Stanford - UW game thread - 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 - UW game thread (/thread-14841.html)

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - ADPATERSON - 11-10-2017

NO LOVE from here looks like...

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - ADPATERSON - 11-10-2017

NO LOVE from here looks like...

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - BostonCard - 11-10-2017

(11-10-2017, 09:59 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:If Costello has more zip I think that's a touchdown. His arm strength is questionable at times, to me.

But also, UW has good defensive backs.  That was the sort of stuff I was expecting out of Meeks and Holder... but haven’t gotten.

BC

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - BostonCard - 11-10-2017

(11-10-2017, 09:59 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:If Costello has more zip I think that's a touchdown. His arm strength is questionable at times, to me.

But also, UW has good defensive backs.  That was the sort of stuff I was expecting out of Meeks and Holder... but haven’t gotten.

BC

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - ADPATERSON - 11-10-2017

(11-10-2017, 10:00 PM)Trevmiesterj link Wrote:No Love?

Tight Ends!

RIGHT!  "More Cowbell".  I gotta fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell! 

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - ADPATERSON - 11-10-2017

(11-10-2017, 10:00 PM)Trevmiesterj link Wrote:No Love?

Tight Ends!

RIGHT!  "More Cowbell".  I gotta fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell! 

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - BostonCard - 11-10-2017

Wait what?  We called two time outs back to back?  It doesn’t even look like we tried to run a play.  What happened?

BC

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - BostonCard - 11-10-2017

Wait what?  We called two time outs back to back?  It doesn’t even look like we tried to run a play.  What happened?

BC

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - VFRing98 - 11-10-2017

Back to back timeouts? Huh?

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - VFRing98 - 11-10-2017

Back to back timeouts? Huh?

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - washingtonismoney - 11-10-2017

(11-10-2017, 10:01 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:But also, UW has good defensive backs.  That was the sort of stuff I was expecting out of Meeks and Holder... but haven’t gotten.

I think you're right, twice over. On balance, I've been impressed with Costello's first-half performance -- a validation of all the optimists.

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - washingtonismoney - 11-10-2017

(11-10-2017, 10:01 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:But also, UW has good defensive backs.  That was the sort of stuff I was expecting out of Meeks and Holder... but haven’t gotten.

I think you're right, twice over. On balance, I've been impressed with Costello's first-half performance -- a validation of all the optimists.

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - Trevmiesterj - 11-10-2017

I don't understand what Shaw is doing here.

Back to back timeouts?

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - Trevmiesterj - 11-10-2017

I don't understand what Shaw is doing here.

Back to back timeouts?

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - phxfan - 11-10-2017

Russell Wilson stuff!

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - phxfan - 11-10-2017

Russell Wilson stuff!

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - jacketree - 11-10-2017

Two time outs back to back?

This will be the greatest play in the history of the universe.

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - jacketree - 11-10-2017

Two time outs back to back?

This will be the greatest play in the history of the universe.

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - martyup - 11-10-2017

I'm confused.  Why did we take two timeouts?  Clock didn't run, did it?

---

Re: Stanford - UW game thread - martyup - 11-10-2017

I'm confused.  Why did we take two timeouts?  Clock didn't run, did it?

---