The CardBoard
Stanford in the NFL - 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 in the NFL (/thread-12986.html)

Pages: 1 2

Stanford in the NFL - BostonCard - 11-04-2016

Austin Hooper got the start tonight against Tampa Bay and had 3 catches for 46 yards and a TD.
Levine Toilolo also caught a 32 yard TD on a nice play by Matt Ryan.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000733429/Falcons-vs-Buccaneers-highlights

BC

Re: Stanford in the NFL - FarmBoy - 11-04-2016

TE U

Re: Stanford in the NFL - fullmetal - 11-04-2016

Toilolo was drafted in 2013 to replace Tony Gonzalez, but his 2014 season was apparently enough to cause the Falcons to pick up Jacob Tamme from Denver in 2015.  In 2016, the Falcons are carrying Tamme, Toilolo, Hooper (rookie), and rookie Joshua Perkins (UW). 

Yup, that's the same Joshua Perkins who was dismissed from the team and then later reinstated: http://washington.247sports.com/Article/Dismissal-Changed-TE-Josh-Perkins-Football-Career-For-The-Better-30435513

Draft selection announcement: http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2016/4/30/11533416/nfl-draft-2016-tight-end-josh-perkins-atlanta-falcons

I don't know what the Falcons think of Toilolo's development, but Tamme's been banged up this year, and either they're not using Toilolo correctly or Toilolo just doesn't have it (or the Falcons have terrible TE coaching/development staff).  Naturally, I'd love to see Toilolo and Hooper break out this season and then run in 2 TE sets next year out of the power-I with Matt Ryan either handing off or throwing to a TE.  Just like the old Stanford winning playbook :)

Re: Stanford in the NFL - BostonCard - 11-06-2016

In the Stanford bowl, NFL edition, Andrew Luck's Colts beat Ty Montgomery's Packers 31-26.  Luck had an OK day, though he did throw two picks.  Montgomery again led the Packers rushing, with 7 carries for 53 yards, and also caught the ball three times for another 38 yards. Also, Blake Martinez was second lin tackles for the Packers with 8.

BC

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Phogge - 11-06-2016

Peat started at guard and was switched to LT. I may have missed the starter going out. Brees was basically untouched. Fleener caught a few. Skov only on spec teams. Garnett and Peat exchanged jersies after the game.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - deepred - 11-06-2016

Don't forget another Stanford TE, Zach Ertz.
8 receptions on 8 targets for 97 yards.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - FarmBoy - 11-07-2016

Quote:Don't forget another Stanford TE, Zach Ertz.
8 receptions on 8 targets for 97 yards.

Hopefully that buys him some reprieve from Philly criticism. He's underperformed expectations so far this year and is getting pointed questions from sportswriters.

http://www.phillyvoice.com/eagles-need-zach-ertz-start-playing-tight-end/

Re: Stanford in the NFL - fullmetal - 11-07-2016

Philly is imploding, and not even Gronk would solve their woes.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - BostonCard - 11-08-2016

On MNF, Richard Sherman intercepted Taylor...

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2016110700/2016/REG9/bills@seahawks#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000735855&tab=videos

He was also involved in a controversial play at the end of the half where he ran offsides to block a last minute field goal and roughs the kicker, though he was only called for the offsides.

Baldwin had a 50 yard catch.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2016110700/2016/REG9/bills@seahawks#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000735788&tab=videos

He wound up with 6 catches for 89 yards.

BC

Re: Stanford in the NFL - FarmBoy - 11-08-2016

Baldwin also drew significant penalty yardage. At least two PIs I saw.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Phogge - 11-08-2016

Leigh Torrance on NO staff as coaching intern.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - fullmetal - 11-08-2016

Sherman's explanation seemed sound.  As soon as he realized he was offsides, he had to block the kick lest he give the offense a free play.  And it did not look like he was intentionally torpedoing Dan Carpenter's legs, though I thought he angle to the ball wasn't what it could have been.  Rex Ryan was incensed.

That whole sequence of events was surreal--the offsides, the make, and the miss.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17997535/rex-ryan-buffalo-bills-heated-richard-sherman-non-call-ridiculous

Re: Stanford in the NFL - needle - 11-08-2016

Trent Murphy, with the Washington ..uhhh...Washington, is having a great year. Six sacks through eight games.

ESPN keeps "stuffs" as a defensive stat, and Murphy also has four of those. Not really sure what it means.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/16751/trent-murphy

Re: Stanford in the NFL - FarmBoy - 11-08-2016

I agree Sherman's explanation makes sense as to his intent, though I don't know by the rule book whether or not he should have received a penalty.

Still, the refs totally effed up that situation when you consider the delay of game penalty they gave Bills. During the game, they basically showed that the play clock was at 5 seconds when the refs stepped away from the football, resulting in a delay and loss of five yards. And the fact that they forced the kicker off the field because he had been "injured" on the Sherman play seemed completely crazy as well, forcing the Bills to spike the ball. Just a completely crazy scenario.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - BostonCard - 11-08-2016

Here's the summary of our guys in the NFL.

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2016/11/7/football-stanfordnfl-week-9.aspx

BC

Re: Stanford in the NFL - fullmetal - 11-08-2016

needle -- I refer to them as the Washington Racial Slurs.

Stuffs might mean RB tackles at the LOS...weird stat to keep.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Hurlburt88 - 11-08-2016

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/wife-of-dan-carpenter-suggests-richard-sherman-should-be-castrated-for-his-hit/ar-AAk3AKp?li=BBnba9I 

Given that my grandfather had cattle on his farm, this evoked a nervous chuckle from me.  Yes, I remember his "toolkit" well. 

Re: Stanford in the NFL - CTcard - 11-08-2016

(11-08-2016, 01:06 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I agree Sherman's explanation makes sense as to his intent, though I don't know by the rule book whether or not he should have received a penalty.

Well, it wasn't roughing the kicker because if you contact the ball then roughing the kicker is off.

It was unnecessary roughness if Sherman should have known the play was called dead and continued on anyway - eventually contacting the kicker OR if he intentionally tried to hit the kicker without trying to make a play on the ball. Both of those are judgement calls based on what the officials decide is going on in his head.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - thunder_chik - 11-08-2016

IMHO, officiating is one of the major reasons NFL games are mostly unwatchable.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - BostonCard - 11-08-2016

(11-08-2016, 02:23 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=16037.msg178646#msg178646 date=1478635588]
I agree Sherman's explanation makes sense as to his intent, though I don't know by the rule book whether or not he should have received a penalty.

Well, it wasn't roughing the kicker because if you contact the ball then roughing the kicker is off.

It was unnecessary roughness if Sherman should have known the play was called dead and continued on anyway - eventually contacting the kicker OR if he intentionally tried to hit the kicker without trying to make a play on the ball. Both of those are judgement calls based on what the officials decide is going on in his head.
[/quote]

But was the play dead?  It was a penalty, but an offsides penalty gives the offense a free play.  So, if the Bills had made the field goal, they could have declined the penalty and taken the points.

BC