The CardBoard
A few notes from the Rose Bowl - 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: A few notes from the Rose Bowl (/thread-425.html)

Pages: 1 2

A few notes from the Rose Bowl - terry - 09-12-2010

I made the road trip to Pasadena. A few notes --

It was a beautiful day and night for football. Perfect weather in Pasadena. I brought a jacket, but never used it. We parked on the golf course and saw much tailgating in that area before the game. We attended the Alumni Association tailgater, which actually wasn\'t really a tailgater. It was held at the clubhouse of the golf club. The event was held in a large room and on an adjoining patio. Most of the people were inside, because that\'s where the food was, along with most of the tables and chairs. The place was quite full. The Band stopped by, and played several numbers in front of the patio (which brought much of the crowd outside to watch). Bowlsby also gave a short speech. Shortly after that, we headed over to the stadium.

I thought Stanford was pretty well represented. The Stanford section, which was in the northwest corner of the stadium, was spirited and had a good turnout (though not completely full -- there were some empty rows near the top). The Stanford Band showed up in decent numbers even though school doesn\'t start until next week, and there were enough band members to perform a halftime show. In fact, the Stanford Band had more members than the UCLA band, which didn\'t attempt a halftime show. The UCLA student section was small, as they haven\'t started school yet.

During the pre-game warm-ups, I tried to find Owusu. I saw him take a turn in the pass-catching line, but he really didn\'t seem to be 100% yet. He didn\'t participate in many of the pre-game drills.

On Stanford\'s long third quarter drive, the TD pass to Fleener was right in front of the Stanford fan section. Much rejoicing among Stanford fans. But no -- it didn\'t count. So, Andrew Luck rolled out in our direction, and with determination and second effort, pushed the ball across the goal-line right in front of us. More rejoicing. But no -- it didn\'t count, again. Around me, there was a feeling of outrage. How many times can they take this TD away from us? When the ball was placed just inches from the goal-line, I don\'t think the fans around me had any doubt that Harbaugh was going for it. Marecic went in for the TD. Even more rejoicing. It seemed to me that this sequence was the emotional highlight for the Stanford crowd. Scoring the same TD three times showed that Stanford would not be denied. Michael Thomas\' TD moments later was the frosting on the cake. (By the way, when Thomas pointed at the crowd, he was pointing directly at the Stanford fan section. He was running straight toward us after scoring. Penalizing him for that is ridiculous.)

UCLA fans started moving toward the exits in the third quarter, after that long Stanford touchdown drive. A few minutes later, after Michael Thomas stripped the ball and scored, the UCLA exodus picked up serious momentum, with a steady stream of fans heading to the exit tunnels. By the end of the game, most of the UCLA fans were gone. The Stanford fans mostly seemed to stay for the post-game celebration.

After the game ended, the Stanford players and coaches shook hands with UCLA\'s team in the middle of the field. Then, the players all ran over to the Stanford section, to the cheers of the Stanford crowd. The Stanford Band, which was in the rows closest to the field, played a lengthy version of All Right Now as the players faced the crowd and celebrated. Richard Sherman was out in front leading the celebration. Then, the band played the alma mater. After the last "Hail Stanford Hail," the players began to head off toward the locker room.

In addition to ending a six-game road losing streak against UCLA, this game ended a personal losing streak for me. This was the first time I\'ve gone to a road game and seen Stanford win since the Big Game in 2000. I was beginning to think I was bringing bad luck. Glad to end that particular streak.

I didn\'t have any problem with the UCLA fans. Unlike Cal fans, who seem to take delight in being rude to their guests, the UCLA fans were just fine. . . .

Thanks, Terry - Redrum - 09-12-2010

The last time I personally saw success in the Rose Bowl was our victory over Michigan... too many moons ago.   UCLA fans always seemed the mildest of our in-state rivals.  The USC fans had that superior air of entitlement.  The Kal fans believed their outsized hostility was somehow a higher form of fandom.   Glad you and other fans were there to show them we are not dead yet.

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - Farm93 - 09-12-2010

It sounded like a lot of fun.  Wish I could have gone, but I needed to go to Europe now to avoid missing the SC game in October.

2 years ago I was super passionate, but the UCLA crowd generally let me go since I was not really cheering against UCLA.  I generally think home fans do not want negative cheering, so how one cheers plays a role.

And where you sit also plays a role.  The more elite, high donor types usually expect loyalty near them.  When I went to USC last year I had "good" seats, and I was told to shut up almost immediately.

Of course, at Stanford things are different.  Many season ticket holders will have no problem telling eager Stanford supporters to be quiet and sit down.  I have seen it happen even as the scoreboard asks for people to get up and make noise.  Ironically, many of those same types will be intimidated by a few loud visitors.  Seeking to avoid unnecessary and potentially violent confrontations, I have found that the visitors are routinely allowed to cheer more loudly and with greater liberty.

I suspect this is why many conference alums have no real problem attending games at Stanford Stadium.  And with our attendance challenge, I suspect our "Open House" mindset is a good thing.

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - Spiny_Norman - 09-12-2010

A few observations from my spot at the top of the Stanford section behind the end zone:

o Even from 55 rows up, the phantom punt interference on Quinn Evans looked bogus.  
o James McGuillicuddy (backup OT) was wearing #80.  He lined up as a TE on some plays.  I don\'t know if he was intended to be an eligible receiver or just an extra blocker (the 2010 version of the Heavy or Jumbo package).
o Malcolm Jones may have been the best running back on the field on either team.  He was impressive.

And a couple of questions:
o Did Luck score?  Was there overwhelming visual evidence that he was down?
o On the prior play, Stanford was penalized for ineligible receiver downfield.  Who was that?

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - dabigv13 - 09-12-2010

The ineligible receiver thing was because both receivers were lined up on the line, one of them needed to take a step back from the line of scrimmage for both to be eligible.

On Luck\'s scramble he did appear down before he got in, but in real time it looked good to me as well. Needed the slow mo treatment.

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - fullmetal - 09-12-2010

I didn\'t know there was a flag on Thomas, but I was immediately concerned when his hands came up.  What a BS call.  As was the roughing the returner call.

IIRC, the snaps with extra men on the line just had James in as an extra lineman for a run play blocking mismatch...

And the Oscar for nonfiction portrayl to Jim Harba - Redrum - 09-12-2010

Harbaugh\'s  sideline re-enactment of the punt returner\'s flop-- falling  backwards, feet up in the air-- was bloody marvelous.  To bad the refs had painted themselves into a corner when they threw the flag.    Come to think of it the UCLA return man might be the only Bruin all night who executed his role well.

Did you guys see the Harbaugh re-enactment from the Stanford section?

The call on Luck\'s touchdown was correct , but only a stop action replay made it clear.  His knee was down before the ball crossed the goal line.

Malcolm Jones was really good.  Some Booties think he is the next Toby with his speed and size.   But just like Gerhart,  he needs a good offensive team around him.  Can\'t do it by himself.


Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - washingtonismoney - 09-12-2010

Malcolm Jones did indeed look really good. But I wouldn\'t be surprised if Anthony Wilkerson turns out to be as good or better than he.

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - fyao - 09-12-2010

malcolm jones did look really good, although his center of gravity seems to be pretty high, which could hurt him when running between the tackles.

Wilkerson looked really good as well.  I hope we have enough reps and play opportunities in games for all our backs to develop properly.

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - CrazedZooChimp - 09-12-2010

I had no problems with UCLA fans while down at the game, a little trash-talking and booing as we walked around the tailgates, but generally nothing actually sounding angry (and as much making fun of $C together as there was booing, we always have that in common with UCLA).

I totally missed Harbaughs reenactment, I hope that makes it into the highlight reels!

And yes, Malcom Jones looked good in person too, and I kept being worried that they were going to keep running him instead of letting Prince touch the ball.  Good thing that didn\'t happen.

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - pefloresjr - 09-12-2010

The UCLA fans were generally fairly mellow.  I got a lot of comments about my "Fear The Tree" shirt, but it was mostly people talking about it after they passed me.  A few people drunkenly asked why the heck they should fear a tree.  I told them they could get hit witha pine cone or the tree could just fall on their head.  They mostly seemed satisfied and seemed to like the irony of the shirt.  

There is an element to the crowd that does not seem to be made up of students that wants to get in people\'s faces and talk trash.  I think it is part of not having a pro team in LA.  They all shut up and left when we took control late in the 3rd.  

Great to get over the losing steak on the road to UCLA.  We (I mean the team) dominated with a sub-par performance by Luck.  That gives me some real hope for this team.  

Cheers,
Pete F.  

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - mark3k - 09-13-2010

Quote:o Malcolm Jones may have been the best running back on the field on either team.  He was impressive.

And a couple of questions:
o Did Luck score?  Was there overwhelming visual evidence that he was down?
o On the prior play, Stanford was penalized for ineligible receiver downfield.  Who was that?

I believe that Malcolm Jones got most of his carries against our 2nd and 3rd string defenders (who were softening up a bit with a big lead), whereas Taylor and crew (who don\'t appear to be getting much respect on this board this week) were running at the better part of the UCLA team (which clearly wasn\'t its offense).

As much as I hate to admit it (and note that his disappointing pass completion stats came against one of the better secondaries in the Pac-10), Luck was down.  Good use of instant replay, with props to one of the rare NCAA officiating crews that seemed willing to admit that they\'re human and make mistakes (it really pisses me off when officials say that "the ruling on the field is confirmed" when they stick with their 90%-likely-wrong call based on that "overwhelming evidence" standard).  Related point: Harbaugh\'s reenactment WAS outstanding!

To your final question, Spiny, I think it was Fleener himself (IIRC that he was the TE who appeared to have caught the TD) who was the ineligible receiver... unfortunately/correctly deemed so after the WR lined-up up on the line and capped him in from a formation perspective, rendering him an ineligible Tackle-equivalent for the play.

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - Spiny_Norman - 09-13-2010

2loyal,

Jones carried 7 times during the game.  5 for 28 against the 1st team and 2 for 24 against the 2nd team.  To me, he looked pretty good against both.  

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - Spiny_Norman - 09-13-2010

One additional comment about Luck.  His two worst passing games last year came against two of the better defenses in the conference:

12 for 30 vs. Oregon State
10 for 30 vs. Cal

The UCLA game troubles me because it was a repeat of the performance I saw in Big Game last year where he was inaccurate and appeared to be off his rhythm.  Luck\'s value as a competitor is unquestionable.  He will do what needs to be done to avoid tackles and move the ball.  But I think the jury is still out on Luck\'s ability as a passer against good defenses.

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - washingtonismoney - 09-13-2010

Spiny_Norman, neither Cal nor Oregon State were particularly great defenses last year:

Cal was 7th in the conference in yards/play and gave up a terrible 7.6 yards/attempt passing-wise. (Comparatively, we gave up 7.56 YPA).

Oregon State was 6th in the conference in yards/play and gave up 6.85 YPA.

The best defenses in the conference were Oregon\'s and Arizona State\'s, both of which Luck lit up. Luck\'s ability can dominate good teams as well as bad.

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - mark3k - 09-13-2010

Quote:Jones carried 7 times during the game.  5 for 28 against the 1st team and 2 for 24 against the 2nd team.  To me, he looked pretty good against both.  

We\'re talking about stats (which obviously don\'t tell the whole story, per your subjective observation of which runners "looked good"), and small samples at that, but I think you helped reinforce my point here, Spiny.  Take away (or with a grain of salt) the 12 YPC stat-inflation that Jones received playing against out subs and his 5 for 28 performance looks good, but not phenomenal, or really that much better than Taylor\'s 20 for 85 line.  I would also argue that Gaffney\'s per-carry average was depressed by a couple of short-yardage situation runs.


Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - Spiny_Norman - 09-13-2010

Garvin, I like Stanford\'s RBs.  But Jones impressed me more than any of our guys.  I suspect that one reason for the tepid enthusiasm so far is that Luck and Loukas have the best running stats.  The yards per carry for the RBs have not been as dynamic or game breaking as we experienced last year:
Taylor - 4.2
Gaffney - 3.8
Amanan - 5.4 (remove a 20 yard run and he has 10 carries for 40 yds)
Wilkerson - 3.9

Wrt Luck, it is a mystery to me why he struggles against some teams and is sharp as Tom Brady vs. others.  Maybe I am wrong that better defenses bring out the Inaccurate Andrew Luck.  But his consistency has to improve for Stanford to make some noise this year.  I\'m still looking for him to lead that critical 4th quarter drive to win the marquee game.  When we needed him down the stretch vs. Arizona last year, he threw 4 straight incompletions.  And we know how Big Game ended.

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - Leftcoast - 09-13-2010

After two days and some quiet musing I find I\'m not all that concerned over Luck\'s "off" (for him) afternoon.

First the ability is there and showed itself on enough plays on Saturday.  Even on an off night, Luck will find receivers and deliver those accurate passes that so enthuse the pro scouts.   Secondly, our O-line protected Luck and for the most part gave the passing game time for routes to develop.   Finally, Luck\'s decision making looked crisp and he found ways to contribute with his legs and move the sticks in the critical situations without the Toby safety belt.

Our team won 35-0 against a pesky rival, at their home and on a field where Stanford hasn\'t won in the past decade and a half.  Stanford gave an LA team the worst home opener loss in their history - or so report the LA papers.   While I want to see game to game improvement and I\'m not ready to go to Vegas to plunk down money on a BCS bowl game, I also refuse to look too deeply at the dregs in the bottom of the UCLA tea cup to predict future doom.  

I\'ll leave that to the coaching staff - who I\'m sure are busy today reviewing tape and telling the team their "not all that".

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - washingtonismoney - 09-13-2010

Spiny_Norman, w/r/t to the mystery of why Luck struggles versus some defenses while lights up others...I\'d suggest it\'s nothing more mysterious than sometimes good quarterbacks struggle--even Tom Brady isn\'t Tom Brady every game. Indeed, last year Brady had games of: 23 for 47, 11 for 23, 19 for 33 etc. (His worst YPAs were 4.6, 5, 6.5 and 6.6. Luck\'s YPA against UCLA was 6.3. Again, not that terrible a game.)

As to the running backs: their stats aren\'t great, and cumulative yards I think are a bit deceptive. That said, the per carry numbers are depressed by how the offense performed when near each end zone: there were two drives that started within our five yard line and we\'ve discussed the red-zone struggles previously. I\'d bet the running backs look a lot better when you subtract those carries and look at middle-of-the-field carries.

Re: A few notes from the Rose Bowl - fyao - 09-13-2010

Yes, but our running game inside the 10 was so-so, and that\'s when you want it the most, average per carry stats be d@mned.