed my thoughts on game in CTC's Morning After thread. Great win; a little caution on how it translates going forward, mainly because McKee was off-the-charts great last night. Is that sustainable, even if he's healthy? (I shudder to think about him not being healthy).
And to specifically answer your question: No. From what I saw of last night's game (2H), no complaints re: Shaw. He did a stellar job running the O.
09-12-2021, 08:27 AM
(09-12-2021, 03:45 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: Shaw is an awful football coach for continuing to fail to develop his players and staff, or for under-preparing for early season games against teams with inferior talent.
Shaw is a great coach.
These can't both be true.
He is at neither extreme. He's somewhere in the middle, but from week to week he can fluctuate toward one of these.
I really hope he can sustain the mentality that went into last night, but I'm holding my breath because we've seen this play out differently before - multiple times.
(09-12-2021, 03:45 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: Shaw is an awful football coach for continuing to fail to develop his players and staff, or for under-preparing for early season games against teams with inferior talent.
Shaw is a great coach.
These can't both be true.
He is at neither extreme. He's somewhere in the middle, but from week to week he can fluctuate toward one of these.
I really hope he can sustain the mentality that went into last night, but I'm holding my breath because we've seen this play out differently before - multiple times.
09-12-2021, 08:29 AM
(09-12-2021, 03:45 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: Shaw is an awful football coach for continuing to fail to develop his players and staff, or for under-preparing for early season games against teams with inferior talent.What if he's Schrodinger's coach?
Shaw is a great coach.
These can't both be true.
09-12-2021, 08:59 AM
Does nobody remember the awful clock management just before half?
Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.
Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!
Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.
Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.
Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.
Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.
Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!
Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.
Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.
Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.
Does nobody remember the awful clock management just before half?
Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.
Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!
Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.
Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.
Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.
Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.
Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!
Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.
Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.
Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.
09-12-2021, 09:11 AM
(09-12-2021, 08:59 AM)needle Wrote: Does nobody remember the awful clock management just before half?
Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.
Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!
Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.
Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.
Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.
In point of reality, Stanford scored a TD and left USC no time to do anything. How, exactly, is this bad clock management? Why is being inside the 10 with 16 seconds and no timeouts bad? You can run four plays in 16 seconds if they are pass plays. But, here's the thing... You operate with the confidence that you will score before those 16 seconds are up, which is exactly what Stanford did. In fact, they used 4 seconds for one play and left USC 12 seconds.
(09-12-2021, 08:59 AM)needle Wrote: Does nobody remember the awful clock management just before half?
Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.
Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!
Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.
Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.
Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.
In point of reality, Stanford scored a TD and left USC no time to do anything. How, exactly, is this bad clock management? Why is being inside the 10 with 16 seconds and no timeouts bad? You can run four plays in 16 seconds if they are pass plays. But, here's the thing... You operate with the confidence that you will score before those 16 seconds are up, which is exactly what Stanford did. In fact, they used 4 seconds for one play and left USC 12 seconds.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »