The CardBoard
Some credit is due to Washington - 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: Some credit is due to Washington (/thread-3941.html)


Some credit is due to Washington - washingtonismoney - 09-29-2012

I think we've largely neglected to give credit to Washington. I hate it when other fans don't acknowledge what we did well when we beat them, and I'd hate to do the same. They brought their A game, especially on defense; I didn't anticipate such defensive fortitude, as I'm sure most readers of the forum could guess.

Special credit goes to Keith Price, who despite receiving one of the worst beatings I've seen a QB take, still made the important plays. Even some really good quarterbacks get rattled by maulings--compare and contrast with B.arkley--and Price didn't falter.

Credit to them, nicely done.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - oman - 09-29-2012

I've never felt remotely upset about opposing fans not acknowledging that we did well.

Scoreboard is scoreboard.

That being said, I think I would give their defense a whole lot of credit before I even thought about Price.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - Hank 91 - 09-29-2012

I definitely agree, WiM. As great as our defense played, Washington never looked ready to give up. The Trojans and Matt Barkley looked rattled all night, but Keith Price kept his head and even was able to rally his troops in between the beatings he was taking. I'm not sure how he managed that.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - Griffins78 - 09-30-2012

Agreed. UW was sick and tired of getting bullied by us. They had their home crowd behind them and they came out and flat out played. They were motivated, had a bye week to prepare for us, and a year (or several years) to think about us. Just like we get up for USC - they wanted us badly.

I've been amazed at the parallel feelings I have watching the 49ers and Stanford play these last few weeks. I won't try to go into all the thoughts but we both lost an away game that we thought we'd win easily. Especially in the trenches and on the defensive side.

Harbaugh said that every game is a fight and nobody is just going to give you the game. The Vikings (and Huskies) have pride and talent and smarts too. They prepared and fought. So give them credit.

NOW MOVE ON - we fight a new game every week. Let's put the UW game behind us - our team has - and focus on the next game.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - scorecard - 09-30-2012

Agree that Washington played well, and hung around long enough to pull the upset.  Congrats to them for a great game.  Wish it didn't have to happen on national TV.  It felt very much like the San Jose State game to me, which could easily have gone the same way, except that our defense pulled through that time. 

Also give some credit to the Washington clock operator.  I finally had the displeasure of rewatching the game and on our final drive, after Hewitt scoops up the Nunes fumble and gave us a shot, the clock is wound to 25 seconds rather than the full 40.  We don't get the next play off (just barely miss) and then it goes to 1st and 15.  Of course, we eventually miss on a 4th and 4, and those penalized 5 yards loom mighty large for us.  [I hate the fade play to Toilolo on 4th down by the way, I think our percentage of times that has worked for us this year has been something like 20%, maybe Shaw was re-living Pritchard to Bradford?]

I am being somewhat facetious about the clock operator, but even if the clock is wound fast, why have we picked up so many delay of game penalties?  (The one against SC on the first play of the game is another that baffles me)  This one in particular is a crucial one.  We pretty much know this is going to be our last drive, we have 2 timeouts, take a timeout to regroup before we lose the yards.  Or even to be able to argue to the officials that we should have been given a full clock.  Ugh. 

Similarly, why are we so disorganized on 4th down defense?  We gave up a 65 yard run to UW that was crucial, and a 4th and 19 to SC, not to mention the multiple times Oregon did it to us last year or the 4th down play in the Fiesta Bowl to Blackmon (really, you're just going to let him run a slant?).  It's like we are too busy congratulating ourselves for 3rd down stops, and then suddenly it's "Oh crap, they're really running another play?  What do we do?"  I would rather we took a timeout in some of these situations as well.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - Hank 91 - 09-30-2012

On the last drive delay of game, I can't blame Nunes. These players have been playing the game for a while, so they a clock running in their heads. It's highly possible that Nunes never even looked at the play clock, because his head told him he had roughly ten or fifteen seconds. No need to look at the clock.

I don't worry too much about the fourth down defense. It's not really fair to say they "let" the Justin Blackmon run a slant. He was a freak of nature who could do just about whatever he wanted on the field. Against USC? I think they had it played right, Woods just made a great play. I detailed Thursday night's fourth down failure on another thread, but mainly I think that came down to poor tackling by the safeties. I think the defense was ready, they just didn't execute.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - JeffInCorvallis - 09-30-2012

I don't care who you are playing in the Pac-12 this year, you'd better bring your A game.  Ask WSU, who had their game with Colorado in hand until the last 7 minutes, first half of UO - WSU, several teams that could have put Oregon State away, etc.  We may not have any single team that matches up with the very top SEC teams (jury is still out on Oregon), but from top to bottom this looks like the toughest conference.  No Indiana's or Vandy's hanging out.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - CompSci87 - 09-30-2012

I don't remember which one now, but on one of our delay penalties, I backed up the video to watch, and the 25 second clock started about 2 seconds before the ref set the ball down.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - yvonne - 09-30-2012

Now we sound like SC fans.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - CompSci87 - 09-30-2012

(09-30-2012, 02:57 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Now we sound like SC fans.

Heh. I should have added, "2 seconds isn't much."

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - Ratmandoo - 09-30-2012

Here's an article on the play clock rules: http://deadspin.com/5041480/explaining-the-new-college-football-clock-rules

The current play clock rules began in 2008. The play clock is suppose to start as soon as the previous play ended but it is a 40 second clock. The previous rule was a 25 second play clock that started as soon as the ref spotted the ball after the previous play ended. Also, if there is a stoppage in play (1st down measurement, penalty, injured player, etc.), the play clock is set to 25 seconds and starts when the ref marks it ready for play. With these rules, I don't see how the play clock can start early.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - Griffins78 - 10-02-2012

I watched this closely.

The referee "spotted" the ball after the play to mark forward progress and the 25 second clock started. THEN they moved the ball and placed it in the final position. That's when the clock should have started.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - fullmetal - 10-02-2012

From David Lombardi's real-time Twitter updating of the press conference:

"Washington was playing with their hair on fire" - Stanford C Sam Schwartzstein

David has some other choice quotes in there.  His handle is @davidmlombardi

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - CompSci87 - 10-02-2012

(10-02-2012, 08:05 PM)Griffin78 link Wrote:I watched this closely.

The referee "spotted" the ball after the play to mark forward progress and the 25 second clock started. THEN they moved the ball and placed it in the final position. That's when the clock should have started.

That's what I saw too.

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - Ratmandoo - 10-03-2012

So when the play clock started up again, did the timekeeper put 25 seconds or 40 seconds on the play clock? From what you described, if they put 40 seconds on the clock, they reset the play clock correctly. If they only put 25 seconds on the play clock, then that was wrong. 

Re: Some credit is due to Washington - CompSci87 - 10-03-2012

(10-03-2012, 12:00 AM)Ratmandoo link Wrote:So when the play clock started up again, did the timekeeper put 25 seconds or 40 seconds on the play clock? From what you described, if they put 40 seconds on the clock, they reset the play clock correctly. If they only put 25 seconds on the play clock, then that was wrong.

25