The CardBoard
Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - 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: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) (/thread-8258.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - washingtonismoney - 11-16-2014

Shaw, if he likes, can take inspiration from Mark Dantonio -- whole followed up consecutive 11 win seasons with a 7-6 stinkbomb.

Point is, this doesn't necessarily portend anything bad long-term; in fact, it can be the catalyst for something great. The question is whether he's prepared to learn something from this season and do something about it.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - StanfordIndians1 - 11-16-2014

To say the 8 leading tacklers are all gone next year is, well expected.  Yes they are gone but last time I checked the guys on the sidelines can't record tackles.  We have no idea how many great players are waiting to get their chance because we don't give them a shot.  I think our Defense will be just fine.  It's obviously the O that is past panic mode.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - washingtonismoney - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 08:43 PM)StanfordIndians1 link Wrote:To say the 8 leading tacklers are all gone next year is, well expected. 

Not sure where that stat comes from. CFBStats has Blake Martinez as our leading tackler...who, of course, is returning. Unless I missed something.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - needle - 11-16-2014

Quote:  We have no idea how many great players are waiting to get their chance because we don't give them a shot.

I certainly can't argue with that. Of the guys coming back, I will say Blake Martinez has improved quite a bit over the year.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - Spiny_Norman - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 08:43 PM)StanfordIndians1 link Wrote:We have no idea how many great players are waiting to get their chance because we don't give them a shot. 

Sure would be nice to qualify for a bowl that would allow another 10-15 practices for those younger players to get some reps.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - CTcard - 11-17-2014

(11-16-2014, 11:11 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:There are multiple problems on offense:

1. Mistakes at key times. How many times has a penalty or turnover negated a big play, or even a touchdown?
2. An offensive line that has lost its identity. The OL came in with much acclaim, and I thought it would move on without a hiccup. Then when it didn't I thought it would improve over the course of the season. It didn't.
3. Running backs who aren't the kind needed for the type of offense that Stanford has had since its turnaround.
4. A kicker who has been erratic, at best.
5. A coaching staff that has been slow to change the offense to the type of players we have.

This line of discussion is much more interesting to me than trying to decide upon whom to put blame for the loss.

Of this list, #1 seems by far and away the biggest problem. Which is ironic, given that the Shaw zeitgeist is supposed to be to avoid mistakes at all costs. In fact, Utah right now is Stanford 2012 - they win lots of close games and lots of games where they seem to more or less get outplayed by the opposition for large chunks of the game. I liked it better when that was us.

There are some problems with the OLine, though all of those expecting a smooth transition to four new starters were not realistic. One of the identity problems is the coaching. For example, we ran the ball well vs Utah - though pass blocking was poor. Many of our best plays were up the gut, sometimes Power sometimes not. Even with all the sacks of Hogan we averaged 5 yds/carry in an offensively challenged game - without sacks that's 222 yds at 6.5 yds/carry. We needed to do more of this. All season that has been roughly true.

3. Running backs not the right type. Maybe true, but when we have bothered to run our run game has actually been decent. Coaches just don't trust it.

4. Yep, the kicker has been erratic.
Still, he has a brobdingnagian leg and unless you know something (bad) you have to go for that field goal near the end of regulation.

5. Coaching staff slow to change.
Here is where I disagree the most. I think we have a coaching staff who doesn't believe in what they are doing and are too quick to try any old new thing week to week. Among other things, that means that the players are not prepared properly. We saw it again vs Utah; the intent of offense was quite different from anything we had seen before this year (note McCaffrey got the most touches on the  team), but it wasn't exactly effective.

In fact we have NOT been the power running team of the past several years, and I think that itself has hurt us - not just in particular games, but from a development perspective even moreso.

Quote:Here's what I do criticize the coaching staff for:
1. Not recruiting offensive players, and particularly, running backs suited to its type of play.
2. Not bringing in new blood to replace coaches on the offensive side of the ball.

On this #1, see above. To some extent I agree, but I think our problems in the run game are more OLine, and even moreso simple lack of trust by the coaches.

On #2, I don't know if new blood is the root of the problem or not. I blame the coaches for tossing out our identity and replacing it with an amorphous mess. It may be that from the outside someone may have more clearly seen the strengths and weaknesses in our personnel and skill sets. Hard to tell.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - Treebound - 11-18-2014

The penalty problem really does upset me.  Wright, yet again, had a drive killing penalty with his personal foul to stall out our 4th quarter drive.  He is also the person that has been flagged for two critical hi-low chop block penalties - one of which called back a potentially game winning TD versus USC.    That's poor judgement, especially the kick, for an experienced player.

As for the O-line, they did not come together like the TWU of old.  Too many holes, holds and missed blocks.  How you can let their best player come in and sack Hogan untouched from the edge is beyond me.  I think he had 3-4 sacks.  I continue to believe this is the biggest problem and one that could be mitigated if our OC was focused on the performance of the line and not being our OC.  He's too stretched and it shows.

As for the Defense, they are tired!  Tired of having to pitch strong performances to make up for our lack luster offense that is prone to turning the ball over.  The D is clearly not as sharp as they were in the first half of the season.  They aren't used to losing and they now are playing at 500.  Unfortunately, I think the record and performance to date is impacting morale, especially on D.  I'm hopeful that they can get up for Big Game, but the fire isn't there.    If we see more of the same, then count me as being in favor of getting some of the younger, hungrier guys into the mix.  At least they will bring new "Enthusisam Unknown to Mankind" to the game.  That's been missing on the O for most of the season, and it's been missing on the D for the last few games. 

Either we get up for Big Game or this season will be chalked up as one of the biggest disappointments for Stanford football since I've been a fan.  UCB will be up for this game and if Shaw and co can't get our guys up for it, then it's going to be a long afternoon in Strawberry Canyon.



Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - BrevinsBest - 11-18-2014

I left at the end of regulation. I didn't care who won the game. The offense is unwatchable and you can't expect the defense to hold every opponent to 6 points. This season is a dud.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - CTcard - 11-18-2014

(11-18-2014, 10:50 AM)Treebound link Wrote:The penalty problem really does upset me.  Wright, yet again, had a drive killing penalty with his personal foul to stall out our 4th quarter drive.  He is also the person that has been flagged for two critical hi-low chop block penalties - one of which called back a potentially game winning TD versus U$€.    That's poor judgement, especially the kick, for an experienced player.

Kicking the other guy in the pile up was a horrendous error in letting one's emotion get the best of you. That personal foul was atrocious. The chop block vs S.-C. was primarily an egregious error by the referee. On that play, I am certain that Wright did exactly as he is taught to do, and in fact made a good and legal block. If any Stanford player is to blame it is Garnett who waved at the SC lineman after he got beat and put the idea of the illegal chop into the ref's head.
I didn't see the chop block vs UW - my impression was that folks thought it was a reasonable call.

Quote:As for the O-line, they did not come together like the TWU of old.  Too many holes, holds and missed blocks.  How you can let their best player come in and sack Hogan untouched from the edge is beyond me.  I think he had 3-4 sacks.  I continue to believe this is the biggest problem and one that could be mitigated if our OC was focused on the performance of the line and not being our OC.  He's too stretched and it shows.

True, but the TWU didn't come together all at once either.
There are times where the line loses man-up, but they do seem to have some strengths. One of those is actually moving their man on run blocking. One of the reasons I am not happy with our abandonment of the power run game.

Orchard had 3.5 sacks.
0.5 - he beat Murphy though Murphy actually blocked him okay - but Hogan held the ball way too long.
1. Peat blocked him initially - Orchard made a move to the inside - Peat seemed to expect to hand him of Garnett who had disappeared to the outside to block nobody.
2. Peat got beat on a nice move to the outside. Again, perhaps Hogan had time to get rid of the ball, but not much.
3. In OT, Peat went upfield to block for what was going to be a screen pass to McCaffrey. Nobody bothered with Orchard coming in off the end. Clearly a miscommunication. Not completely sure whose fault it was. 

So, the four sacks were a combination of guys being beat, guys not communicating, and Hogan not getting rid of the ball. Ouch.

Quote:As for the Defense, they are tired!  Tired of having to pitch strong performances to make up for our lack luster offense that is prone to turning the ball over.  The D is clearly not as sharp as they were in the first half of the season.

I don't think that adequately describes the defense. Mostly the D has been great, with some break downs at key moments and getting trucked by Oregon from play 1. There was no particular reason to be tired on the first series vs Oregon, and there was no reason to be more tired than the Utah defense in OT - Stanford had run more plays and held the ball for more time than did Utah (32 1/2 minutes vs 27 1/2 minutes). If the problem were getting worn down over the course of the season then I wouldn't have expected them to shut down Utah as they did, particularly Utah's strength in the run game.

I don't see any particular reason for the "defense is tired" argument, unless you mean ennui.

Quote:Either we get up for Big Game or this season will be chalked up as one of the biggest disappointments for Stanford football since I've been a fan.  UCB will be up for this game and if Shaw and co can't get our guys up for it, then it's going to be a long afternoon in Strawberry Canyon.

Apparently I've been a fan longer than you have.
But yeah, it's a disappointing season.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - Treebound - 11-18-2014

Nice points CT,
Here are a few clarifying comments:

Had Wright kept his helmet above the waist, there would have been no call by the official.  Yes, I can excuse it once, but he did it again 1-2 games later!  The kick was just stupid!

TWU took some time yes, but they worked much better as a unit than what we have today.  Again, my issue here is more with Holmgren being spread to thin to focus on these guys.    They need it.  Somebody should have been assigned to key on Orchard.

The D - they have lost their edge.  Yes they played well, and they are capable of being the best D in the country, but I worry that Shaw and the O have lost them.  As others have stated, a number of guys will be graduating AND looking to play on Sundays.  with a 5-4 or 5-5 record, they are no longer playing with as much purpose.  Tough to hear perhaps, but I understand it given the load they have carried.  Are some focused on the next step?

My last point still holds.  Given the high level of expectations for this team, they have clearly underperformed.  Yes, there have been worse teams (Wiggins and Walt), but not versus expectations.  Lose the next two and I stick with my claim.  I'm curious to see how everyone handles it...including the fans.  The stadium was half full at best on Saturday....and I know many that are "punting" on going to UCB. 



Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - stupac2 - 11-18-2014

(11-18-2014, 02:32 PM)garvin link Wrote:
Quote:Yes, there have been worse teams (Wiggins and Walt), but not versus expectations.

Unless we lose both remaining games, I'd say this season was far less disappointing than 1997, when a team widely expected to win the conference lost five of its last six to finish under .500. I know there were some people on this board who were "all in" on this team and expecting it to make the national playoffs, but they were delusional and few. Most of us were in the 8-4/9-3 ballpark. This is disappointing, very disappointing, but nothing like that 1997 collapse, which is still inexplicable to me.

Yes, there's still a chance we could win out and finish a somewhat-respectable 8-5. If we do this season really won't be all that far off of rational expectations entering the season. Of course, winning out will be tough, and if we don't it'll definitely be the most disappointing season in a while.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - CTcard - 11-18-2014

(11-18-2014, 02:25 PM)Treebound link Wrote:Again, my issue here is more with Holmgren being spread to thin to focus on these guys.    They need it.  Somebody should have been assigned to key on Orchard.

Well, I don't think Mike Holmgren is spread too thin these days, but at 66 and retired he might not have all that much energy for the task.


[And you don't really assign a guy to a pass rusher. Orchard moves around and comes from different sides and different places - you don't move the Oline around. If things are running well, accounting for everyone should happen automatically with the protection calls. If one guy is really good then you pay particular attention to him in making those calls. Still, they only blatantly missed Orchard once (a very important once), once guys seemed to be playing different protections (which should never happen, but an independent problem from keeping track of Orchard), and twice he beat the guy blocking him. ]

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - BurgXXIII - 11-18-2014

(11-18-2014, 02:32 PM)garvin link Wrote:
Quote:Yes, there have been worse teams (Wiggins and Walt), but not versus expectations.

Unless we lose both remaining games, I'd say this season was far less disappointing than 1997, when a team widely expected to win the conference lost five of its last six to finish under .500. I know there were some people on this board who were "all in" on this team and expecting it to make the national playoffs, but they were delusional and few. Most of us were in the 8-4/9-3 ballpark. This is disappointing, very disappointing, but nothing like that 1997 collapse, which is still inexplicable to me.

Looking back at the preseason discussion (in a "worst-case" thread), several posts mentioned 6-6 as an abysmal result, although one poster did mention 5-7 as a tiny possibility.