The CardBoard
Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - 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: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 (/thread-4414.html)


Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - Cardinal96 - 11-30-2012

Kevin Hogan played amazingly.  On a night when our defense was off and we gave up significant rushing yards (wow Franklin over 200 rushing yards), he played error free football and won us this game.  We were outplayed for most of the game but made the big plays when it counted.  I was a nervous wreck watching this game.  I thought we were going to lose until Terrell caught the TD in the 4th.  So proud of our team, the overall effort, Jordan Williamson and David Shaw.  So proud.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - TreeFitty - 11-30-2012

sucks to be Zumwalt. just sayin'

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - washingtonismoney - 11-30-2012

They don't make it easy, do they?

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - WaldportCard - 11-30-2012

I watched through the interception in the start of the second quarter.  Had to go to Oregon Coast Recorder Society rehearsal immediately afterwards and was going absolutely nuts wondering how this was going to play out.  The field seemed made of banana skins.  Stanford defense, despite Sinister unis, seemed unfocused.  Gut-in-a-knot time.  Glad the Men in Black came through.  (Personal understatement of the year.)

Why do I care so much?  It's atavistic, I guess: our campsite  versus their campsite and the winner take the common hunting ground.  These are kids, really (especially from my long-into-Geezer-hood perspective), but I care so much that the absolute moment I burst through my door, I headed straight the the Cardboard for the good or not good news.  Believe it or not, I found the game thread equivocal.  Had to stop and make sense of what people were saying before it finally came through.

My dad was the greatest Stanford fan ever.  Ran a once-a-week booster program at Hewlett-Packard when he worked there.  He would be so effing proud of the kids tonight.

Great effort.  Great statement.  A win against a truly inspired and talented team.

Go Cards

Basket Case in Waldport

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - DC - 11-30-2012

Woohoo!  The Rose Bowl!  I'm a nervous wreck from watching the game though.  Hopefully Terrell will continue to provide us that spark we need at WR, so that our offense won't be limited and predictable.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - 81alum - 11-30-2012

Just home from the game on my bike.  While I was disappointed at the turnout (listed at 32,000) I was relieved at the outcome. 

The atmosphere of the game was odd.  The UCLA corner was pretty loud and one entire section was given over to their enormous band.  But they were somewhat alone and isolated--that entire end of the stadium was no more than half full, if that.  The Red Zone, by contrast, seemed completely full and was rocking.  There was an excellent student turnout and the crowd noise was loud when UCLA was in front of the Red Zone. 

The mist came repeatedly but nothing more, so it was definitely damp but not particularly cold or even excessively wet.

UCLA seems to have taken the offensive game plan straight from Arizona and San Jose State, and they have a quarterback who is accurate enough to pull it off.  Pass right, pass left, and when they tire the linebackers out by making them run sideline to sideline they popped their rb or qb up the middle for big yards.  As if that were not bad enough, they figured out how to stuff our power plays,  like Washington, leaving Stepfan at just 3.2 ypc.  They implemented Neuheisel's on-air prescription and nearly won.  I hope Wisconsin or Nebraska do not have the personnel to replicate this.

When the game was over I ran out on the field with the students.  After a while, the field was filled with students, seniors, even babies--most everyone came out and surrounded the team.  I never had an opportunity to be a part of such a touching demonstration decades ago when I was a student.  The crowd made up in emotional connection what it was missing in numbers.  I will treasure that memory--strangers high fiving strangers, surrounding the team in affection.

While I was on the field I took a good look at the turf.  It was cropped very short and had been rolled so it was very firm.  Almost like a putting green.  We saw a number of slips during the game, but the slips were not due to divots coming out.  Very little of that.  The turf was firm.  At least for this year, they seem to have figured out how to maintain the turf.  I'm sure having had the tarp on it was a big plus come game-time.

I'm very proud of this team.  It has achieved so much more than most of us expected at the beginning of the year, and the future looks bright.  We won because we did not turn the ball over even one time, because the defense made a handful of critical plays when it needed to, and because we got offensive plays from names we might not have expected at the beginning of the year:  Hogan and Terrell chief among them.  Honorable mentions to Ryhne who filled in and punted admirably, to Williamson who hit both of his FGs, and to Stepfan, who made the plays he needed to make despite having the entire UCLA defense keying on him all night.  Now the #1 Stanford rusher of all time.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - Oasis - 12-01-2012

(11-30-2012, 11:59 PM)81alum link Wrote:UCLA seems to have taken the offensive game plan straight from Arizona and San Jose State, and they have a quarterback who is accurate enough to pull it off.  Pass right, pass left, and when they tire the linebackers out by making them run sideline to sideline they popped their rb or qb up the middle for big yards.  As if that were not bad enough, they figured out how to stuff our power plays,  like Washington, leaving Stepfan at just 3.2 ypc.  They implemented Neuheisel's on-air prescription and nearly won.  I hope Wisconsin or Nebraska do not have the personnel to replicate this.

We won because we did not turn the ball over even one time, because the defense made a handful of critical plays when it needed to, and because we got offensive plays from names we might not have expected at the beginning of the year:  Hogan and Terrell chief among them.  Honorable mentions to Ryhne who filled in and punted admirably, to Williamson who hit both of his FGs, and to Stepfan, who made the plays he needed to make despite having the entire UCLA defense keying on him all night.  Now the #1 Stanford rusher of all time.

81 Alum's analysis is spot on.  We got spanked tonight.  I think we were out-muscled on both sides of the line of scrimmage.  Again and again we sent Stepfan to confront tacklers who had defeated their blocks and were swarming all over him.  Still he would find two or three yards when nothing at all was there.  He is the new Ernie Nevers.   

We also were out-coached.  You could see UCLA setting us up early, as 81 Alum describes.  They looked like Oregon.  Their scheme worked all night. On our last drive, the ultra-conservative and futile runs into the middle of the line had me coming out of my seat.  About the only really impressive the play-calling was the beautifully conceived and executed third and 15 TD pass to Terrell.  The timely fakes to Stepfan and outside runs by Hogan were clever too.  That was football worthy of Stanford, but mostly UCLA was able to handle our offense.  To paraphrase the Iron Duke, we came at them in the same old way and they stopped us in the same old way.  In the end, except for a slightly off snap and the holder's inability to get the laces facing forward, we go into overtime and who knows?  I was very happy to see the ball veer left.  As Garvin says, depending on the angle it looked either way off or perilously close. 

Our own kicking game should get some praise.  Rhyne's punting and holding for Williamson were decisive.  Kudos to Jordan for his cool under pressure.  Both kicks were beautiful.

Today Simers is saying UCLA "hoodwinked" Stanford by holding back last week and then unleashing on us last night.  This is of course ridiculous.  Mora's comments ring true.  UCLA just blocked better on offense and stood their ground better on defense. After Simers I didn't read Plaschke.

I watched the game at a bar with a big UCLA contingent and only a few Stanford fans.  When the UCLA fans started cheering my first thought was, "Who are these bastards rooting AGAINST Stanford?  This is an outrage."  I obviously have aged but not matured.

Now I'm ready for the ROSE BOWL!

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - jayasena - 12-01-2012

(12-01-2012, 07:31 AM)Oasis link Wrote:Today Simers is saying UCLA "hoodwinked" Stanford by holding back last week and then unleashing on us last night.

It might not have been intentional but, at least in the snippets of the game I got to see, it was clear the level of effort put forth by UCLA was much greater yesterday. That seemed to apply to both the players (in terms of execution) and the coaches (in terms of schemes).  I wouldn't hold it against them given the circumstances but I wouldn't deny the effect either.

On the flip side, our level of effort seemed lower than in the first game. Again, it's understandable. It's hard not to relax just a little bit, subconsciously, against an opponent you beat decisively just a few days ago. I'm glad our guys could dig in their heels when it mattered most and pull out the win. I think Shaw put it very well: "Even when we don't play well, we still play hard. Our guys played with such heart. We made plays when we needed to make plays."

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - DC - 12-01-2012

Our offense is very much still Greg Roman's offensive plays, but without his creativity and without Dave DeCastro making it work, except for a few Hogan bootlegs and options added in.  Hopefully we can develop some receivers so that we can run more plays especially downfield and be more explosive.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - washingtonismoney - 12-01-2012

As with most complaints with playcalling, I thought complaints yesterday were overblown. Yeah, sure, could've done better but the fact is there are an insufficient number of playmakers on this offense to ever really feel confident. (the offensive line playing one of its poorest games in a while certainly didn't help. Wilkes was probably the worst but he was scarcely alone.)

So, if you want to blame coaching for our offensive woes, it's more accurate to focus on what we were doing in February through August. This is something Shaw is going to have to be honest and proactive in his self-assessment: is this a temporary problem, a talent problem, or is it a coaching problem? Or a combination of the three? The 2013 season rests on his self-assessment and the execution of whatever he identifies as the solution.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - Cardinal96 - 12-01-2012

(12-01-2012, 09:54 AM)garvin link Wrote:Several times, when Hogan either took a sack or settled for a short scramble in a long-yardage situation, the Fox replays (which are really excellent, I think) gave a downfield view in which you could see that absolutely nobody was open. And Hogan himself alluded to this in his post-game interview when he said the UCLA safeties took away not only the wide receivers but the tight ends.

Part of this may have been a new UCLA scheme, but it's been obvious all year that we don't get adequate play from our WRs. That seems to me less like a skills-coaching or play-designing problem than a talent-judging problem.

I agree.  Given our lack of talent at the receiving positions, it makes Hogan's performance all the more remarkable.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - needle - 12-01-2012

As a fan, I really wanted to see some more aggressive throws downfield, but that very well might have lost the game. I got the sense that Hogan very much wanted to make sure the receiver was open before letting loose with a throw after some bad decisions last week--undoubtedly, if this is true, I'm sure the coaches would have emphasized this point as well.

It is a little scary to think that the WR corps could conceivably be worse without JRP and Terrell, but I'm still kind of in the "who cares about the future" stage of celebrating the win and the Rose Bowl.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - CowboyIndian - 12-01-2012

Only one turnover in the whole contest. It wasn't us and it won the game.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - estephan500 - 12-02-2012

(12-01-2012, 09:27 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:Only one turnover in the whole contest. It wasn't us and it won the game.

80 yards through thick congregations of players.

Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - Nan3cy - 12-02-2012

If you add those 80 yards to the game totals for Stanford, our total yards don't look quite so bad in comparison to UCLA's. And since it resulted in a 1-yard "drive," I think that isn't totally illegitimate (so see if I can maximize the number of negatives in a sentence).


Re: Final: Stanford 27, UCLA 24 - washingtonismoney - 12-02-2012

Return yardage accounts for a great deal of the difference. Kick returns averaged 28.3 yards/return (which was 85 yards total), Drew Terrell had 18 yards, and Reynolds, of course, had eighty.