The CardBoard
Back to the Future - 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: Back to the Future (/thread-7938.html)

Pages: 1 2

Back to the Future - Redrum - 10-04-2014

I have seen this season before.  I have lived this season before.  We are 3-2.  But it's worse than it looks.  The Big Three:  USC, Notre Dame, Kal.  Right now we are 0-2 in that key stat.  Not only that, but the feel of this season has a retro feel.  Not abysmal.  Just not good enough in key parts of the game. Hogan is at his ceiling.  He is what he is, good weather or bad.  None of our running backs is a true "starter".  Don't think Hogan or any of those backs will "emerge".
And we are what we are.  And the refs are what they are.  And we are 3-2.

What's funny is a couple of the talking head shows before the game showed the supposed 'game plan" utilized by Syracuse for breaking up Golson's success in the passing game.  Featured pressure, pressure, pressure.  Didn't see much of that  late in this game.  Just 3 guys in white uniforms not getting pressure, not making Golson run for his life. 

The really sucky thing is several mutual recruits between Stanford and ND were on their official visits to ND and watched the game, felt the game day atmosphere.  Would not be surprised at all if the game tipped some into the ND commit column.

Re: Back to the Future - thunder_chik - 10-04-2014

I agree that Hogan seems to be at his ceiling, unfortunately.  I don't think Shaw will make a change at QB, since we are 3-2 anyway.  Probably not worth burning Chryst's redshirt, since playoffs not in the picture for us at this point.  Will the offense galvanize and run the table the remainder of the season?  Probably not.  Too bad we lost today--a host of top 10 teams were upset.  We probably could have moved into the top 10 with a win.
With the talent we have on offense, I have to pin our problems on coaching.  Maybe the new OC just isn't up to the task.  Suspect we will just muddle through the rest of the season and be glad we are invited to a (lesser) bowl game.
Honestly, it was more fun watching us play when we didn't have such high expectations.

Re: Back to the Future - stupac2 - 10-04-2014

We could still make the playoff, we just need help. We need to win out and get some other lucky results. Definitely not out of it.

Well, unless we keep playing this badly on offense. Then we'll be lucky to go 8-4.

Re: Back to the Future - JeffInCorvallis - 10-04-2014

Put the playoff thing to bed.  We're not a terrible team, but we are not top-10 material.

Pac12 Network analyst panel rips Lyons - Redrum - 10-04-2014

Well,  maybe "rips" is a little strong.  All they do is highlight Lyons' role in the final ND drive and where Lyons failed to execute on three crucial plays.  They didn't need to express much derisive opinion.  Just the facts, m'am.

Re: Pac12 Network analyst panel rips Lyons - stupac2 - 10-04-2014

(10-04-2014, 06:52 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Well,  maybe "rips" is a little strong.  All they do is highlight Lyons' role in the final ND drive and where Lyons failed to execute on three crucial plays.  They didn't need to express much derisive opinion.  Just the facts, m'am.

Lyons definitely seems to be the weak link in the secondary. It seems like he just never really figured out the mental aspect of the position, which is amazing for a 3-year starter.

Re: Back to the Future - Farm93 - 10-04-2014

Playoffs are out.  Only real possibility would be that the team runs the table after changing QBs and then the committee could decide to discount those two close losses.  That's not going to happen, obviously.

Conference CG and other goals are still in the realm.  Therefore the new best case scenario is probably Pac-12 champs with that trip to the Dec 31 Fiesta Bowl.  FWIW -  It seems that USC is not very good, so that loss is starting to look like a rather bad loss for a top 10 type team.

The alternative is that USC and Stanford are both destined to be middle of the Pac teams since at that level apparently random losses are just a way of life.

Re: Back to the Future - fullmetal - 10-04-2014

Win the Pac-12, see what happens next.  Not even thinking about playoffs :(

Re: Back to the Future - Spiny_Norman - 10-04-2014

(10-04-2014, 05:42 PM)Redrum link Wrote:the feel of this season has a retro feel.  Not abysmal.  Just not good enough in key parts of the game. Hogan is at his ceiling.  He is what he is, good weather or bad.  None of our running backs is a true "starter".  Don't think Hogan or any of those backs will "emerge". And we are what we are. 

The offense really needs a spark.  But I have no idea where it could come from.  We may see this team just muddle through, trying all season to find an identity and consistency.

They have another chance in 6 days to prove to themselves and the fans what they can do.  Time to get ready for the Cougars who may be the Pac 12 North leaders by the end of this evening.

Re: Back to the Future - BurgXXIII - 10-04-2014

By analogy to many posts about Hogan's surpassing record of success against Top 10 teams, it seems like we should cut Lyons some slack. If I remember correctly, the defense lead the nation in pass defense coming into the game. Are we really carping about the nation's leading defense?


Re: Back to the Future - Bruce Wang - 10-04-2014

I still think we win the PAC-12.  The playcalling wasn't so bad.  Credit to the Frollos' defense.

My biggest gripe was going conservative on defense on that final stand.  The only thing Prevent Defense prevents is victory.

We should blitz more in general.  I wonder if Lance's conservatism comes from his status as the new DC.  He's proven himself.  He should take more gambles.

Lyons - Redrum - 10-04-2014

I don't think that its picking on Lyons to simply acknowledge what was there to see.  He had a terrible finish to the game.  I agree that the defense is more than one player in most cases.  In this case leaving Golson without pressure and playing the safety literally out of the TV picture was a bad defensive choice.  That's on the coaches.  The "prevent defense's"  woeful history on past Stanford teams got flogged in another post here.

Re: Back to the Future - washingtonismoney - 10-04-2014

I dunno, I think people are giving the rush 3/drop 8 approach way too much guff. As I've noted, we used it basically the whole game and if you liked the defense most of the game you also liked ... rushing 3 and dropping 8. Sorry.

The reasons for that defense are perfectly sensible:

a) if N.D. is going to spread you out with four or five receivers you need to spread out with them, which takes potential rushers out of the equation.
b) Other problem is a safety (or two) deep -- if you want that (and you do!), then this, too, takes away rushers.
c) Since Golson is mobile, you also don't want to over-rush him and leave him free for a draw/escape/whatever. A robber looks pretty sensible... in which case he's not rushing.

So pretty soon you're left with a situation in which rushing 3 and dropping 8 looks like a reasonable choice. If you'd like to rush, you need to either: cover a receiver with a linebacker, have fewer deep safeties than you'd like, or risk Golson escaping. It's not as simple as you guys are portraying it.

Re: Back to the Future - stupac2 - 10-04-2014

(10-04-2014, 08:11 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I dunno, I think people are giving the rush 3/drop 8 approach way too much guff. As I've noted, we used it basically the whole game and if you liked the defense most of the game you also liked ... rushing 3 and dropping 8. Sorry.

The reasons for that defense are perfectly sensible:

a) if N.D. is going to spread you out with four or five receivers you need to spread out with them, which takes potential rushers out of the equation.
b) Other problem is a safety (or two) deep -- if you want that (and you do!), then this, too, takes away rushers.
c) Since Golson is mobile, you also don't want to over-rush him and leave him free for a draw/escape/whatever. A robber looks pretty sensible... in which case he's not rushing.

So pretty soon you're left with a situation in which rushing 3 and dropping 8 looks like a reasonable choice. If you'd like to rush, you need to either: cover a receiver with a linebacker, have fewer deep safeties than you'd like, or risk Golson escaping. It's not as simple as you guys are portraying it.

I disagree. I think on 4th and long you blitz. If you give a QB a ton of time in that situation then you're just asking to get burned. The situation is different from 1st and 10 in the second quarter, playing the game in front of you makes sense then, it just doesn't when any completion is a terrible result.

Re: Back to the Future - dabigv13 - 10-04-2014

Exactly. Dropping 8 is fine and did serve us well for stretches of the game. But on 4th and long on a short field, dropping 8 against a somewhat shaky QB who has been skipping balls to his receivers is not the way to go. Against Peyton? Sure, a big blitz will get you killed. Against Golson, even if he gets flushed from the pocket, it's unlikely he'll be able to run for the first since the secondary is not that deep due to the short field.

Bad call. And bad execution.

Re: Back to the Future - needle - 10-04-2014

Maybe this would have been seen as pretty daft, but at the time I was really hoping Stanford would use its final time out before the 4th down play to give the big guys a bit more time to recover for an all out pass rush and maybe make ND go to a less preferred play.

Re: Back to the Future - StanFan88 - 10-04-2014

(10-04-2014, 05:58 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:We could still make the playoff, we just need help.

Put down the oversized doobie and wake up.  Two losses, and one to a team that clearly isn't very good.

Of course, if the offense isn't fixed there will be at least two more losses before the end of the season - maybe three.  7-5 is far more likely than 10-2 at this point.

Re: Back to the Future - JohnR34231 - 10-04-2014

(10-04-2014, 06:12 PM)JeffInCorvallis link Wrote:Put the playoff thing to bed.  We're not a terrible team, but we are not top-10 material.

I think that's the bottom line. We are a decent team, but we are hardly a great one. The offense is mediocre, and the defense, while good, is not an immovable object.

The upside is no one in the Pac-12 looks invincible.  Not inconceivable that with a few breaks we could win it.

Agree with Redrum that this season has a deja vu all over again view to it. In big games, we play just well enough to lose.

Re: Back to the Future - Mick - 10-05-2014

(10-04-2014, 08:15 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10792.msg100865#msg100865 date=1412478718]
I dunno, I think people are giving the rush 3/drop 8 approach way too much guff. As I've noted, we used it basically the whole game and if you liked the defense most of the game you also liked ... rushing 3 and dropping 8. Sorry.

The reasons for that defense are perfectly sensible:

a) if N.D. is going to spread you out with four or five receivers you need to spread out with them, which takes potential rushers out of the equation.
b) Other problem is a safety (or two) deep -- if you want that (and you do!), then this, too, takes away rushers.
c) Since Golson is mobile, you also don't want to over-rush him and leave him free for a draw/escape/whatever. A robber looks pretty sensible... in which case he's not rushing.

So pretty soon you're left with a situation in which rushing 3 and dropping 8 looks like a reasonable choice. If you'd like to rush, you need to either: cover a receiver with a linebacker, have fewer deep safeties than you'd like, or risk Golson escaping. It's not as simple as you guys are portraying it.

I disagree. I think on 4th and long you blitz. If you give a QB a ton of time in that situation then you're just asking to get burned. The situation is different from 1st and 10 in the second quarter, playing the game in front of you makes sense then, it just doesn't when any completion is a terrible result.
[/quote]


It looked to me like Golson was particularly vulnerable to blitzing and that it thres him off his game.

Re: Back to the Future - StanFan88 - 10-05-2014

(10-05-2014, 06:51 AM)Mick link Wrote:It looked to me like Golson was particularly vulnerable to blitzing and that it thres him off his game.

Golson was awful yesterday when he was throwing on the run or off his back foot.  But when he was able to step into a throw he was pretty good.  Rushing 3 was just stupid, stupid, stupid.Â