Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . .

Stanford Miami 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 Miami Game Thread. . . . (/thread-26280.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

SkiBum80 - SkiBum80 - 09-04-2026

Our O is killing our D

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - newguy - 09-04-2026

on the play where Tafiti tipped the pass......replay clearly shows Zach Rowell being held.
it's blatant.

SkiBum80 - SkiBum80 - 09-04-2026

Toney must have cooties
Nobody wants to be near him

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - JohnR34231 - 09-04-2026

I didn't think it was going to be this bad.
Oh well.

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - Sam Leopold - 09-04-2026

(Yesterday, 06:06 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Sitting in NorVA, no other Stanford fans here at the Grill Bar in Reston

They probably all decided that they would be better off working the late night at ScorecardResearch or something.

Miami is what we were about 15 years ago.

SkiBum80 - SkiBum80 - 09-04-2026

Wow 2 good plays
5 yard run by Ford
Then crossing route to Caden High

Geez Hall with another dropped pass
Woulda been 5+ yard gain

Caden “Toney Jr” High

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - newguy - 09-04-2026

well at least we got something.

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - cardcrimson - 09-04-2026

Warren looks really good, as does Caden.

Stupid penalties killing us on both sides of the ball.

Secondary is absolutely awful.

FWIW, the guys on the Alabama board thought the no PI call was bogus. We could've used that break. . . .

The offsides on the 3rd and 9 cost us four points, as did the drop in the end zone. Second TD drop in two weeks. . ..

SkiBum80 - SkiBum80 - 09-04-2026

The refs better get this call right

The punt did look like hit our #38 on the toe

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - ADPinWDC - 09-04-2026

Jesus... getting smoked.
47 yard strike to Toney, again for paydirt
-- not a complex play. Mensah has all night.

Mensah: 26 of 29 for about 400 yds, 5 TDs
Toney is 230 yds of that and 3 TDs.
Can we put a guy on Toney?!!!
Hey, Stanford -- they are throwing the ball to Toney!

My prediction of 45 - 10 looks too conservative

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - newguy - 09-04-2026

i won't be surprised if Miami wins the national championship.

SkiBum80 - SkiBum80 - 09-04-2026

Our vaunted freshman receivers look like… freshman

SkiBum80 - SkiBum80 - 09-04-2026

If we made it to the end without any serious injuries that’s something positive

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - ADPinWDC - 09-04-2026

Mensah's QBR is 260 ! Incredible

27 of 30 for 412 yards, 5 TDs, no INTs

RE: SkiBum80 - cardcrimson - 09-04-2026

(Yesterday, 09:24 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: If we made it to the end without any serious injuries that’s something positive

Did Jay Green make it back in?

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - newguy - 09-04-2026

nice to see Mike Mitchell complete a pass to Chico Holt.

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - needle - 09-04-2026

Well, that was NOT fun.

Positives:

Stanford with zero turnovers. Warren threw one up for grabs that probably should have been picked, but other than that showed some real composure. If we play teams with similar talent, not turning the ball over is a tried and true way to get wins in close games.

Caden High, welcome back!

Treading lightly here, but imo Stanford's run defense, while not stellar, actually was respectable considering the opponent.

Negatives:

Yes, you could almost say everything else, but I will be brief and point to the dismal production from the running game. It really wasn't great against Hawaii and today, against a much, much better opponent, it was basically non-existent. Hopefully things look better when/if some of the injured linemen come back. Another tried-and-true way to win games is, if you have a lead late, run the ball. Couldn't do it against Hawaii, and nothing I saw today makes me think Stanford will be able to in the future (again, hopefully getting some guys back will help).

Everything else:

For those at the stadium, was E-40 any good?

RE: SkiBum80 - SkiBum80 - 09-04-2026

(Yesterday, 09:36 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(Yesterday, 09:24 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: If we made it to the end without any serious injuries that’s something positive
Did Jay Green make it back in?

I thought so

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - Spiny_Norman - 09-04-2026

The OL was overwhelmed today. They did mostly ok on pass protection when Miami rushed 4. But they were on their heels whenever Miami blitzed or stunted. To the credit of Davis Warren, he was only sacked once. But he was often on the run or had to rush a throw as he was about to get hit. Stanford reverted back to a recent common practice of holding a TE back to help with pass blocking. It helped, but that meant one fewer potential receiver in the pattern and that seemed to throw off Warren. Remember the days when Stanford had RBs that could effectively pick up a blitzer? A very valuable skill which I didn't much in evidence tonight.

The OL has been the Achilles heel of Stanford FB for a number of years now and it seems again to be a weak link.

RE: Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . . - Goose - 09-05-2026

(Yesterday, 10:46 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: The OL has been the Achilles heel of Stanford FB for a number of years now and it seems again to be a weak link.

This IMO covers the main problem we have. While I am confident that the guys that are out injured are "better" than the players we have out there, I strongly suspect they are not that much "better". The hope that Stanford could be a run-heavy team playing possession football while taking some "shots" is and for "a number of years" has been a fantasy. We do not have an OL that can do that. To his credit, David Shaw tried to "adapt" to this problem. He kind of made it work for a couple of years, and was greatly benefited by having Bryce Love to provide a running threat even when our line really couldn't open running lanes reliably. In the end though it proved impossible. It still is.

We are indeed fortunate the OL we have is capable of pass blocking at the level it does. Not great, but it is much better than the run blocking. Of course, we have seen lots of this video before. On the plus side, we have a QB that at least so far seems to be able to operate behind this line even with its limitations. Even more important we have and receivers that are getting open. This was true even against Miami. In the recent past Stanford had real problems getting anyone open. ATM that isn't the case. IMO part of that is better coaching and better scheme for the players we have. Unfortunately as was pointed out in the Hawaii game our receivers didn't exactly help out the QB by reliably catching the ball. It was much worse last night. The 3rd and 2 play at the start of the game presaged the rest of the night. Catchable ball simply dropped by the receiver. In this particular case the receiver, who already had first down yardage when the ball was thrown, failed to catch it because he was looking downfield to maximize YAC. Sound familiar? Simply can't happen. A team like Stanford MUST catch the ball reliably. We aren't good enough to make up for drops of catchable passes. Some strategic yelling at the players may be required :-). Unless this gets fixed very quickly, we are in for a long year.

(Yesterday, 10:46 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Remember the days when Stanford had RBs that could effectively pick up a blitzer? A very valuable skill which I didn't much in evidence tonight.

Indeed. When not using play action Stanford is relying on the RB posing a threat as a pass receiver. The hope is to force the defense to cover him and therefore not blitz much. That doesn't reliably work in general, especially when the RBs are not a credible threat in the passing game. The defense can still send 5 and cover (or ignore) the RB. Even CMAC, who was a superb receiving threat, had to pick up blitzes. He wasn't great at it (size limitation) but he did reliably at least slow the blitzer/leaker down. BL and all his successors did not do much blitz pickup. When you play that way you really must, at a minimum, have a running back that can reliably function as a "hot" receiver and is deployed to do that. We aren't doing that.