The CardBoard
Thorough thrashing - 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: Thorough thrashing (/thread-22260.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: Thorough thrashing - martyup - 09-13-2021

(09-13-2021, 09:06 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Also, we have Jones, Peat, EJ Smith, and Filkins. That is not a bad stable of running backs to have, and, as far as I know, none are hankering to transfer.  It's all about each player knowing their role.

BC

They are not hankering to transfer because they made the 40 year decision.  They are not self-entitled prima donnas like some highly ranked players that chose their college based on how much it would help their NFL draft stock.  At least we hope so.

RE: Thorough thrashing - TrumpCard - 09-13-2021

Did the announcers’ bias ultimately make Stanford appear to be a better team than if the announcers had come into the game without as many preconceived notions about how much talent is on U$C’s roster?

RE: Thorough thrashing - CTcard - 09-13-2021

(09-12-2021, 02:58 PM)Goose Wrote:  
(09-12-2021, 10:43 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote:  
(09-12-2021, 09:41 AM)Goose Wrote:  However, Tavita beat SC on some great throws (and catches). Wonderful game, but he wasn't exactly a star.

The final result may have you misremembering. I don't have the stats but Tavita had an AWFUL game, with resurrection at the end. Doesn't make it any less wonderful, though.

True. Tavita was 11 of 30. On the last drive he was money. The question is, was he good or was he lucky. I think lucky, and that is why I don't want to anoint any QB based on a one game sample. Show me a season and then it isn't luck. Dioesn't mean McKee isn't actually great, but it is too soon to know.

Some notes:
in that 2007 game Tavita was: 11-30, 149 yds, 5.0 yds/att, 1 TD, 1 INT, PER=82.7
in that final drive, he was 2-8, 30 yds, 3.75 yds/att, 1 TD, 0 INT, PER=111.8 (there was also one more incomplete pass negated by a PI)
On two critical, desperate plays, he was money as can be.

McKee's game was drastically different. He also had a pretty decent performance vs KSU despite ultimately missing a few key plays.
vs SC: 16-23, 234 yds, 10.2 yds/att, 2 TD, 0 INT, PER=183.7.
On the season: 31-41, 352 yds, 8.6 yds/att, 3 TD, 0 INT, PER=171.9

Currently in the conference, on the season, McKee is #2 in PER (to Thomson-Robinson of UCLA at 174.9); #1 in completion percentage (75.6).
Of course he is the only conference guy to have faced two Power 5 defenses.

Finally, while I find it excessively mysterious, at the moment McKee leads the entire country in the ESPN QBR stat (opponent adjusted) at 89.3.
 
This isn't enough time to know anything about consistency, which is a key, but it was truly a great start.


... and I'll be happy enough if it is Luck.

RE: Thorough thrashing - Stanfordindians1again - 09-13-2021

Please remember, like the Northwestern game to open the season on road a bit back, travelling East and starting at 9a.m. is a joke.  Same results as the NW game.

Biggest improvement is game 1 to 2.  I put my  $$ up and made a chunk (thanks MGM) taking the 17 points.  Was a no brainer.

If we can contain the UCLA rushing game, (thier backs are better than people think) and being at home... I think we will be fine.

North is going to come down to  Oct 2.  

#oneatatime

RE: Thorough thrashing - SamuelMcF - 09-14-2021

(09-13-2021, 08:23 AM)Goose Wrote:  
(09-12-2021, 08:56 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  You’d have thought it would lead to more success on the ground for USC, but they only averaged 5.6 ypc, which is not bad, but not great considering they had an empty box to run into.

BC
Yes, and thank God their "brain trust" didn't see that and react. As I have said all along, they should just run right at us until we make them stop. They are such an "air raid" team now that on principle (am I using that word in regard to USC) they just won't run, run, run. As the announcers said, USC has 5 backs that could start for any team in the country. Allowing for a bit of overstatement, they are for sure good enough to run against the defense we were playing. 5.6 yards per carry will get you lots of first downs.

It was 4.2ypc until garbage time.

RE: Thorough thrashing - CTcard - 09-15-2021

(09-14-2021, 10:56 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(09-13-2021, 08:23 AM)Goose Wrote:  
(09-12-2021, 08:56 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  You’d have thought it would lead to more success on the ground for USC, but they only averaged 5.6 ypc, which is not bad, but not great considering they had an empty box to run into.

BC
Yes, and thank God their "brain trust" didn't see that and react. As I have said all along, they should just run right at us until we make them stop. They are such an "air raid" team now that on principle (am I using that word in regard to USC) they just won't run, run, run. As the announcers said, USC has 5 backs that could start for any team in the country. Allowing for a bit of overstatement, they are for sure good enough to run against the defense we were playing. 5.6 yards per carry will get you lots of first downs.

It was 4.2ypc until garbage time.

Which isn't great, but isn't atrocious against a team that is only running on 44% of their plays.

It's pretty tough for me to see how SC choosing to run more often would have turned the tables from getting run to actually winning.

RE: Thorough thrashing - Goose - 09-15-2021

(09-15-2021, 07:35 AM)CTcard Wrote:  It's pretty tough for me to see how SC choosing to run more often would have turned the tables from getting run to actually winning.
We can't know what would have happened, but it would have kept our offense off the field and our defense on it, two things we don't want. Our defense is not deep and could easily have been worn out. USC could have avoided all those three and outs that gave us a big lift in the second half. We would also have had worse field position, assuming U$C didn't score every time by making 4.2 YPC. We, like U$C, might have been placed in a position where we needed to change our defensive approach. So, yes, I can see how that could have defeated us.

lex24 - lex24 - 09-15-2021

(09-12-2021, 08:39 PM)jfredmuggs Wrote:  One reason there were no sacks is that we were rushing three and dropping eight on a regular basis.  That’s not strategy I would have picked, but that’s why I am a useless old fart and Shaw is making the big bucks.

True for the most part.  He did blitz at times when SC was inside the 20.  Picked his spots well.  Stanford’s defense did a great job of tackling and avoiding the big play.  SC had darn near nothing downfield.

RE: lex24 - CowboyIndian - 09-15-2021

(09-15-2021, 03:49 PM)lex24 Wrote:   Stanford’s defense did a great job of tackling

Noted this Saturday night. Damned few missed tackles.

RE: Thorough thrashing - gailtate - 09-16-2021

(09-13-2021, 08:05 PM)Stanfordindians1again Wrote:  Please remember, like the Northwestern game to open the season on road a bit back, travelling East and starting at 9a.m. is a joke.  Same results as the NW game.

Biggest improvement is game 1 to 2.  I put my  $$ up and made a chunk (thanks MGM) taking the 17 points.  Was a no brainer.

If we can contain the UCLA rushing game, (thier backs are better than people think) and being at home... I think we will be fine.

North is going to come down to  Oct 2.  

#oneatatime

And every time I hear whining about "early start times" I will point out that Oregon wasn't fazed in the least vs. tOSU this year -- and in a far from neutral site. Oh, yes, and Stanford did  pretty well at West Point in 2013. Back to the crack-of-dawn game against juggernaut K-State: not starting your best QB and then shuttling him in and out of the game is rarely a competitive advantage.

RE: Thorough thrashing - martyup - 09-16-2021

It is uncanny how similar the start of this season is to 2015.  

• 9:00 AM kickoff against an unranked Power 5 team.
• A dismal running game. 
• We score only about 7 points.
• We have a lot of stupid penalties and wasted timeouts.
• Many fans give up on the team and call for Shaw's head.
• Shortly thereafter we travel to Los Angeles and beat a ranked USC team.
• After our humiliation of the Trojans, their coach is fired mid-season

RE: Thorough thrashing - CTcard - 09-16-2021

(09-16-2021, 07:50 AM)martyup Wrote:  It is uncanny how similar the start of this season is to 2015.  

• 9:00 AM kickoff against an unranked Power 5 team.
• A dismal running game. 
• We score only about 7 points.
• We have a lot of stupid penalties and wasted timeouts.
• Many fans give up on the team and call for Shaw's head.
• The following week travel to Los Angeles and beat a ranked USC team.

Well close.
That SC game was week 3.
In between we struggled a bit before running away late in a game against a bad UCF team.

RE: Thorough thrashing - martyup - 09-16-2021

Fixed it

RE: Thorough thrashing - CTcard - 09-16-2021

(09-16-2021, 07:33 AM)gailtate Wrote:  And every time I hear whining about "early start times" I will point out that Oregon wasn't fazed in the least vs. tOSU this year -- and in a far from neutral site. Oh, yes, and Stanford did  pretty well at West Point in 2013. Back to the crack-of-dawn game against juggernaut K-State: not starting your best QB and then shuttling him in and out of the game is rarely a competitive advantage.

Stanford has a long history of being really bad at early start time games. Whether mentioning that fact is whining or not, I don't know, but it is a true statement. That includes 2013. That was a bad Army team (ended up 3-9), a good Stanford team (#5 in final BCS), and the game was overly close. Stanford looked lethargic and sloppy. I was in the stands - left a bit shaken as to whether the team would be competitive in the Pac 12.

Early start time is not destiny. Oregon did an excellent job. NFL teams from the west regularly play 10 am pacific games and don't always stink up the joint. Of course Stanford should be better at this. But in my life time, they haven't been.

RE: Thorough thrashing - BostonCard - 09-16-2021

Hell, it isn't even a recent phenomenon.  The 1999 team that went on to the Rose Bowl lost to Texas 69-17 in a game that started at 11:11 AM (at least per this box score), which would have been 9 am Pacific.

BC

RE: Thorough thrashing - CTcard - 09-16-2021

(09-16-2021, 09:01 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Hell, it isn't even a recent phenomenon.  The 1999 team that went on to the Rose Bowl lost to Texas 69-17 in a game that started at 11:11 AM (at least per this box score), which would have been 9 am Pacific.

I am afraid that the term "in my lifetime" doesn't constrain events to recent history either.
I was in the stands for that debacle as well. Very warm.

RE: Thorough thrashing - BostonCard - 09-16-2021

Also on there was the infamous "Hurricane Ike game" against TCU by an admittedly not very good 2008 Stanford team.  The game was moved up 6 hours because of the impending hurricane, which made for a 10 am start.

BC

RE: Thorough thrashing - CowboyIndian - 09-16-2021

I can't remember the start time but I'm pretty sure it was at least a day game when we lost to Boston College in Chestnut Hill back in 2002. That was Buddy's first game. BC scored with something like a minute left to cap a comeback.

RE: Thorough thrashing - UltimateCard - 09-16-2021

(09-16-2021, 09:52 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote:  I can't remember the start time but I'm pretty sure it was at least a day game when we lost to Boston College in Chestnut Hill back in 2002. That was Buddy's first game. BC scored with something like a minute left to cap a comeback.
We also lost game I attended at BC in 1980. Couldn’t remember start time so Googled (it was a night game) and found this Harvard Crimson (why did they cover the game?) article that gave a shrug about Elway and a shout out to the Band: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1980/9/23/bc-played-football-stanford-just-played/

RE: Thorough thrashing - gailtate - 09-16-2021

(09-16-2021, 08:32 AM)CTcard Wrote:  
(09-16-2021, 07:33 AM)gailtate Wrote:  And every time I hear whining about "early start times" I will point out that Oregon wasn't fazed in the least vs. tOSU this year -- and in a far from neutral site. Oh, yes, and Stanford did  pretty well at West Point in 2013. Back to the crack-of-dawn game against juggernaut K-State: not starting your best QB and then shuttling him in and out of the game is rarely a competitive advantage.

Stanford has a long history of being really bad at early start time games. Whether mentioning that fact is whining or not, I don't know, but it is a true statement. That includes 2013. That was a bad Army team (ended up 3-9), a good Stanford team (#5 in final BCS), and the game was overly close. Stanford looked lethargic and sloppy. I was in the stands - left a bit shaken as to whether the team would be competitive in the Pac 12.

Early start time is not destiny. Oregon did an excellent job. NFL teams from the west regularly play 10 am pacific games and don't always stink up the joint. Of course Stanford should be better at this. But in my life time, they haven't been.

I, too, was there that day, end-zone to the left of the press box. Not the team's best effort in 2013 for sure but even in my jaundiced eye(s) I did not think the outcome was ever in doubt. Most important, they found a way to win on the road against a spirited opponent. Which is what the really good teams do. The K-State debacle confirmed my pre-season assessment of this year's team, and my post-game afterglow following USC's face-plant last week is long gone. I pray for McKee's health and hope for the best in the the coming weeks. But I'll remain skeptical until I'm not.