09-11-2018, 01:26 PM
Love out vs Davis
Dang it. On his last run last game he seemed a little dazed as he came off the field and I was worried about an injury. I actually googled “bryce love injury” yesterday, wondering.
Anyway, if that’s it, hopefully 2 weeks is In abundance of caution, especially because it looked relatively minor. Another possibility, he got drilled in the back earlier in the game. A late hit.
One thing I’ve noticed is that with all of the press for Love, it seems teams are not just keying him, they’re trying to take him out. I’ve seen a higher than usual number of late hits. I hope the coach brings this up with the league.
Anyway, if that’s it, hopefully 2 weeks is In abundance of caution, especially because it looked relatively minor. Another possibility, he got drilled in the back earlier in the game. A late hit.
One thing I’ve noticed is that with all of the press for Love, it seems teams are not just keying him, they’re trying to take him out. I’ve seen a higher than usual number of late hits. I hope the coach brings this up with the league.
Dang it. On his last run last game he seemed a little dazed as he came off the field and I was worried about an injury. I actually googled “bryce love injury” yesterday, wondering.
Anyway, if that’s it, hopefully 2 weeks is In abundance of caution, especially because it looked relatively minor. Another possibility, he got drilled in the back earlier in the game. A late hit.
One thing I’ve noticed is that with all of the press for Love, it seems teams are not just keying him, they’re trying to take him out. I’ve seen a higher than usual number of late hits. I hope the coach brings this up with the league.
Anyway, if that’s it, hopefully 2 weeks is In abundance of caution, especially because it looked relatively minor. Another possibility, he got drilled in the back earlier in the game. A late hit.
One thing I’ve noticed is that with all of the press for Love, it seems teams are not just keying him, they’re trying to take him out. I’ve seen a higher than usual number of late hits. I hope the coach brings this up with the league.
09-11-2018, 03:24 PM
clearly a concussion on that garbage time play. stupid of shaw to have him in the game at that point
09-11-2018, 03:42 PM
Even if Love were healthy, there is absolutely no reason to play him against UC Davis. If Stanford can't beat the Aggies comfortably sans Love, there are much larger issues. Personally I don't think this is the case. Maybe This is a game they can get Justice Woods some action in addition to Scarlett and Speights?
Even if Love were healthy, there is absolutely no reason to play him against UC Davis. If Stanford can't beat the Aggies comfortably sans Love, there are much larger issues. Personally I don't think this is the case. Maybe This is a game they can get Justice Woods some action in addition to Scarlett and Speights?
09-11-2018, 03:57 PM
I've been hearing the meme that it was foolish of Shaw to have him in late, but that seems incorrect to me. While it was a two-score game, SC was pretty darn close to making it competitive. Getting just one more first down would've quashed any chance of a comeback, and Love didn't have an inordinate workload to that point. I think it was perfectly justifiable to leave Love in.
I've been hearing the meme that it was foolish of Shaw to have him in late, but that seems incorrect to me. While it was a two-score game, SC was pretty darn close to making it competitive. Getting just one more first down would've quashed any chance of a comeback, and Love didn't have an inordinate workload to that point. I think it was perfectly justifiable to leave Love in.
09-11-2018, 03:57 PM
(09-11-2018, 03:42 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Even if Love were healthy, there is absolutely no reason to play him against UC Davis. If Stanford can't beat the Aggies comfortably sans Love, there are much larger issues. Personally I don't think this is the case. Maybe This is a game they can get Justice Woods some action in addition to Scarlett and Speights?
Don't awake the demons of September 17th, 2005.
(09-11-2018, 03:42 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Even if Love were healthy, there is absolutely no reason to play him against UC Davis. If Stanford can't beat the Aggies comfortably sans Love, there are much larger issues. Personally I don't think this is the case. Maybe This is a game they can get Justice Woods some action in addition to Scarlett and Speights?
Don't awake the demons of September 17th, 2005.
09-11-2018, 04:00 PM
(09-11-2018, 03:57 PM)throwaway Wrote: I've been hearing the meme that it was foolish of Shaw to have him in late, but that seems incorrect to me. While it was a two-score game, SC was pretty darn close to making it competitive. Getting just one more first down would've quashed any chance of a comeback, and Love didn't have an inordinate workload to that point. I think it was perfectly justifiable to leave Love in.
The ESPN probability meter was at 99.7% at the time of the play (although take their model with a grain of salt). At that point, the chance of an injury on any given play was higher than the chance of losing the game.
BC
(09-11-2018, 03:57 PM)throwaway Wrote: I've been hearing the meme that it was foolish of Shaw to have him in late, but that seems incorrect to me. While it was a two-score game, SC was pretty darn close to making it competitive. Getting just one more first down would've quashed any chance of a comeback, and Love didn't have an inordinate workload to that point. I think it was perfectly justifiable to leave Love in.
The ESPN probability meter was at 99.7% at the time of the play (although take their model with a grain of salt). At that point, the chance of an injury on any given play was higher than the chance of losing the game.
BC
09-11-2018, 04:04 PM
I bet if the Oregon game was Saturday that he would play. Good chance for a Scarlett 2019 preview.
09-11-2018, 04:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2018, 04:13 PM by washingtonismoney.)
(09-11-2018, 04:00 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The ESPN probability meter was at 99.7% at the time of the play (although take their model with a grain of salt). At that point, the chance of an injury on any given play was higher than the chance of losing the game.
BC
Yeah, though I suspect the probability model may be a bit misleading. The probability model includes a bunch of different scenarios -- like "Stanford, the home team, is likely to win in overtime" -- that would give the audience and coaches a heart attack if they came to pass.
More relevantly, I'm guessing (though don't know for sure) that the probabilities are on some level based on continuing to play the starters: that is, they assumed Stanford was at least semi-likely to convert a first down based on its stats so far in the game. They don't necessarily answer the question of "how much less likely is Stanford to win if it replaces Love with Scarlett, and how does that compare to the risk of serious injury from another carry?"
This is probably a longer explication of what you meant by "take their model with a grain of salt" but I think it's worth drawing out.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2018, 04:13 PM by washingtonismoney.)
(09-11-2018, 04:00 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The ESPN probability meter was at 99.7% at the time of the play (although take their model with a grain of salt). At that point, the chance of an injury on any given play was higher than the chance of losing the game.
BC
Yeah, though I suspect the probability model may be a bit misleading. The probability model includes a bunch of different scenarios -- like "Stanford, the home team, is likely to win in overtime" -- that would give the audience and coaches a heart attack if they came to pass.
More relevantly, I'm guessing (though don't know for sure) that the probabilities are on some level based on continuing to play the starters: that is, they assumed Stanford was at least semi-likely to convert a first down based on its stats so far in the game. They don't necessarily answer the question of "how much less likely is Stanford to win if it replaces Love with Scarlett, and how does that compare to the risk of serious injury from another carry?"
This is probably a longer explication of what you meant by "take their model with a grain of salt" but I think it's worth drawing out.
09-11-2018, 05:23 PM
Although my friend next to me thought Love should be protected and removed it wasn’t clear to me. If he broke a long run we’d all be cheering and it would elevate him in the national media and make our win more convincing.
On the play shown by ESPN, Loce came immediately to the bench, had his helmet removed and was checked by staff. I didn’t see him taken through a concussion protocol but they set up the tent and took him inside to check him out before he left early.
On the play shown by ESPN, Loce came immediately to the bench, had his helmet removed and was checked by staff. I didn’t see him taken through a concussion protocol but they set up the tent and took him inside to check him out before he left early.
Although my friend next to me thought Love should be protected and removed it wasn’t clear to me. If he broke a long run we’d all be cheering and it would elevate him in the national media and make our win more convincing.
On the play shown by ESPN, Loce came immediately to the bench, had his helmet removed and was checked by staff. I didn’t see him taken through a concussion protocol but they set up the tent and took him inside to check him out before he left early.
On the play shown by ESPN, Loce came immediately to the bench, had his helmet removed and was checked by staff. I didn’t see him taken through a concussion protocol but they set up the tent and took him inside to check him out before he left early.
09-11-2018, 05:31 PM
I saw it live and knew immediately that he got his bell rung. I am not surprised he is out for Davis. In fact, before he made it to the sideline I had the thought that he would be out of the next game. Sucks for his Voldamort award chances.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
I saw it live and knew immediately that he got his bell rung. I am not surprised he is out for Davis. In fact, before he made it to the sideline I had the thought that he would be out of the next game. Sucks for his Voldamort award chances.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-11-2018, 06:05 PM
I don't think it was really garbage time. Just look at what happened with the Packers and the Bears last week.
Nobody knew at that point that we were going to stop USC's last two drives with interceptions. The game was still in doubt, IMO.
Nobody knew at that point that we were going to stop USC's last two drives with interceptions. The game was still in doubt, IMO.
09-11-2018, 06:15 PM
He should not have been in at that point. Scarlett is a capable mop up back. They didn’t need a big play. Just grind clock. Scarlett had been in for a couple minutes then they went back to Bryce.
I suspect a concussion. But I wonder about a possible shoulder injury. Neither is good.
I suspect a concussion. But I wonder about a possible shoulder injury. Neither is good.
He should not have been in at that point. Scarlett is a capable mop up back. They didn’t need a big play. Just grind clock. Scarlett had been in for a couple minutes then they went back to Bryce.
I suspect a concussion. But I wonder about a possible shoulder injury. Neither is good.
I suspect a concussion. But I wonder about a possible shoulder injury. Neither is good.
09-11-2018, 06:50 PM
I think the probabilities reflect the pre-game assessment of the relative strength of the two teams (which is why the game never starts at 50/50) and the game situation (score, possession, down and distance). Again, I would love to see a calibration graph of predicted probability versus actual outcomes. In other words, if you take 1000 games with a team predicted to be 99.7% likely to win, do you see three (or so) losses?
That being said, a two touchdown lead with 2 min 15 seconds left in the game and first and ten on your own 25 (the situation at the start of the series where Love was injured) is about as close to the game being decided as you can really get. An SC comeback in that situation would have likely required either a turnover, blocked punt, or punt return for a TD, followed by a successful onside kick, followed by another touchdown, and at least one 2-pt conversion or a win in overtime. You never say never, but this was a much more dire situation than the Packers, who had 16 min 54 seconds and possession to overcome a 20-3 deficit, 11 min 52 seconds (with possession) to overcome a 20-10 deficit , and 2 min 39 seconds (with possession)to overcome a 23-17 deficit. At the peak per ESPN Chicago had a 98.2% chance of winning, which though high, does imply that you should see a comeback from that level once every 50 or so games, or about every three weeks in the NFL.
BC
That being said, a two touchdown lead with 2 min 15 seconds left in the game and first and ten on your own 25 (the situation at the start of the series where Love was injured) is about as close to the game being decided as you can really get. An SC comeback in that situation would have likely required either a turnover, blocked punt, or punt return for a TD, followed by a successful onside kick, followed by another touchdown, and at least one 2-pt conversion or a win in overtime. You never say never, but this was a much more dire situation than the Packers, who had 16 min 54 seconds and possession to overcome a 20-3 deficit, 11 min 52 seconds (with possession) to overcome a 20-10 deficit , and 2 min 39 seconds (with possession)to overcome a 23-17 deficit. At the peak per ESPN Chicago had a 98.2% chance of winning, which though high, does imply that you should see a comeback from that level once every 50 or so games, or about every three weeks in the NFL.
BC
I think the probabilities reflect the pre-game assessment of the relative strength of the two teams (which is why the game never starts at 50/50) and the game situation (score, possession, down and distance). Again, I would love to see a calibration graph of predicted probability versus actual outcomes. In other words, if you take 1000 games with a team predicted to be 99.7% likely to win, do you see three (or so) losses?
That being said, a two touchdown lead with 2 min 15 seconds left in the game and first and ten on your own 25 (the situation at the start of the series where Love was injured) is about as close to the game being decided as you can really get. An SC comeback in that situation would have likely required either a turnover, blocked punt, or punt return for a TD, followed by a successful onside kick, followed by another touchdown, and at least one 2-pt conversion or a win in overtime. You never say never, but this was a much more dire situation than the Packers, who had 16 min 54 seconds and possession to overcome a 20-3 deficit, 11 min 52 seconds (with possession) to overcome a 20-10 deficit , and 2 min 39 seconds (with possession)to overcome a 23-17 deficit. At the peak per ESPN Chicago had a 98.2% chance of winning, which though high, does imply that you should see a comeback from that level once every 50 or so games, or about every three weeks in the NFL.
BC
That being said, a two touchdown lead with 2 min 15 seconds left in the game and first and ten on your own 25 (the situation at the start of the series where Love was injured) is about as close to the game being decided as you can really get. An SC comeback in that situation would have likely required either a turnover, blocked punt, or punt return for a TD, followed by a successful onside kick, followed by another touchdown, and at least one 2-pt conversion or a win in overtime. You never say never, but this was a much more dire situation than the Packers, who had 16 min 54 seconds and possession to overcome a 20-3 deficit, 11 min 52 seconds (with possession) to overcome a 20-10 deficit , and 2 min 39 seconds (with possession)to overcome a 23-17 deficit. At the peak per ESPN Chicago had a 98.2% chance of winning, which though high, does imply that you should see a comeback from that level once every 50 or so games, or about every three weeks in the NFL.
BC
(09-11-2018, 06:15 PM)lex24 Wrote: I suspect a concussion. But I wonder about a possible shoulder injury. Neither is good.
http://tv5.espn.com/video/clip?id=24620798
Looks like wooziness to me, i.e. concussion.
(09-11-2018, 06:15 PM)lex24 Wrote: I suspect a concussion. But I wonder about a possible shoulder injury. Neither is good.
http://tv5.espn.com/video/clip?id=24620798
Looks like wooziness to me, i.e. concussion.
09-11-2018, 08:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2018, 09:03 PM by CardinalSagehen.)
This was entirely predictable to anyone that saw the play live, the way Love walked off the field, and the trainers’ immediate attention to him on the bench.
I looked at the game clock and it read 1:31 after the play. We had one or two more downs to milk the clock, too. There was no logical rationale for this decision and many of us disliked it in the moment.
This was all about Shaw wanting some feel-good numbers for Love and the team. He was acting more like a fan than a coach in this situation. I am a staunch Coach Shaw supporter, but everyone makes mistakes once in a while, and this was a clear mistake.
Voldemort campaigns are a distraction.
I looked at the game clock and it read 1:31 after the play. We had one or two more downs to milk the clock, too. There was no logical rationale for this decision and many of us disliked it in the moment.
This was all about Shaw wanting some feel-good numbers for Love and the team. He was acting more like a fan than a coach in this situation. I am a staunch Coach Shaw supporter, but everyone makes mistakes once in a while, and this was a clear mistake.
Voldemort campaigns are a distraction.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2018, 09:03 PM by CardinalSagehen.)
This was entirely predictable to anyone that saw the play live, the way Love walked off the field, and the trainers’ immediate attention to him on the bench.
I looked at the game clock and it read 1:31 after the play. We had one or two more downs to milk the clock, too. There was no logical rationale for this decision and many of us disliked it in the moment.
This was all about Shaw wanting some feel-good numbers for Love and the team. He was acting more like a fan than a coach in this situation. I am a staunch Coach Shaw supporter, but everyone makes mistakes once in a while, and this was a clear mistake.
Voldemort campaigns are a distraction.
I looked at the game clock and it read 1:31 after the play. We had one or two more downs to milk the clock, too. There was no logical rationale for this decision and many of us disliked it in the moment.
This was all about Shaw wanting some feel-good numbers for Love and the team. He was acting more like a fan than a coach in this situation. I am a staunch Coach Shaw supporter, but everyone makes mistakes once in a while, and this was a clear mistake.
Voldemort campaigns are a distraction.
09-11-2018, 09:19 PM
I wonder if Scarlett gets most of the RB touches or Speights does. Scarlett looks like the short yardage bruiser to me; Speights has, on occasion, shown signs of Love's "take to the house" ability.
Personally, I'd love to have Love win the Heesman (as in Joe Theesman), but I'm perfectsly fine with the coaching staff being careful with him. That's more important than 200 yards v UC Davis.
As long as we beat the Aggies, who are 2-0 with a narrow win over an FBS team on the road (albeit SJ State) and a blow out of an FCS opponent. Can't overlook this one! I strongly suspect we won't - Shaw is the anti-Wlat - but it requrers attention.
Personally, I'd love to have Love win the Heesman (as in Joe Theesman), but I'm perfectsly fine with the coaching staff being careful with him. That's more important than 200 yards v UC Davis.
As long as we beat the Aggies, who are 2-0 with a narrow win over an FBS team on the road (albeit SJ State) and a blow out of an FCS opponent. Can't overlook this one! I strongly suspect we won't - Shaw is the anti-Wlat - but it requrers attention.
I wonder if Scarlett gets most of the RB touches or Speights does. Scarlett looks like the short yardage bruiser to me; Speights has, on occasion, shown signs of Love's "take to the house" ability.
Personally, I'd love to have Love win the Heesman (as in Joe Theesman), but I'm perfectsly fine with the coaching staff being careful with him. That's more important than 200 yards v UC Davis.
As long as we beat the Aggies, who are 2-0 with a narrow win over an FBS team on the road (albeit SJ State) and a blow out of an FCS opponent. Can't overlook this one! I strongly suspect we won't - Shaw is the anti-Wlat - but it requrers attention.
Personally, I'd love to have Love win the Heesman (as in Joe Theesman), but I'm perfectsly fine with the coaching staff being careful with him. That's more important than 200 yards v UC Davis.
As long as we beat the Aggies, who are 2-0 with a narrow win over an FBS team on the road (albeit SJ State) and a blow out of an FCS opponent. Can't overlook this one! I strongly suspect we won't - Shaw is the anti-Wlat - but it requrers attention.
09-12-2018, 08:20 AM
(09-11-2018, 06:50 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That being said, a two touchdown lead with 2 min 15 seconds left in the game and first and ten on your own 25 (the situation at the start of the series where Love was injured)Ah, I had thought there was more time remaining. I misremembered. My mistake.
09-12-2018, 11:56 PM
It will be interesting to see how we handle their stud 6'3" WR, Keelan Doss, who had over 150 yards vs San Diego State last year. They have shown some offensive firepower.
It will be interesting to see how we handle their stud 6'3" WR, Keelan Doss, who had over 150 yards vs San Diego State last year. They have shown some offensive firepower.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »