The CardBoard
Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - 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: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) (/thread-8258.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - StanFan88 - 11-15-2014

World class defense.  Regressing offense.  Lousy gameplan & playcalling - what was so wrong with the first dirve that they went away from it the rest of the game????

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - martyup - 11-15-2014

We're 5-5 and we were underdogs in only one game.  That's how badly this team has underperformed this season.

Hmmmm. Just back from Bama/ Miss. St. - Redrum - 11-15-2014

Friend kept me up to date on score via texts.  Saw 7-0 and then 7-7 and then...nothing.  I figured he was just falling down on the job.  Well, somebody was, but it wasn't him.  When OT came I knew it was over.  I just knew it in my bones.  And as we loaded up at Starbucks for long haul home, got the text on OT and our FG. Next txt = Touchdown UT.  Crap, crap, crap.  I don't know for sure  if this is freefall, but I will after Big Game.

Cue Annie Lennox soundtrack of our lives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFnYcIqj6I

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - needle - 11-16-2014

I think Utah's the better team despite a significant talent advantage for Stanford.

This game was a microcosm of Stanford's shortcomings this year. Foolish penalties that kill any momentum. Fumbles, fumbles, fumbles (Stanford was actually lucky tonight with Montgomery and Young fumbles recovered by teammates). And a swift defensive letdown in the secondary that's harder to explain, but probably has a little bit to do with a lack of DL depth leading to a defensive front that's not going to get as much of a push in the fourth quarter/OT as earlier in the game.



Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - JohnR34231 - 11-16-2014

Hope Shaw does some real soul searching in the off season on what should be done about the offense. A new OC would be a good start.

You can't really put all the woes on Hogan, but I do hope Chryst (or Burns if he's the better one) gets a shot next year to see what he can do, The way the offense has been playing there wouldn't be a lot of downside to it.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - fullmetal - 11-16-2014

The defense held Utah to 7 pts in regulation.  Defense is not the problem here.  Offense has to find a way to score more than 7 pts in regulation.  Points matter in the game of football.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - JohnR34231 - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 03:45 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:The defense held Utah to 7 pts in regulation.  Defense is not the problem here.  Offense has to find a way to score more than 7 pts in regulation.  Points matter in the game of football.

Although the offense is obviously the much greater problem, I think the defense is a bit of a problem also. Why? Because when the game is on the line they don't seem to be able to get it done. We saw it against ND and we saw it again last night. Really good defenses don't allow this.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - alex_9 - 11-16-2014

Thought D we're back to there old selves.Tough loss

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - StanFan88 - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 06:03 AM)garvin link Wrote:I'm not buying the "they were on the field too long" argument, either. The Stanford defense was able to take nearly the entire fourth quarter off. It was only the field only about three minutes.

Which is exactly why you try the 50yd FG in regulation.  If you miss, a fresh Stanford defense can be relied upon to keep Utah from moving into FG range with only 1:30 left.  Or you go for the first down.  Punting was the worst option of the three, not a no-brainer.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - JohnR34231 - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 07:57 AM)StanFan88 link Wrote:[quote author=garvin link=topic=11119.msg105304#msg105304 date=1416142981]
I'm not buying the "they were on the field too long" argument, either. The Stanford defense was able to take nearly the entire fourth quarter off. It was only the field only about three minutes.

Which is exactly why you try the 50yd FG in regulation.  If you miss, a fresh Stanford defense can be relied upon to keep Utah from moving into FG range with only 1:30 left.  Or you go for the first down.  Punting was the worst option of the three, not a no-brainer.
[/quote]

Yep, just like that fresh Stanford defense stopped them stone cold in OT.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - AtlantaBadger - 11-16-2014

You guys are right.  The D lost this game.  Gave up 7 fricking points!  That is awful.  Don't they understand they need to pitch a shutout? 

Cracked open like an egg -- give me a break.  You have a 10-game sample size of utter offensive ineptitude, reinforced in spades in this game, and you blame the D?  OK - you are right.  Failing to stop our opponents on EVERY POSSESSION OF EVERY GAME does indeed constitute defensive failure.
And they did indeed fail to stop Utah in the second overtime.  So the D lost the game. 

I keep seeing these references to "the offense was moving the ball well."  Bullsh*t.  Moving the ball between the 20's doesn't count for anything except yardage statistics.  The point of offense in football is to SCORE POINTS.  Not just to move the ball in the middle of the field.

But since the O was moving the ball well and the D failed yet again in crunch time, the offensive coaching staff  can take comfort yet again this week that the problem is not on THEIR side of the ball.

Eric


Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - StanFan88 - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 08:43 AM)AtlantaBadger link Wrote:I keep seeing these references to "the offense was moving the ball well."  Bullsh*t.  Moving the ball between the 20's doesn't count for anything except yardage statistics.  The point of offense in football is to SCORE POINTS.  Not just to move the ball in the middle of the field.

This was a worse offensive game than USC.  At least against USC they got the ball INTO the RZ.  Yesterday they couldn't even do that.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - JohnR34231 - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 08:43 AM)AtlantaBadger link Wrote:You guys are right.  The D lost this game.  Gave up 7 fricking points!  That is awful.  Don't they understand they need to pitch a shutout? 

Cracked open like an egg -- give me a break.  You have a 10-game sample size of utter offensive ineptitude, reinforced in spades in this game, and you blame the D?  OK - you are right.  Failing to stop our opponents on EVERY POSSESSION OF EVERY GAME does indeed constitute defensive failure.
And they did indeed fail to stop Utah in the second overtime.  So the D lost the game. 

I keep seeing these references to "the offense was moving the ball well."  Bullsh*t.  Moving the ball between the 20's doesn't count for anything except yardage statistics.  The point of offense in football is to SCORE POINTS.  Not just to move the ball in the middle of the field.

But since the O was moving the ball well and the D failed yet again in crunch time, the offensive coaching staff  can take comfort yet again this week that the problem is not on THEIR side of the ball.

Eric

Nobody is saying the defense lost this game. What I think people are reacting to is the suggestion that all our problems are on offense and the defense is beyond reproach.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - scorecard - 11-16-2014

The problems are clearly on offense.  To blame the defense is completely absurd.

Many people say that you can't blame a loss on the refs, because the game should never have come down to that one play or call.  Well, it's even more clear that you can't blame our defense, because the offense has underperformed all game long and put them in the position of needing to make yet another final stop.  It was a virtual miracle for the defense to hold Utah to 7 pts in regulation, considering the field position that our offense continually put the D in.  Our D not only held, but at times pushed Utah backwards.

The D is #7 in the country in scoring defense at 16.5 pts per game.  The next best Pac-12 defense is USC at #37 at 23.3 pts per game.  Our defense is a full touchdown better than any other Pac-12 defense.

The O is #96 (out of 125) in scoring offense at 23.9 pts per game.  Aside from overmatched Army and UC Davis, we have scored over 20 points in just 2 games (against Oregon State and WSU).  You are not going to win many games scoring 10-17 pts per game, which is what we have been doing.  And yesterday the O was even worse against a stout Utah defense, scoring just 7.

Defense is not the problem.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - needle - 11-16-2014

Quote: Defense is not the problem.

The scary part is that six of the top eight tacklers against the Utes will be gone next year: H. Anderson, Jordan Richards (who I think is underrated by fans but probably not by NFL scouts), AJ Tarpley, James Vaughters, David Parry and Blake Lueders.

So in 2015, defense may very well be a problem.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - fullmetal - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 05:44 AM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=11119.msg105299#msg105299 date=1416134715]
The defense held Utah to 7 pts in regulation.  Defense is not the problem here.  Offense has to find a way to score more than 7 pts in regulation.  Points matter in the game of football.

Although the offense is obviously the much greater problem, I think the defense is a bit of a problem also. Why? Because when the game is on the line they don't seem to be able to get it done. We saw it against ND and we saw it again last night. Really good defenses don't allow this.
[/quote]

Right, we might as well blame the defense for not getting it done by scoring on a pick-six or fumble return in regulation.  Because the game was on the line then, and they didn't get it done.

No, the overtime performances were kind of a collapse, but the game was on the line multiple times for the offense...and that was a squad that didn't do their job.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - yvonne - 11-16-2014

In almost any game, even the best parts of the team are going to make mistakes. So, I don't fault the defense for the final play. The best we could have hoped for is holding them to a field goal, which would have taken us to a third overtime. The defense played their *sses off. The offense was, well, the offense.

There are multiple problems on offense:

1. Mistakes at key times. How many times has a penalty or turnover negated a big play, or even a touchdown?
2. An offensive line that has lost its identity. The OL came in with much acclaim, and I thought it would move on without a hiccup. Then when it didn't I thought it would improve over the course of the season. It didn't.
3. Running backs who aren't the kind needed for the type of offense that Stanford has had since its turnaround.
4. A kicker who has been erratic, at best.
5. A coaching staff that has been slow to change the offense to the type of players we have.

Can those be fixed? Probably, but not this year. I don't expect another win.

Nevertheless, I reject the repeated assertion that the drop-off is a reflection of Shaw's character. Most of those look at all the losses over the course of the last four years and attribute them to Shaw, but don't attribute any of the wins to him. Moreover, the slowness to change, often referred to as "stubbornness" is considered "patience" when it works. As we saw with the elevation of Hogan, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes. The highly regarded Nunes and Nottingham did not develop — and they were recruited on the previous head coach. (Interestingly, quarterback is a weakness on the 49ers.)

Here's what I do criticize the coaching staff for:
1. Not recruiting offensive players, and particularly, running backs suited to its type of play.
2. Not bringing in new blood to replace coaches on the offensive side of the ball.

Finally, those who think Shaw is Jack Christianson should be careful. The next guy up may not be Walsh. There's a much greater probability that he'll be Teevens.

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - AtlantaBadger - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 10:43 AM)garvin link Wrote:
Quote:Cracked open like an egg -- give me a break.  You have a 10-game sample size of utter offensive ineptitude, reinforced in spades in this game, and you blame the D?

That post wasn't about the entire season. It was about this game, and that phrase is absolutely accurate: The defense gave up touchdowns on both its overtime possessions. Even a perfect performance by the offense would have left us tied after two overtime periods.

You also overlook my use of the word "heroic" to describe the defense, and the criticism of the offensive penalties on the fourth-quarter drive that could have won us the game. All in all, the greatest example of selective reading in the history of CardBoard, AtlantaBadger.


Haha -- pretty impressive that I already have the "greatest" something in the history of the Cardboard after only such a short time! 

I have never suggested -- or at least did not mean to suggest -- that the D was above reproach.  Certainly defensive lapses made the last ND score too easy and the two TDs yesterday easier than they should have been.  But if the D "cracked open like an egg" in OT, the offense did not hold up its end of the bargain either.  F'd up its chance at another TD in second OT by O line allowing sack of Hogan to start the possession. 

That is the basic problem with this year -- defense simply cannot afford ANY mistakes, ever, and hope for the O to bail them out.  It is too busy bailing out the O for its many shortcomings. 

No, the D is not perfect.  No defense ever is.  But if the O performed at half the level of the D this  year we would not be having this conversation.


Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - 81alum - 11-16-2014

Well, in the spirit of Life of Bryan, we can look on the bright side of life.  Our team is deeply angry with themselves and thoroughly motivated to take out all their pent up frustration on the next team....which just happens to be C.al in the Big Game.  I can't think of a better recipient.

Quote:Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...
And...

...always look on the bright side
of life...
(Whistle)
http://www.metrolyrics.com/always-look-on-the-bright-side-of-life-lyrics-monty-python.html

Re: Final: Utah 20, Stanford 17 (double overtime) - needle - 11-16-2014

Quote:Can those be fixed? Probably, but not this year. I don't expect another win.

I'm very optimistic that facing a Kal defense is just the thing to (temporarily) fix this offense. Even if Kal scores a bit (they might), I'm counting on kickoffs giving the Stanford O some decent field position. The Ute punter and special teams really were outstanding.