The effects of injuries on last night's game - 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: The effects of injuries on last night's game (/thread-16485.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: The effects of injuries on last night's game (/thread-16485.html)
The effects of injuries on last night's game - muiron - 09-23-2018
It has only been in digesting everything today (alternatively, "in obsessing over that incredible game all day") that I realized just how banged up we were.
Yes, the O line was poor in the first half. But for almost all of it, excellent guard Nate Herbig was playing right tackle and red shirt center Drew Dalman was playing right guard. Hall came back in for the whole second half and our yards per run quadruple. Yes, the change to passing helps, but so does have (some) of the starters back. Fanaika coming back to play left guard was good but I'd have loved to have Sarell there, too. And I wonder whether Little was 100%.
People have said all of that on this board at some point, but if you really focus on the banged up nature of the O line - and the costs - both at tackle and at guard - of playing an excellent guard at tackle for a half, I'm more encouraged by the second half O line than bummed by the first half.
Similarly, on D, Fox - in spite of one penalty of lining up offside (really???) was excellent. And my favorite story was Noah Williams at safety. Here's what Shaw said about him:
"Noah Williams...you can't have a better story than Noah Williams. Coming in as a non-scholarship football player and not playing at all his freshman year, not even getting close to seeing the football field, and then working so hard in the offseason. It wasn't just the coaches. It was the upperclassmen. I kept having guys pass by me saying, "Hey Coach, did you see well Noah Williams is doing right? You guys see Noah right?" It's not just us, it's the players saying we like this guy, we trust this guy, so giving a scholarship was easy. He earned a starting spot on 2 special teams and a legitimate backup, ready to play and that's what happened tonight.”
I'm particularly impressed by what Shaw says about the players - that they would push one of the walk ons forward to the coaching staff makes me smile.
Yes, we were about 18 inches from getting stomped and one dumb play call from having a dreaded moral victory. But the team, especially in the second half and OT, beat Oregon 31 to 7. Lots to be encouraged about. And if I were an AP voter, I'd use our gutty road win at #20 (now #19) Oregon in OT to move us ahead of Oklahoma, which went to OT in Norman against Army.
BTW (added) - any noticeable new injuries last night?
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - Spiny_Norman - 09-23-2018
Williams was playing because Malik Antoine got dinged up. Antoine was playing because of prior injury to Ben Edwards. So Stanford was playing its 3rd string safety at the end of the game. Next man up!
I don't know if I noticed any other injuries.
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - CompSci87 - 09-23-2018
On the Fox offside: on the TV replay he didn't look anywhere near offside. I was puzzled by that one.
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - qwerty49 - 09-23-2018
IIRC Fox bit hard on one read option and Herbert burned him and blew past the vacated space for a crucial first down.
When the OL was juggled in the first half, Dalman held his own, but he also didn’t seem to be engaging people much — might have been zone blocking or maybe just a missed assignment. That was a tough task to take on and IMO it had the effect of weakening two positions (RG and RT) at once — three if a healthy Dalman is considered more effective than Burkett just getting back to speed at C. In any event, that configuration didn’t seem to have much positive impact, other than maybe giving the previously injured Hall a breather.
(09-23-2018, 09:00 PM)muiron Wrote: It has only been in digesting everything today (alternatively, "in obsessing over that incredible game all day") that I realized just how banged up we were.
Yes, the O line was poor in the first half. But for almost all of it, excellent guard Nate Herbig was playing right tackle and red shirt center Drew Dalman was playing right guard. Hall came back in for the whole second half and our yards per run quadruple. Yes, the change to passing helps, but so does have (some) of the starters back. Fanaika coming back to play left guard was good but I'd have loved to have Sarell there, too. And I wonder whether Little was 100%.
People have said all of that on this board at some point, but if you really focus on the banged up nature of the O line - and the costs - both at tackle and at guard - of playing an excellent guard at tackle for a half, I'm more encouraged by the second half O line than bummed by the first half.
Similarly, on D, Fox - in spite of one penalty of lining up offside (really???) was excellent. And my favorite story was Noah Williams at safety. Here's what Shaw said about him:
"Noah Williams...you can't have a better story than Noah Williams. Coming in as a non-scholarship football player and not playing at all his freshman year, not even getting close to seeing the football field, and then working so hard in the offseason. It wasn't just the coaches. It was the upperclassmen. I kept having guys pass by me saying, "Hey Coach, did you see well Noah Williams is doing right? You guys see Noah right?" It's not just us, it's the players saying we like this guy, we trust this guy, so giving a scholarship was easy. He earned a starting spot on 2 special teams and a legitimate backup, ready to play and that's what happened tonight.”
I'm particularly impressed by what Shaw says about the players - that they would push one of the walk ons forward to the coaching staff makes me smile.
Yes, we were about 18 inches from getting stomped and one dumb play call from having a dreaded moral victory. But the team, especially in the second half and OT, beat Oregon 31 to 7. Lots to be encouraged about. And if I were an AP voter, I'd use our gutty road win at #20 (now #19) Oregon in OT to move us ahead of Oklahoma, which went to OT in Norman against Army.
BTW (added) - any noticeable new injuries last night?
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - Hurlburt88 - 09-24-2018
I saw #31 Mustafa Branch go off holding his arm after a tackle, and did not see him return. Something I will watch this week with the various reports.
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - CTcard - 09-24-2018
(09-23-2018, 10:19 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: IIRC Fox bit hard on one read option and Herbert burned him and blew past the vacated space for a crucial first down.
That's the big mistake I remember by Fox. It was on the final drive, when Herbert ran for the first down that almost iced the game.
It's a mistake that our OLB made a lot vs Oregon in the days of our Oregon Problem. Trent Murphy got burned that way many a time.
If I am remembering correctly, Fox's offisde wasn't early movement but lining up with his foot across the line.
Still, a very good game by Fox. A very good game by Williams complete with heart-warming story.
Quote:When the OL was juggled in the first half, Dalman held his own, but he also didn’t seem to be engaging people much — might have been zone blocking or maybe just a missed assignment. That was a tough task to take on and IMO it had the effect of weakening two positions (RG and RT) at once — three if a healthy Dalman is considered more effective than Burkett just getting back to speed at C.
Even in zone blocking you have to block somebody. Not engaging is a problem.
Pretty sure that Burkett is playing ahead of Dalman if he can make it on the field, so I don't think the third position depleted holds.
It was interesting that Hall came in an played three plays*, then was taken out until he played the whole second half. Would like to hear a candid description of what was going on [though the broad outlines we can certainly guess].
*Well, I noticed Hall gone by play number four and in during play number one. I am not completely certain where he came out.
muiron Wrote:Hall came back in for the whole second half and our yards per run quadruple. Yes, the change to passing helps, but so does have (some) of the starters back
I need to go recheck my numbers, but I think that outside of sacks Stanford avergae 3.15 yds/rush* the first half and about 3.6 on the game, so not that much uptick in the second half. Stanford also called passes on a similar percentage of plays in first half, but the two sacks slightly skew the official stats.
* It might be a little closer than that, but I have to check how they counted the yards lost on the fumble by Costello while being sacked (that we recovered). It appears the sack was only for -7 yards, but there was an additional -11 yards given to Costello's run total. That was at the end of the first half.
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - Langdude - 09-24-2018
Remember also that we were playing without Casey Toohill, who, IMHO, has been our best defensive player so far this year (with the possible exception of Adebo and Holder, who have been generally fantastic).
-m.
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - terry - 09-24-2018
What happened to Ben Edwards?
And I'm still wondering about AT Hall. A miracle cure at halftime?
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - cardcrimson - 09-24-2018
(09-23-2018, 10:10 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: On the Fox offside: on the TV replay he didn't look anywhere near offside. I was puzzled by that one.
Saw that too. He was a foot or so behind the black line. Not even close. . . .
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - BostonCard - 09-24-2018
(09-24-2018, 05:54 PM)terry Wrote: What happened to Ben Edwards?
And I'm still wondering about AT Hall. A miracle cure at halftime?
Don't know but he is not on this week's depth chart.
https://gostanford.com/documents/2018/9/24/fb_depth_chart_notre_dame.pdf
Fortunately, SImmons is.
BC
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - muiron - 09-24-2018
Interesting depth chart. Shows a good OL - Little, Hamilton (with Fanaika behind him), Burkett, Herbig, and Hall. Shows
Toohill and Antoine back. Shows Adebo ahead of Murphy.
Also, for redshirting interests - shows Wilson and Booker as the only two frosh (plus the second string long snapper, Petrucci, who probably hasn't played yet. This is, under the new rules, teh shirt burn week, #5. if they paly five game, their shirts are burned. I don't know whether Wilson and Booker have played the other four, but I suspect so.
Overall [knock on wood]] we look pretty healthy for the Domers!
Go Card!
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - pcgoode - 09-24-2018
He was injured last week between games. Didn’t make the trip to Eugene. Not sure what injury is or how long he is out.
(09-24-2018, 05:54 PM)terry Wrote: What happened to Ben Edwards?
And I'm still wondering about AT Hall. A miracle cure at halftime?
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - CowboyIndian - 09-24-2018
(09-24-2018, 09:05 PM)muiron Wrote: Shows Toohill and Antoine back.
Seems really optimistic re: Toohill
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - StanfordMatt - 09-24-2018
(09-24-2018, 09:25 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(09-24-2018, 09:05 PM)muiron Wrote: Shows Toohill and Antoine back.
Seems really optimistic re: Toohill
"Back" is misleading because they never took Toohill off the depth chart in the first place. Pretty sure he broke/fractured a bone in his arm and will still be out at least a few more weeks. Just another example of the depth chart really not being all that informative.
lex24 - lex24 - 09-24-2018
Agree on Toohill. He’s been terrific all year. I thought they really missed him against Oregon
(09-24-2018, 10:23 AM)Langdude Wrote: Remember also that we were playing without Casey Toohill, who, IMHO, has been our best defensive player so far this year (with the possible exception of Adebo and Holder, who have been generally fantastic).
-m.
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - M T - 09-25-2018
(09-24-2018, 06:39 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(09-23-2018, 10:10 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: On the Fox offside: on the TV replay he didn't look anywhere near offside. I was puzzled by that one.
Saw that too. He was a foot or so behind the black line. Not even close. . . .
2Q 7:56: The line overlaid digitally on the field has no bearing on on/offsides but it is often handy as a guideline. He wasn't offsides by where the officials spotted the ball. When the center got to the ball, its center was at the forward edge of the black line indicating the line of scrimmage, about at 47.4 yard line. Then the center moved it back so the ball's forward white stripe was on that same edge. That's when Fox initially lined up offside with his toe just short (1"?) of the edge of the black line. By the position of the ball at that time, he wasn't offsides (but he was by the original placement). Then the center moved the ball forward so the back white stripe of the ball was on that same edge. Fox pulled his foot back in response, enough so it wasn't offside by where the ball was placed by the official. He then pulled his foot back even more (barely overlapping the yellow in the "O"). But if an official judged offsides by where the center moved the ball to, that would explain the call. If someone judges it by the digital ball placement line, he wasn't anywhere close. The actual truth was in the middle.
I wish that were the only questionable officiating! (Hey, they got the out-of-bounds on the O TD right!)
I also remember one play (3Q 11:20) where Oregon lost a half yard, by where the official placed his foot, but when you see the ball before the center touches it next, it is right back on the same yard marker as the previous down. WTH??
Don't get me started about officials placing the ball to give first downs. Shudder that they'd ever measure for a first down again, no matter what the statistics might assure how often the proper placement as being too close to eyeball for the first down. (Ever notice how improbably often the ball is spotted on a yard marker?) Did I miss a rule change? Who gave the officials the right (and apparently, the imperative) to place the ball other than where the rules say it should be placed?
Of course, all that pales in comparison to the uncalled arm-around-the-waist holding I saw numerous times.
RE: The effects of injuries on last night's game - CTcard - 09-25-2018
(09-25-2018, 12:57 AM)M T Wrote:(09-24-2018, 06:39 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(09-23-2018, 10:10 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: On the Fox offside: on the TV replay he didn't look anywhere near offside. I was puzzled by that one.
Saw that too. He was a foot or so behind the black line. Not even close. . . .
2Q 7:56: The line overlaid digitally on the field has no bearing on on/offsides but it is often handy as a guideline. He wasn't offsides by where the officials spotted the ball. When the center got to the ball, its center was at the forward edge of the black line indicating the line of scrimmage, about at 47.4 yard line. Then the center moved it back so the ball's forward white stripe was on that same edge. That's when Fox initially lined up offside with his toe just short (1"?) of the edge of the black line. By the position of the ball at that time, he wasn't offsides (but he was by the original placement). Then the center moved the ball forward so the back white stripe of the ball was on that same edge. Fox pulled his foot back in response, enough so it wasn't offside by where the ball was placed by the official. He then pulled his foot back even more (barely overlapping the yellow in the "O"). But if an official judged offsides by where the center moved the ball to, that would explain the call. If someone judges it by the digital ball placement line, he wasn't anywhere close. The actual truth was in the middle.
...
Don't get me started about officials placing the ball to give first downs. Shudder that they'd ever measure for a first down again, no matter what the statistics might assure how often the proper placement as being too close to eyeball for the first down. (Ever notice how improbably often the ball is spotted on a yard marker?) Did I miss a rule change? Who gave the officials the right (and apparently, the imperative) to place the ball other than where the rules say it should be placed?
Here is the play in question.
https://youtu.be/jl8ldVjPR9I?t=39m3s
As noted by MT, the black line is irrelevant. Looks to me that Fox's foot is clearly as deep as the ball. [Look at the live shot, the replay is not a helpful angle.]
Either way an inconsequential call as they got the first down anyway and this would have just made the long TD run on the next play 4 yds longer.
I also noted what seemed to be lots of poor spots (and of course I tended to notice the ones that went against us). But that is pretty much the case in every game. MT is also correct that the careful, ceremonial measuring for a first down is kind of a farce given the very large uncertainty in referee ball placement - but I guess they have to do something to determine first down or not.
Overall, despite some grumbling from time to time, the refereeing seemed alright.