Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - 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: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) (/thread-2200.html)
+- 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: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) (/thread-2200.html)
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - Roberton3 - 10-30-2011
(10-30-2011, 08:41 AM)GoodGrief link Wrote:[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=4777.msg34045#msg34045 date=1319988481]
I'm pretty sure it was Gardner who caused the fumble, not Stephens.
It definitely was Terrence Stephens who caused the fumble, and he did it in HEROIC fashion. Stephens was prone, buried in the pile of linemen, and somehow as the the University of South Central player ran past him, Stephens managed to reach out his left arm and pull the football away. Just an incredible, heads-up, all-out effort by him on the play. It's a shame that Kirk Herbstreit wrongly gave Gardner credit for the fumble, but the slo-mo replay clearly shows it was 100% Stephens. Damn, I want to hug that man.
[/quote]
I stand corrected. And Stephens deserves lots of credit: it was an amazing play.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - Hurlburt88 - 10-30-2011
after he caused the fumble it was kind of funny watching him lay there with someone on his back trying to turn his head to see what was going on!!!! Great smile on his face afterwards, and on mine! ;D
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - washingtonismoney - 10-30-2011
I think the final score here is a bit deceptive re: the defense. It held USC to 27 points in regulation. If Stanford has its usual game on offense, we win by a touchdown or more, no drama needed.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - pefloresjr - 10-30-2011
Just got home after my return flight from LA. We were high up in the Stanford section and it was an amazing experience. USC was incredibly fired up for this game. When they scored and especially when they took the lead, their team and fans were going nuts like THEY were about to pull off the biggest upset in college football history. Barkeley seems to play really well against us. The lack of sacks and much serious pressure on the qb is one of my main concerns out of this game.Â
But, I'm not in the mood to think about the negatives. I am all about the post victory over SC afterglow. I think the team grew by responding to adversity with determination and without any panic. It is insane to think about going for two at the end of regulation with Luck at qb and the rest of our offense even on the road. This was just two good teams going at each other in an electric atmosphere. The pick 6 by Luck at the end of regulation threatened to be the defining moment of the season. Still, I felt like Luck would lead a good drive with almost 3 minutes still left on the clock. That PAT that almost missed made my heart stop beating for a moment. Overtime was just a wild white knuckle ride shifting from despondence to jubilation. After the fumble, when we finished huggging everybody in the section, we had a rousing chant of "Whose house? Our house!" So sweet. Had a great bacon wrapped hotdog leaving the stadium and I didn't care at all about the hours and hours of total time we spent in traffic going to and from the game.Â
This team deserves to be in the top 4. Looking forward to all the remaining home games and hoping for a great finish to this magical season.
Cheers,
Pete F.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - fullmetal - 10-31-2011
Pete, that must have been a heck of a game experience :)
Wildcat with 4-5 min left in the game was terrible. Going PAT wasn't clearly worse than going for two. Did you see how gassed the U$C team was? Woods managed to contribute even though he had to be helped off the field after his last touchdown. Dion Bailey leaving allowed Fleener to snag that +2 conversion. McNeal's fatigued arms allowed Stephens to force that fumble. The team must have seen the weakness and gone after them.
I don't think USC's players are unheralded at all. They may have played terribly in other games, but a lot of these guys were four or five star recruits coming out of high school. They thought that they'd be playing for a program of Stanford's current stature when they committed to U$C. It doesn't make them weaker or less athletic that their W/L record, which only had one loss--Arizona St.--before failing an endurance test against Stanford. This is not a bad team, which means this was a great win.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - Spiny_Norman - 10-31-2011
I was looking more closely at Stanford on defense because my sense when I left the stadium was that they really had played better than one might have thought despite USC's big plays and 48 points.
If you skip the drives that began in 3Q, these are USC's drives in regulation:
Quarter Plays Yards Result
1QÂ Â Â Â Â Â 6Â Â Â Â Â 23Â Â Â Punt
1QÂ Â Â Â Â Â 12Â Â Â Â 55Â Â Â FG
2QÂ Â Â Â Â Â 3Â Â Â Â Â 7Â Â Â Â Int
2QÂ Â Â Â Â Â 7Â Â Â Â Â 43Â Â Â Punt
2QÂ Â Â Â Â Â 6Â Â Â Â Â 23Â Â Â FG
4QÂ Â Â Â Â Â 3Â Â Â Â Â 6Â Â Â Â Punt
4QÂ Â Â Â Â Â 4Â Â Â Â Â 13Â Â Â Punt
4QÂ Â Â Â Â Â 5Â Â Â Â Â 42Â Â Â End of half
I see in the numbers a defense that did a very credible job against a talented offense for most of the game. When they needed to come up big to give Stanford a chance to win, they shut down USC late in regulation. They also played well in the first half and proved to have just a little more stamina than USC's players at the end when it counted most. We know there are problems, weak areas that are a concern against a team like Oregon that can exploit them. But USC may be the most talented offensive team that Stanford will face all year and the defense stood up to them pretty well. I hope that the team can take care of business in Corvallis (easier said than done, Stanford has won very few times there over the last 15 years) with no more injuries. Then we'll see what happens against the Ducks. I am not confident, but my glass half-empty view is changing to glass half-full.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - fullmetal - 10-31-2011
I still think Oregon is the most talented (speed is a talent) offense we will see. One game at a time...
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - pefloresjr - 10-31-2011
(10-31-2011, 03:13 PM)garvin link Wrote:Quote:It is insane to think about going for two at the end of regulation with Luck at qb and the rest of our offense even on the road.
I'm not sure what you mean here, Pete. If you're saying why go for two when OT would have put the ball in Luck's hands....well, going for two on the PAT would have put the ball in his hands, too.
With Luck, I think our offense is better than theirs and was playing better at the end of regulation. The longer they played, the more that difference would be revealed and the more likely we were to win the game. You only go for two if you think that you won't come out ahead if the game is extended because you aren't as good as the other team. In a single two-point attempt the advantage might not show and you could lose the game. So, with the better offense, you should go for the much higher percentage kick and tie the game.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - FarmBoy - 10-31-2011
In the 2nd OT, by choosing to tie the game, instead of going for the win, Shaw was betting that he'd have a better chance of outscoring U.SC in the next OT than in a successful 2pt conversion. An optimist would probably put the 2pt conversion success at about 50%. From a statistical point of view, it can be argued that the probability of Stanford outscoring the T.rojans in an OT is higher than that. Stanford is #1 in the country (how freakin' unbelievable is that?), scoring TDs close to 80% of the time. U.SC is 95th, scoring TDs at close to 50% of the time.
However, I was one of those calling for Shaw to go for 2 at the end of the 2nd OT. Whitaker was looking pretty shaky as a spot kicker and I was having flashbacks to his brother missing a PAT in last year's contest. I also felt that you should put the ball in Luck's hands to end the game. (I was also pleading for Shaw to just put me out of my misery.) Finally, I had lost my faith in the defense's ability to stop Barkley, Woods, et al. In the end, Shaw made the best choice, because it created an opportunity for the defense to step up to the plate and make the game ending play. Now they build on that confidence towards Nov 12.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - Farm93 - 10-31-2011
Road teams can consider going for two in the second OT, especially if they are in some way lucky to be in 2OT.
Home teams should almost ways bank on the idea that with time, and crowd noise, the road team will make a mistake.
In the LA Coliseum there was no real way that either team was going for 2 early because both had reason to believe that they would have an advantage in later OTs.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - Griffins78 - 11-01-2011
Pac-12 Officials have been really bad at NOT calling holding against our opponents. Countless times I see teams holding our defense. Correct me if I'm wrong but has there been a single holding call against any opposing team? On the 2nd McNeal TD, Kalil clearly hangs onto Lancaster and pulls him back just as McNeal runs by. And on many of the runs there were clear holdings not called. Also, their DBs repeatedly held our receivers and when Luck was sacked it was because Taylor was held by their defensive lineman. Ben Gardner was blatantly held by 77 (a horse collar) right in front of the official that spun Gardner around just as he would have sacked Barkley. Herbstreit pointed it out and showed it on the replay. It became a 17 yd completion. Not a single call.
Defense - played really well, particularly Terrence Brown. Brown was pretty much lock down on the left side. We often played their receivers tight, rarely got beat, often defended really well, and tackled well with very little YAC. Generally we made a lot of key defensive plays throughout the game.
Terrence Brown getting hurt at end of Q3 was a major blow. Barry Browning took his place through the 1st OT and though he generally played well, Browning was beat by Woods in the 1st OT for a TD. Then Brown came back in.
With Brown hurt, Johnson Bademosi had to play the rest of the game. He seems to be our weak point and other teams seem to know that. He was targeted and beat several times. He plays far off and gives a lot of space to the receivers. On one of McNeal's TD runs, Chase Thomas crashed inside so the outside was open. Lancaster was held by Kalil so couldn't get outside, and Bademosi, playing CB on the right side drifted too far inside before realizing the run was to his side - too late and couldn't get outside in time. BUT, it was Bademosi that nudged Lee out of bounds in the 3rd OT at the 4, just before landing in the end zone, which then led to the game winning fumble.
The TD pass to Lee at beginning of Q4 was on a blitz by our safety, Jordan Richards, leaving the middle open and Michael Thomas isolated. Thomas was beat on the play. Our other safety, Devon Carrington, seemed to be playing very deep, took a bad angle, and took out Thomas, who could have made the tackle. Carrington also missed a tackle in 2nd OT on their TD.
Our team speed, especially on the outside is much better than most have thought. the University of South Central repeatedly went to their speedy WRs to give them space on the outside to try to run away. Our OLB and DEs often ran them down and made solid tackles, generally for just a couple of yards.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - fullmetal - 11-01-2011
I'm wondering about those holding calls. Last year's game against Oregon had at least a few blown no-calls on key plays :(
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - washingtonismoney - 11-02-2011
This was something I was complaining about earlier in the season. I believe we finally got our first holding call against Colorado. In total, we've gotten five holding calls against opposing offenses, which seems small given the number of TFLs and sacks we've accumulated.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - fullmetal - 11-02-2011
Shaw on the wildcard call in the 4Q:
Quote:Coach David Shaw stood by the decision to use RB Tyler Gaffney to run the wildcat on third-and-8 at the USC 13 trailing by three in the fourth quarter. If he gets the first down, great, Shaw said. If he doesnt, we kick the field goal and tie the game late in the fourth quarter.
How many times has Gaffney actually handed off to the sweep runner? I presume he's making the right decisions on whether to keep it or not...which just means that the U$C defense was beating our blocking scheme pretty well.
From Kyle Bonagura
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - Leftcoast - 11-02-2011
Well, the sweep was Andrew Luck once and THAT turned out well.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - fullmetal - 11-02-2011
I think that was a double hand-off there :p But I guess the default behavior for the defense is to key in on the sweep runner and contain--praying that the mess in the middle will foul up the runner should the ball not be handed off.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - fullmetal - 11-02-2011
Ah, Wilner makes his first real contribution to my enjoyment of this season with this interview.
Quote:So heres Shaw, after being asked if he second-guessed himself calling the Wildcat:
(And please note: At no time during his explanation did Shaw lose his cool, get nasty or anything or the sort.)
Not at all. I heard we got beat up a little by (Kirk) Herbstreit. I got questions after the game. I tried not to answer them in a nasty fashion, which Im trying not to do now, either.
The bottom line is: Were down three, have a backup tackle in the game, theyd gotten good pressure during the course of the game, youre playing against the Tampa 2 doctor. Its third and 8 with not a lot of space in the red zone against the Tampa 2.
You guys diagram the play. Tell me what throw you want to make against two high safeties with the (middle) linebacker in the middle of the field, two linebackers that are robbers and cornerbacks that cheat inside their receivers.
Ive been going against this defense for a long time. There are not a lot of throws. So what we did, we got into the Wildcat, which (Gaffney) has made play after play after play.
They have an automatic check to the Wildcat, which is to bring the strong safety down. Youve got a weakside bubble, a strong safety down on the right, and we run a counter play back away.
Two weeks ago, the kid took it for 15 yards. This past one, youre one block away from him potentially scoring, let alone a first down. Either way: A first down, great; if you dont, then you kick a field goal to tie the game late in the fourth quarter. Its a great call.
Im not going to apologize for it. I think I over-explained it just now. Its the wise call. We cant take a sack, we cant turn the ball over or force ball into coverage. Its a run its a screen, its something wise to make sure you get the tie.
Because if turn it over or take a sack and you have a long field goal for your backup kicker, you guys would be saying, Gosh, why couldnt you run the ball and make sure you get the field goal.
Ive been around the business my entire life. Thats how it works; you guys cant fool me. I feel great about it. Win, lose or draw, thats right call.
Why Shaw called the Wildcat play.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - DC - 11-02-2011
If Luck had been playing QB and you wanted to make sure you got the FG, couldn't you have just had him hand the ball off?Â
Yeah, in the wildcat Gaffney can choose where he wants to run, but it also tips off that you probably aren't going to pass.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - fullmetal - 11-02-2011
I think this is how it goes:
Theoretically, the blocking for the Wildcat is such that every playside defensive player is accounted for except for one man, usually the playside DE but sometimes either the playside or middle linebacker (right?). The RB receiving the snap hands off based on who he thinks the unblocked man is keying in on--himself, or the sweep runner. Whoever is not being homed in on gets the ball and theoretically runs past the blocks of the rest of the offense.
Shaw ran a counter blocking scheme, which pulls at least one OL from the backside to help lead block for the runner. l need to see the play again to see what went on, but obviously the SC front seven crashed our OL pretty hard and stuffed the run.
Wilner adds this before Shaw's quote:
Quote:(Stanford was using a backup right tackle at the time, All-American left tackle Jonathan Martin was playing on a sprained ankle, and USCs pass rush was in overdrive.)
That might be why the blocking wasn't as effective. Sprained ankles are no fun to run and block on (thought it was probably the LG pulling for the counter). I assume there was only one pulling lineman.
Correct me if I've gone wrong.
Re: Final: Stanford 56, U.SC 48 (3 OTs) - fullmetal - 11-03-2011
What confused me was the strong safety down at right. Wasn't the right side the play side of the formation? You could conceivably run a counter to that side if you feel like it would have been better for the safety to be closer to the line and therefore more likely to be blocked. Otherwise, my instinct is to run to where they aren't.