Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - 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: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 (/thread-7711.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: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 (/thread-7711.html)
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - berto41 - 09-06-2014
(09-06-2014, 05:43 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=somnambule link=topic=10559.msg97072#msg97072 date=1410048961]
The lack of a reliable inside runner is really hurting us in the red zone. That and the inexcusable penalties.
I disagree, respectfully. I am sick of the hubris, against a good D, that says we trll you exactly what we're going to do and dare you to stop it. Good God, how often does it have to fail? Turley or not we are not the only big, strong, skillful players in the universe. How about a little use of playmakers? Why, oh why, do we need to bully our way up the middle? A trst of manhood? Come on. If you have a Gerhardt, Tayler or Gaffney, yes, but when you don't why pretend? Line up that way and go wide. Toss it to Hooper? Taboada? (Or whatever) even sneak a fullback outside, or send Hogan outside. Play with the guys you have, not the one's you wish you had.
[/quote]
AGREE 110%!!!
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - 81alum - 09-06-2014
Nearly everyone here has been applauding the defense. I am willing to agree when it comes to our secondary--we did an awesome job controlling Kessler and his receivers. But the SC wide spread O-line gave us a lot of trouble in defending the run. They averaged 4.2 ypc while we managed only 3.4. Allen averaged 6.7 although a lot of it came on one long carry. But any way you size this up, our defense was not dominant when it came to stopping the run. And when you realize that SC was running on us even with two true frosh offensive linemen, it serves to remind us that there there is some room for improvement on defense, too.
Clearly, our defense played well enough for us to win--if we had been told before the game that SC would be held to 13 points I think 99.9% of us would have rejoiced in the certainty that we would win. But there are going to be a lot of teams looking at this tape and figuring out what SC did to run up 179 yards against the vaunted run-stoppers at Stanford.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - Rally - 09-06-2014
(09-06-2014, 05:45 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I don't know, I don't think "bullying up the middle" was the main reason for our redzone errors. We missed the 4th down conversion up the middle, but was it many other plays? I'm in no mood to rewatch the game, but that's not my memory.
Its always many other plays. Its a team sport which is why it is unfair to blame one player, kicker, qb, whatever, or the coach. One may contribute more to the loss than another but it remains a team sport.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - washingtonismoney - 09-06-2014
(09-06-2014, 07:10 PM)81alum link Wrote:Nearly everyone here has been applauding the defense. I am willing to agree when it comes to our secondary--we did an awesome job controlling Kessler and his receivers. But the SC wide spread O-line gave us a lot of trouble in defending the run. They averaged 4.2 ypc while we managed only 3.4. Allen averaged 6.7 although a lot of it came on one long carry. But any way you size this up, our defense was not dominant when it came to stopping the run. And when you realize that SC was running on us even with two true frosh offensive linemen, it serves to remind us that there there is some room for improvement on defense, too.
I agree(ish) with you. But I think part of SC's effectiveness running the ball was a pick-your-poison thing from Stanford: we kept the box light and trusted they couldn't hurt us too badly on the ground. That was correct. Still, something to improve upon for sure.
With respect to the running game, it's a bit deceptive to focus on 3.4. That was skewed by snapping the ball over Montgomery's head and the many pass scrambles of Hogan. (not to mention the two sacks). Our top two running backs were pretty effective -- both Young and Wright taking five-and-a-half yards per carry. The secondary RBs were not so effective. And while I think Montgomery-as-RB was a smart wrinkle to try, even if you take out the botched snap, he was only 3 for 9.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - washingtonismoney - 09-06-2014
(09-06-2014, 07:13 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10559.msg97084#msg97084 date=1410050714]
I don't know, I don't think "bullying up the middle" was the main reason for our redzone errors. We missed the 4th down conversion up the middle, but was it many other plays? I'm in no mood to rewatch the game, but that's not my memory.
Its always many other plays. Its a team sport which is why it is unfair to blame one player, kicker, qb, whatever, or the coach. One may contribute more to the lose than another but it remains a tram sport.
[/quote]
OK...so....stubbornly bullying it up the middle wasn't a problem then?
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - Mick - 09-06-2014
(09-06-2014, 06:37 PM)oman link Wrote:[quote author=somnambule link=topic=10559.msg97072#msg97072 date=1410048961]
The lack of a reliable inside runner is really hurting us in the red zone. That and the inexcusable penalties.
I'm sorry, but to me it was the lack of allowing the tailbacks to perform in the redzone (as well as the field goal problems) that were the problem.
[/quote]
By George, I think you've got it. At least that was my read as well
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - Stymie - 09-07-2014
(09-06-2014, 05:43 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=somnambule link=topic=10559.msg97072#msg97072 date=1410048961]
The lack of a reliable inside runner is really hurting us in the red zone. That and the inexcusable penalties.
I disagree, respectfully. I am sick of the hubris, against a good D, that says we trll you exactly what we're going to do and dare you to stop it. Good God, how often does it have to fail? Turley or not we are not the only big, strong, skillful players in the universe. How about a little use of playmakers? Why, oh why, do we need to bully our way up the middle? A trst of manhood? Come on. If you have a Gerhardt, Tayler or Gaffney, yes, but when you don't why pretend? Line up that way and go wide. Toss it to Hooper? Taboada? (Or whatever) even sneak a fullback outside, or send Hogan outside. Play with the guys you have, not the one's you wish you had.
[/quote]
Bingo!
God, do I miss Bill Walsh. If he had the talent that Shaw is able to recruit we could be going to the Super Bowl as well as the College Bowl (or whatever this 4-team money maker is going to be called).....
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - JohnR34231 - 09-07-2014
(09-06-2014, 05:47 PM)dispr link Wrote:What killed me was the personnel choice on the 4th and 1 at the 3 yard line. Why handoff to a true freshman in Marx when you have Skov who barrelled in for a TD earlier in the game??
That one bothered me too. We give it to a true freshman? How about Skov or Wright going airborne as he did earlier in the game to pick up a first down.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - Bruce Wang - 09-07-2014
(09-06-2014, 06:42 PM)berto41 link Wrote:189 pound Kelsey Young?! Sanders isn't very good at running inside. So, who are you pining for? Remound Wright? Seems like the only one left at this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4JVcvR7IM0
Click for the answer:
http://stanforddaily.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Nathan_FootballvUCDavis-3.jpg
I would have spliced a video, but I don't know how.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - JohnR34231 - 09-07-2014
(09-07-2014, 01:26 AM)Stymie link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10559.msg97083#msg97083 date=1410050621]
[quote author=somnambule link=topic=10559.msg97072#msg97072 date=1410048961]
The lack of a reliable inside runner is really hurting us in the red zone. That and the inexcusable penalties.
I disagree, respectfully. I am sick of the hubris, against a good D, that says we trll you exactly what we're going to do and dare you to stop it. Good God, how often does it have to fail? Turley or not we are not the only big, strong, skillful players in the universe. How about a little use of playmakers? Why, oh why, do we need to bully our way up the middle? A trst of manhood? Come on. If you have a Gerhardt, Tayler or Gaffney, yes, but when you don't why pretend? Line up that way and go wide. Toss it to Hooper? Taboada? (Or whatever) even sneak a fullback outside, or send Hogan outside. Play with the guys you have, not the one's you wish you had.
[/quote]
Bingo!
God, do I miss Bill Walsh. If he had the talent that Shaw is able to recruit we could be going to the Super Bowl as well as the College Bowl (or whatever this 4-team money maker is going to be called).....
[/quote]
It's perhaps worth noting that Bill Walsh had two cracks against U$C in the 1970's and managed to come away with 7 total points. Also, since he had people like Guy Benjamin, Darrin Nelson, and James Lofton, it wasn't as though he was bereft of talent. The '78 game IIRC, was very similar to yesterday in that we scored a TD early and then struggled offensively for the remainder. Walsh called a couple of trick plays that resulted in turnovers to U$C and was criticized for,you guessed it, his play calling.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - 81alum - 09-07-2014
(09-07-2014, 06:06 AM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10559.msg97193#msg97193 date=1410078412]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10559.msg97083#msg97083 date=1410050621]
[quote author=somnambule link=topic=10559.msg97072#msg97072 date=1410048961]
The lack of a reliable inside runner is really hurting us in the red zone. That and the inexcusable penalties.
I disagree, respectfully. I am sick of the hubris, against a good D, that says we trll you exactly what we're going to do and dare you to stop it. Good God, how often does it have to fail? Turley or not we are not the only big, strong, skillful players in the universe. How about a little use of playmakers? Why, oh why, do we need to bully our way up the middle? A trst of manhood? Come on. If you have a Gerhardt, Tayler or Gaffney, yes, but when you don't why pretend? Line up that way and go wide. Toss it to Hooper? Taboada? (Or whatever) even sneak a fullback outside, or send Hogan outside. Play with the guys you have, not the one's you wish you had.
[/quote]
Bingo!
God, do I miss Bill Walsh. If he had the talent that Shaw is able to recruit we could be going to the Super Bowl as well as the College Bowl (or whatever this 4-team money maker is going to be called).....
[/quote]
It's perhaps worth noting that Bill Walsh had two cracks against U$C in the 1970's and managed to come away with 7 total points. Also, since he had people like Guy Benjamin, Darrin Nelson, and James Lofton, it wasn't as though he was bereft of talent. The '78 game IIRC, was very similar to yesterday in that we scored a TD early and then struggled offensively for the remainder. Walsh called a couple of trick plays that resulted in turnovers to U$C and was criticized for,you guessed it, his play calling.
[/quote]
Yes, in his first two year run Walsh was unable to defeat either USC or Washington. Most of my football friends thought that it was obvious that our team simply lacked the physical talent to compete with their athletic superiority--and all the clever strategems just didn't work if the talent deficit is simply too great. There were also some individually poor performances. My friend on the team noted in 1977 that "James couldn't catch a cold" in the 49-0 drubbing in LA. While Walsh had talent on offense, on defense he had Gordy Ceresino, and one Gordy just wasn't enough to stop student body right. Our defense today is vastly superior to what Walsh had to work with.
Like players and all human beings, coaches come with strengths and weaknesses in a package, and the Shaw package has proven overall to be more successful than the Walsh package was, and so I would not trade Shaw for anyone. However, I continue to admire Walsh's offensive creativity and find that Shaw's disposition--whatever he may say--is indeed somewhat conservative. There is nothing wrong with Shaw that the right offensive coordinator could not fix. I am reminded a bit of Harbaugh bringing in Greg Roman rather than letting Shaw be offensive coordinator on his own--I think he also sensed that Shaw needed some help with offensive creativity.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - washingtonismoney - 09-07-2014
I don't think creativity is the missing element. As Shaw pointed out in his presser, Stanford runs all manner of formations, plays, and the like. What the offense needs is increased simplicity. It's been consistent over the past two years: Shaw gives too many chances to random players for two or three boutique plays, which are typically wasted. Last year it was Rollins Stallworth, goal-line fade specialist. (And, to a lesser degree, playing the solid Jordan Pratt over the very good Devon Cajuste and Michael Rector.) This year Ricky Seale is a noticeably worse runner than Wright and Young.
I suspect that's part of the reason for so many screw-ups. The more variety you introduce the thinner you spread yourself. While you don't want to be so simple that you're predictable, I think the offense over the past few years is experiencing the opposite trade-off. Rather than do more, Shaw should pare back and do less.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - StanFan88 - 09-07-2014
(09-06-2014, 05:16 PM)somnambule link Wrote:The lack of a reliable inside runner is really hurting us in the red zone. That and the inexcusable penalties.
I disagree. What was hurting is not calling enough OUTSIDE running plays. With a speed advantage to the corners and WRs who outweighed USC's DBs by 30 lbs or more, there is no excuse for not going wide.
Lots of issues but the biggest of them all are a) 4 RBs = No RBs, and b) call plays that fit the offense you have, not the one you want to have.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - 81alum - 09-07-2014
(09-07-2014, 08:07 AM)StanFan88 link Wrote:[quote author=somnambule link=topic=10559.msg97072#msg97072 date=1410048961]
The lack of a reliable inside runner is really hurting us in the red zone. That and the inexcusable penalties.
I disagree. What was hurting is not calling enough OUTSIDE running plays. With a speed advantage to the corners and WRs who outweighed Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans's DBs by 30 lbs or more, there is no excuse for not going wide.
Lots of issues but the biggest of them all are a) 4 RBs = No RBs, and b) call plays that fit the offense you have, not the one you want to have.
[/quote]
I think there is really something to this. Our WRs were much bigger and more physical than the SC CBs. It was the ideal situation for outside sweeps, flare passes, swing passes, etc. And whenever we tried that stuff it worked.Â
We will continue to have this advantage for most of the season, and I hope we exploit Cajuste and Montgomery as blockers as well as receivers.
Whether a steady diet of outside stuff would have helped in the red zone I'm not sure, but it could hardly have been worse than what we tried.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - CornFed - 09-07-2014
(09-07-2014, 06:06 AM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10559.msg97193#msg97193 date=1410078412]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10559.msg97083#msg97083 date=1410050621]
[quote author=somnambule link=topic=10559.msg97072#msg97072 date=1410048961]
The lack of a reliable inside runner is really hurting us in the red zone. That and the inexcusable penalties.
I disagree, respectfully. I am sick of the hubris, against a good D, that says we trll you exactly what we're going to do and dare you to stop it. Good God, how often does it have to fail? Turley or not we are not the only big, strong, skillful players in the universe. How about a little use of playmakers? Why, oh why, do we need to bully our way up the middle? A trst of manhood? Come on. If you have a Gerhardt, Tayler or Gaffney, yes, but when you don't why pretend? Line up that way and go wide. Toss it to Hooper? Taboada? (Or whatever) even sneak a fullback outside, or send Hogan outside. Play with the guys you have, not the one's you wish you had.
[/quote]
Bingo!
God, do I miss Bill Walsh. If he had the talent that Shaw is able to recruit we could be going to the Super Bowl as well as the College Bowl (or whatever this 4-team money maker is going to be called).....
[/quote]
It's perhaps worth noting that Bill Walsh had two cracks against U$C in the 1970's and managed to come away with 7 total points. Also, since he had people like Guy Benjamin, Darrin Nelson, and James Lofton, it wasn't as though he was bereft of talent. The '78 game IIRC, was very similar to yesterday in that we scored a TD early and then struggled offensively for the remainder. Walsh called a couple of trick plays that resulted in turnovers to U$C and was criticized for,you guessed it, his play calling.
[/quote]
So in that respect, would it be your opinion that the talent level on that '78 was as good as our current team? The individual players you named were truly excellent, but our problem was depth, as well as team speed.
The premise of the original post was speculation about what Walsh might be able to do calling plays for this team. It is just that - speculation so cannot really be determined with any certainty. But I do feel that if Walsh had this diversity of offensive weapons, he would more than likely obtain a better result than we saw yesterday.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - StanFan88 - 09-07-2014
(09-07-2014, 08:59 AM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=StanFan88 link=topic=10559.msg97225#msg97225 date=1410102450]
[quote author=somnambule link=topic=10559.msg97072#msg97072 date=1410048961]
The lack of a reliable inside runner is really hurting us in the red zone. That and the inexcusable penalties.
I disagree. What was hurting is not calling enough OUTSIDE running plays. With a speed advantage to the corners and WRs who outweighed Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans's DBs by 30 lbs or more, there is no excuse for not going wide.
Lots of issues but the biggest of them all are a) 4 RBs = No RBs, and b) call plays that fit the offense you have, not the one you want to have.
[/quote]
It reminds me of a quote: "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want or wish to have."Â I think that was Donald Rumsfeld but whoever it was, Shaw needs to have that one framed and on his desk.
I think there is really something to this. Our WRs were much bigger and more physical than the SC CBs. It was the ideal situation for outside sweeps, flare passes, swing passes, etc. And whenever we tried that stuff it worked.Â
We will continue to have this advantage for most of the season, and I hope we exploit Cajuste and Montgomery as blockers as well as receivers.
Whether a steady diet of outside stuff would have helped in the red zone I'm not sure, but it could hardly have been worse than what we tried.
[/quote]
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - Stymie - 09-07-2014
(09-07-2014, 09:28 AM)CornFed link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=10559.msg97205#msg97205 date=1410095173]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10559.msg97193#msg97193 date=1410078412]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10559.msg97083#msg97083 date=1410050621]
[quote author=somnambule link=topic=10559.msg97072#msg97072 date=1410048961]
The lack of a reliable inside runner is really hurting us in the red zone. That and the inexcusable penalties.
I disagree, respectfully. I am sick of the hubris, against a good D, that says we trll you exactly what we're going to do and dare you to stop it. Good God, how often does it have to fail? Turley or not we are not the only big, strong, skillful players in the universe. How about a little use of playmakers? Why, oh why, do we need to bully our way up the middle? A trst of manhood? Come on. If you have a Gerhardt, Tayler or Gaffney, yes, but when you don't why pretend? Line up that way and go wide. Toss it to Hooper? Taboada? (Or whatever) even sneak a fullback outside, or send Hogan outside. Play with the guys you have, not the one's you wish you had.
[/quote]
Bingo!
God, do I miss Bill Walsh. If he had the talent that Shaw is able to recruit we could be going to the Super Bowl as well as the College Bowl (or whatever this 4-team money maker is going to be called).....
[/quote]
It's perhaps worth noting that Bill Walsh had two cracks against U$C in the 1970's and managed to come away with 7 total points. Also, since he had people like Guy Benjamin, Darrin Nelson, and James Lofton, it wasn't as though he was bereft of talent. The '78 game IIRC, was very similar to yesterday in that we scored a TD early and then struggled offensively for the remainder. Walsh called a couple of trick plays that resulted in turnovers to U$C and was criticized for,you guessed it, his play calling.
[/quote]
So in that respect, would it be your opinion that the talent level on that '78 was as good as our current team? The individual players you named were truly excellent, but our problem was depth, as well as team speed.
The premise of the original post was speculation about what Walsh might be able to do calling plays for this team. It is just that - speculation so cannot really be determined with any certainty. But I do feel that if Walsh had this diversity of offensive weapons, he would more than likely obtain a better result than we saw yesterday.
[/quote]
Thanks, CornFed. That was exactly what I was trying to say. The players Walsh had in the late 70's were nothing (absolutely and relatively) to the studs we have now. He took us to two consecutive bowls with a team full of student-athletes, rather than athlete-students,
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - stupac2 - 09-07-2014
I thought that Hogan put that team on his back and carried them kicking and screaming as close to victory as possible. If we had won we'd be talking about how he had a Luck-esque game.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - JohnR34231 - 09-07-2014
(09-07-2014, 09:28 AM)CornFed link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=10559.msg97205#msg97205 date=1410095173]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10559.msg97193#msg97193 date=1410078412]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10559.msg97083#msg97083 date=1410050621]
[quote author=somnambule link=topic=10559.msg97072#msg97072 date=1410048961]
The lack of a reliable inside runner is really hurting us in the red zone. That and the inexcusable penalties.
I disagree, respectfully. I am sick of the hubris, against a good D, that says we trll you exactly what we're going to do and dare you to stop it. Good God, how often does it have to fail? Turley or not we are not the only big, strong, skillful players in the universe. How about a little use of playmakers? Why, oh why, do we need to bully our way up the middle? A trst of manhood? Come on. If you have a Gerhardt, Tayler or Gaffney, yes, but when you don't why pretend? Line up that way and go wide. Toss it to Hooper? Taboada? (Or whatever) even sneak a fullback outside, or send Hogan outside. Play with the guys you have, not the one's you wish you had.
[/quote]
Bingo!
God, do I miss Bill Walsh. If he had the talent that Shaw is able to recruit we could be going to the Super Bowl as well as the College Bowl (or whatever this 4-team money maker is going to be called).....
[/quote]
It's perhaps worth noting that Bill Walsh had two cracks against U$C in the 1970's and managed to come away with 7 total points. Also, since he had people like Guy Benjamin, Darrin Nelson, and James Lofton, it wasn't as though he was bereft of talent. The '78 game IIRC, was very similar to yesterday in that we scored a TD early and then struggled offensively for the remainder. Walsh called a couple of trick plays that resulted in turnovers to U$C and was criticized for,you guessed it, his play calling.
[/quote]
So in that respect, would it be your opinion that the talent level on that '78 was as good as our current team? The individual players you named were truly excellent, but our problem was depth, as well as team speed.
The premise of the original post was speculation about what Walsh might be able to do calling plays for this team. It is just that - speculation so cannot really be determined with any certainty. But I do feel that if Walsh had this diversity of offensive weapons, he would more than likely obtain a better result than we saw yesterday.
[/quote]
It's probably true that we didn't have the offensive depth in '78 that we do today. I just thought it was interesting to point out that Walsh didn't have any more luck with the U$C defense than we had on Saturday (actually less, because we certainly didn't have 9 drives inside the U$C 30 then) despite some pretty decent offensive talent.
P.S. The previous year, I remember the radio announcers pointing out that it was interesting that an offense with three potential NFL first round draft choices (Gordon King, Benjamin and Lofton), not to mention Darrin Nelson, could put up exactly 0 points against the U$C defense.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - CornFed - 09-07-2014
It isn't just "probably" true that we didn't have the depth of talent on the 1978 team as we do now. The talent pool differential was, I think, sufficient to render the attempted comparison ineffective.
I think the wistful comment is more of an honorific to Bill Walsh. I think he was probably one of the greatest offensive minds in the history of the game. I don't know for sure he would have made better decisions than Shaw last Saturday. But I sure do know that trying to use the 1978 example as evidence that he occasionally suffered the same shortcomings as Shaw is probably not valid.