The CardBoard
Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - 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: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition (/thread-13265.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - Phogge - 01-02-2017

(01-02-2017, 06:28 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=jacketree link=topic=16337.msg184857#msg184857 date=1483405171]
SC isn't done yet.

Hope Shawgren are taking notes. Fantastic old school offensive display against a couple of athletic defenses.

Great game.

Yes, I am sure the coaches from Stanford are going to watch the film of this game.  Old school play on defense and offense can beat SC.  Something tells me Penn State probably watched Stanford film.  Most of the Pac-12 schools, especially the ones at the bottom, are all raid all of the time.  I doubt the Penn State staff watched those teams for clues

A great game. Don't think Darnold was sacked.
SC is such a front running team.  The kids in that program strike me as soft if the going gets tough.  And once down it seems like they are always quick to blame the referees while simultaneously starting to commit personal fouls.  The 7th TD drive for Penn State looked like classic trailing SC to me.
[/quote]

Didn't quit tonight.

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - thunder_chik - 01-02-2017

Definitely one of the most exciting Rose Bowl games in my lifetime!  Our ESPN feed blanked out after the SC TD and extra point,  then came back on for the field goal attempt.  Wow, so the Pac 12 is 3-3 for bowl games...
PS:  Not looking forward to playing Darnold/SC on their turf next season.  He is pretty amazing.

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - Nan3cy - 01-02-2017

Much as I loved last year's RB, this was a really entertaining game...


Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - Farm93 - 01-02-2017

(01-02-2017, 07:29 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:What a choke by Penn State.  Maybe the Playoffs shouldn't have taken any B1G teams.

BC

It was the worst case scenario for me.  SC didn't make the B1G look silly.  SC got a big program boosting memorable win. The SC defense is super soft and they will not always be able to outscore their opponent.

Penn State was in a game score range they didn't really understand and their fourth quarter play calls seemed flawed.  Oh well.  Good for the Pac-12 to win the Rose Bowl.  Penn State did just enough to remove that narrative that the B1G was not worthy. 52-14 screams overrated, not as much with 52-49.

FWIW - The INT was confirmed, but wrong.  Player stepped out at the 35.  Clear as day, but the coverage and replays were odd all the way through and those couple of yards were not that critical in the end.

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - Farm93 - 01-02-2017

(01-02-2017, 07:35 PM)Phogge link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=16337.msg184863#msg184863 date=1483406894]
[quote author=jacketree link=topic=16337.msg184857#msg184857 date=1483405171]
SC isn't done yet.

Hope Shawgren are taking notes. Fantastic old school offensive display against a couple of athletic defenses.

Great game.

Yes, I am sure the coaches from Stanford are going to watch the film of this game.  Old school play on defense and offense can beat SC.  Something tells me Penn State probably watched Stanford film.  Most of the Pac-12 schools, especially the ones at the bottom, are all raid all of the time.  I doubt the Penn State staff watched those teams for clues

A great game. Don't think Darnold was sacked.
SC is such a front running team.  The kids in that program strike me as soft if the going gets tough.  And once down it seems like they are always quick to blame the referees while simultaneously starting to commit personal fouls.  The 7th TD drive for Penn State looked like classic trailing SC to me.
[/quote]

Didn't quit tonight.
[/quote]

That might be thanks to Darnold or Helton.  Not sure which one was more important.  Either way, the team rallied up and stopped playing as the victim.  Penn State really choked the win away, but they played over their heads for so long just to be in the game at all. 

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - OutsiderFan - 01-02-2017

At minimum Penn State earned a lot of respect, and showed why I thought they were being under appreciated.

That said, Franklin went full on David Shaw turtle mode on the last possession they led 49-42.  For the zillionth time... You win the game by getting first downs, not by running clock!  Those predictable runs played right into U$C's hands, as they gladly traded timeouts to get the ball back.  Where was the bootleg?  Where was the play action to the TE who was a matchup mismatch on the USC Safeties? Where was WR Chris Godwin?  U$C lost both starting CBs and PSU still didn't pass on that possession when they win the game with two first downs.

Unless you have a dominant defense, or are playing a weak offense, it's just crazy to play it like Franklin did at the end when he still had the lead.  Rather than play like they were ahead, PSU needed to play like they were behind on their last possession before U$C got the ball back after the punt.

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - ChicagoCard - 01-02-2017

What game were you watching?

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - BurgXXIII - 01-02-2017

(01-02-2017, 08:02 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Franklin went full on David Shaw turtle mode

So turtle's a compliment?

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - BostonCard - 01-02-2017

Should have gone into snail mode.

BC

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - Redrum - 01-02-2017

(01-02-2017, 07:44 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=Phogge link=topic=16337.msg184875#msg184875 date=1483410954]
[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=16337.msg184863#msg184863 date=1483406894]
[quote author=jacketree link=topic=16337.msg184857#msg184857 date=1483405171]
SC isn't done yet.
Hope Shawgren are taking notes. Fantastic old school offensive display against a couple of athletic defenses.

Great game.

Yes, I am sure the coaches from Stanford are going to watch the film of this game.  Old school play on defense and offense can beat SC.  Something tells me Penn State probably watched Stanford film.  Most of the Pac-12 schools, especially the ones at the bottom, are all raid all of the time.  I doubt the Penn State staff watched those teams for clues

A great game. Don't think Darnold was sacked.
SC is such a front running team.  The kids in that program strike me as soft if the going gets tough.  And once down it seems like they are always quick to blame the referees while simultaneously starting to commit personal fouls.  The 7th TD drive for Penn State looked like classic trailing SC to me.
[/quote]

Didn't quit tonight.
[/quote]

That might be thanks to Darnold or Helton.  Not sure which one was more important.  Either way, the team rallied up and stopped playing as the victim. Penn State really choked the win away, but they played over their heads for so long just to be in the game at all.
[/quote]

Now you've seen first hand some of the substance behind Franklin's rep.  Got Vandy to punch above its weight for a couple of seasons and moved on.  Thinking it will take Penn St. fans a couple of seasons to figure out simply not being Joe Paterno doesn't measure up to their expectations. Very good recruiter, though.

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - ChicagoCard - 01-02-2017

(01-02-2017, 05:49 PM)Durty Nelly link Wrote:[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=16337.msg184853#msg184853 date=1483404411]
What would Stanford's defensive strategy be against Penn St? Really curious.

Not to blitz multiple players every down.  Focus on stopping the run.
[/quote]

Also, what about being more physical with Penn St's wideouts near the line of scrimmage? Did you see what Alabama did to the UW wide receivers?

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - Farm93 - 01-02-2017

(01-02-2017, 08:09 PM)BurgXXIII link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16337.msg184883#msg184883 date=1483412570]
Franklin went full on David Shaw turtle mode

So turtle's a compliment?
[/quote]
Penn State would have been fine if they gave the rock to that one RB 6 or 7 times.  Instead they tried random stuff that was just crazy.

Very confident that a Shaw QB will not lose a 14 point 4th quarter lead.  May not score 14 points in a game, but will have a team plan to preserve a two score lead.  The jump ball thing would probably not be the way for any QB to win the Stanford job this spring, but it did get Penn State 49 points.  That is a plus for those that love scoring.


Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - washingtonismoney - 01-02-2017

Has Shaw lost a game in which a team came back when he went "turtle"? I don't think he has. He's come close a few times (Oregon 2013, N.D. 2015), but even those come with asterisks. (e.g. if Williamson makes a simple FG against Oregon the game isn't really close.)

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - CTcard - 01-02-2017

(01-02-2017, 09:52 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Has Shaw lost a game in which a team came back when he went "turtle"?

The answer is basically no.

The caveats would be:
2011 Fiesta Bowl
One might consider playing for the FG as "turtling", but that was in a tie game situation, not where Stanford was ahead.

2012 at UW.
Stanford had a 10 point lead with one play left in the third quarter and fell behind with about 5 minutes left in the game. The offense was atrocious, but no more turtled late than earlier.



Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - OutsiderFan - 01-03-2017

Well it almost happened in the Sun Bowl.  Stanford's last offensive possession was almost as bad as PSU's last one with the lead against U$C.  Granted, Stanford had nothing remotely close to Trace McSorely at QB, or frankly a Saquon Barkley at RB, but whoever was calling the plays for Stanford on its last offensive possession vs. UNC didn't cover themselves in glory, IMO.  The short side run to Love and going out of bounds was particularly foolish.

Given PSU had a lot more potent offense than Stanford, especially since they had a good and mobile QB, it was far more egregious for PSU to go into turtle mode in Rose vs. Stanford in Sun.

BTW, the Seahawks had the ball in almost the exact situation against the Niners on Sunday - holding a 2pt lead on a 3rd and 6, Niners no timeouts - as PSU had against Southern Cal.  What did they do?  Ran bootleg off run fake for the first down that sealed the game.  PSU needed to do the same thing vs. Southern Cal, or could have run a play action pass because Southern Cal was playing without both its starting CBs at that point, one a Frosh who looked completely lost out there.  All the more reason to pass for the game clinching first down.

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - Goose - 01-03-2017

(01-03-2017, 08:52 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Well it almost happened in the Sun Bowl.  Stanford's last offensive possession was almost as bad as PSU's last one with the lead against U$C.  Granted, Stanford had nothing remotely close to Trace McSorely at QB, or frankly a Saquon Barkley at RB, but whoever was calling the plays for Stanford on its last offensive possession vs. PSU didn't cover themselves in glory, IMO.
I assume you mean vs UNC. I do not agree at all that the short side run to Love was foolish. Love going out of bounds was very, very foolish, yes. In that situation, the player has to know that he hasn't got the first down and go down in bounds, period. I don't really think you are suggesting that we should have had Burns pass are you? If you are, I will point out all the posts excoriating his ability to do so. Chryst still in the game, maybe. Burns? If not, what else do you do? A run up the middle would be an acceptable call, but it most likely wouldn't get a first down. I could live with that. Not aggressive, but it does force them to burn their time out. Zone read or quarterback run? Possible, but remember that Burns has had a tendency to fumble in the past. I could kind of see this kind of play as OK, but much more risky. It could possibly be unexpected enough to get a first down. An outside run to the wide side of the field would have been a good option. Outside runs usually use a bit more time than inside ones, and you have the whole field to work with. But the defense knows this and probably is expecting it. This is what I would call the "most probable" call. So the short side run has the advantage of being an outside run that uses a bit more clock and possibly is not what they expect. I think this is actually a reasonably good call. I guess you could actually try to run a traditional pitch option, but that has the same or worse downside as a read option. I would not choose that essentially ever.
So what do you suggest? Remember, we have Burns, not Wilson. And Baldwin doesn't play here any more.

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - washingtonismoney - 01-03-2017

Yeah, I thought the pitch got so much grief. Including, hilariously, from the announcer -- who, IIRC, said he wouldn't be surprised by a pass. If a pass is OK, why is a pitch bad? Both are (theoretically at least) options that give you higher reward (more chance or a first down) counterbalanced by higher risk (stopping the clock). On the other hand, one option gives the ball to Bryce Love and the other gives the ball to Ryan Burns. Apparently, however, giving the ball to Bryce Love is the wrong, bad choice.

Wasn't Wilson - Phogge - 01-03-2017

But the kid QB out of TCU. Completed a couple of passes on the last possession and then ran the bootleg. Seattle has a savvy front office that ID' the backup QB and did not end up with Moe and Curley (Ponder and Gabbert) behind Larry (Kap).

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - oldalum - 01-03-2017

Didn't I  read somewhere that Shaw said after the game that he ran down the sideline to try to call a timeout before the pitch play to Love, because the way UNC was lined up the play was going to get stuffed, but didn't get there in time? (Which also means that Burns did not recognize the problem at the line of scrimmage, probably due to his lack of playing time.) With hindsight bias the play call sure seems dumb, but it apparently anticipated a particular defense that didn't pan out. Had it worked as planned, we'd probably be terming it a brilliant call that cleverly exploited a weakness in UNC's defensive alignment, no?

Re: Other games of interest: Bowl season edition - BurgXXIII - 01-03-2017

(01-03-2017, 10:36 AM)oldalum link Wrote:(Which also means that Burns did not recognize the problem at the line of scrimmage, probably due to his lack of playing time.)

Didn't Burns lead the team in playing time at the QB position?