09-24-2016, 09:41 PM
I was at the Nebraska-Northwestern game but most of my attention went to following the Cardboard game thread. Hoping Owusu, Holder, Meeks and Marx are all ok!
Stanford at UCLA Game Thread
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
I was at the Nebraska-Northwestern game but most of my attention went to following the Cardboard game thread. Hoping Owusu, Holder, Meeks and Marx are all ok!
09-24-2016, 09:43 PM
09-24-2016, 09:46 PM
(09-24-2016, 09:43 PM)larkinforever link Wrote:Any info on Holder or Meeks?
Probably not until Shaw's presser which I guess will be on Monday instead of Tuesday due to Friday kick at UW.
I did see a shot of Holder with a single ice bag on his shoulder and he was walking around. I'm optimistic this means it's not a serious injury.
(09-24-2016, 09:43 PM)larkinforever link Wrote:Any info on Holder or Meeks?
Probably not until Shaw's presser which I guess will be on Monday instead of Tuesday due to Friday kick at UW.
I did see a shot of Holder with a single ice bag on his shoulder and he was walking around. I'm optimistic this means it's not a serious injury.
09-24-2016, 09:49 PM
Are we trolling the BRuins?
https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...0649141248
Because the Rose Bowl sure feels like C-House.
BC
https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...0649141248
Because the Rose Bowl sure feels like C-House.
BC
Are we trolling the BRuins?
https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...0649141248
Because the Rose Bowl sure feels like C-House.
BC
https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...0649141248
Because the Rose Bowl sure feels like C-House.
BC
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-24-2016, 09:54 PM
Stanford is 6-1 at the Rose Bowl since 2010. I think our guys can claim it as their house.
Is that Jordan Watkins leading the chant? I'm not sure.
Is that Jordan Watkins leading the chant? I'm not sure.
09-24-2016, 09:56 PM
(09-24-2016, 09:49 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Because the Rose Bowl sure feels like C-House.
BC
9 months into the year and we lead them in wins there, 2-1.
(09-24-2016, 09:49 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Because the Rose Bowl sure feels like C-House.
BC
9 months into the year and we lead them in wins there, 2-1.
09-24-2016, 10:10 PM
(09-24-2016, 09:54 PM)terry link Wrote:Stanford is 6-1 at the Rose Bowl since 2010. I think our guys can claim it as their house.
Is that Jordan Watkins leading the chant? I'm not sure.
I believe it is, and I think he's been leading it all year.
(09-24-2016, 09:54 PM)terry link Wrote:Stanford is 6-1 at the Rose Bowl since 2010. I think our guys can claim it as their house.
Is that Jordan Watkins leading the chant? I'm not sure.
I believe it is, and I think he's been leading it all year.
09-24-2016, 10:12 PM
There was a point during the final drive where the ref was standing at the ball not letting us snap it but the clock was still running. Everyone watching in the Dutch Goose was yelling at the ref to get the hell out of the way. What was the deal with that?
There was a point during the final drive where the ref was standing at the ball not letting us snap it but the clock was still running. Everyone watching in the Dutch Goose was yelling at the ref to get the hell out of the way. What was the deal with that?
09-24-2016, 10:13 PM
I believe the issue was that Stanford substituted, and the rules require that the defense be given enough time to substitute in response.
09-24-2016, 10:14 PM
(09-24-2016, 10:13 PM)terry link Wrote:I believe the issue was that Stanford substituted, and the rules require that the defense be given enough time to substitute in response.
Yep. Why we subbed there was very confusing to me.
(09-24-2016, 10:13 PM)terry link Wrote:I believe the issue was that Stanford substituted, and the rules require that the defense be given enough time to substitute in response.
Yep. Why we subbed there was very confusing to me.
09-24-2016, 10:16 PM
(09-24-2016, 10:13 PM)terry link Wrote:I believe the issue was that Stanford substituted, and the rules require that the defense be given enough time to substitute in response.
Exactly. Defense is always given a few seconds to respond to an offensive substitution.
The stupid thing is Stanford had a late substitution. Too many botched details on offense tonight.
(09-24-2016, 10:13 PM)terry link Wrote:I believe the issue was that Stanford substituted, and the rules require that the defense be given enough time to substitute in response.
Exactly. Defense is always given a few seconds to respond to an offensive substitution.
The stupid thing is Stanford had a late substitution. Too many botched details on offense tonight.
09-24-2016, 10:58 PM
Once we got the ball back with two minutes and everything to play for, I knew we had em right where we wanted em.
A strange game, but a delight to watch from the visitors corner. We seem to throw game winning TDs to that corner often, at least when I see em play in LA...
A strange game, but a delight to watch from the visitors corner. We seem to throw game winning TDs to that corner often, at least when I see em play in LA...
Once we got the ball back with two minutes and everything to play for, I knew we had em right where we wanted em.
A strange game, but a delight to watch from the visitors corner. We seem to throw game winning TDs to that corner often, at least when I see em play in LA...
A strange game, but a delight to watch from the visitors corner. We seem to throw game winning TDs to that corner often, at least when I see em play in LA...
By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
BC
09-24-2016, 11:20 PM
(09-24-2016, 10:59 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
I've never seen any substantive look at whether the fade does or doesn't work. I think it's just griping until someone shows their work.
(09-24-2016, 10:59 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
I've never seen any substantive look at whether the fade does or doesn't work. I think it's just griping until someone shows their work.
09-24-2016, 11:22 PM
(09-24-2016, 11:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173019#msg173019 date=1474783170]
By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
I've never seen any substantive look at whether the fade does or doesn't work. I think it's just griping until someone shows their work.
[/quote]
Isn't that what the internet was invented for?
We also ran a lot of wildcat today... it was neither a catastrophic failure nor an overwhelming success, but I was a bit surprised that nobody wrote about how the wildcat is a waste unless you have some action with it.
BC
(09-24-2016, 11:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173019#msg173019 date=1474783170]
By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
I've never seen any substantive look at whether the fade does or doesn't work. I think it's just griping until someone shows their work.
[/quote]
Isn't that what the internet was invented for?
We also ran a lot of wildcat today... it was neither a catastrophic failure nor an overwhelming success, but I was a bit surprised that nobody wrote about how the wildcat is a waste unless you have some action with it.
BC
09-24-2016, 11:23 PM
(09-24-2016, 11:22 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:We also ran a lot of wildcat today... it was neither a catastrophic failure nor an overwhelming success, but I was a bit surprised that nobody wrote about how the wildcat is a waste unless you have some action with it.
BC
I wasn't a fan of running it twice in a row.
(09-24-2016, 11:22 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:We also ran a lot of wildcat today... it was neither a catastrophic failure nor an overwhelming success, but I was a bit surprised that nobody wrote about how the wildcat is a waste unless you have some action with it.
BC
I wasn't a fan of running it twice in a row.
09-24-2016, 11:37 PM
(09-24-2016, 11:23 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173027#msg173027 date=1474784572]We also ran a lot of wildcat today... it was neither a catastrophic failure nor an overwhelming success, but I was a bit surprised that nobody wrote about how the wildcat is a waste unless you have some action with it.
BC
I wasn't a fan of running it twice in a row.
[/quote]
The problem with the wildcat (at least how we do it) is that the defense expects a run, so 9 times out of 10 the play goes no where.
But the 1 out of 10 times Shaw calls something different... end sweep, or the RB actually throws it. Remember the 2013 Rose Bowl?
http://pac-12.com/videos/stanford-defeat...highlights
(09-24-2016, 11:23 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173027#msg173027 date=1474784572]We also ran a lot of wildcat today... it was neither a catastrophic failure nor an overwhelming success, but I was a bit surprised that nobody wrote about how the wildcat is a waste unless you have some action with it.
BC
I wasn't a fan of running it twice in a row.
[/quote]
The problem with the wildcat (at least how we do it) is that the defense expects a run, so 9 times out of 10 the play goes no where.
But the 1 out of 10 times Shaw calls something different... end sweep, or the RB actually throws it. Remember the 2013 Rose Bowl?
http://pac-12.com/videos/stanford-defeat...highlights
09-25-2016, 01:06 AM
(09-24-2016, 09:43 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Here's the final drive!
https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...1783946241
BC
To run the ball to the middle with 30 something seconds left on the clock on 3rd down and 3 was very gutsy. This was very unShaw like call, very gutsy and I am glad it worked out.
(09-24-2016, 09:43 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Here's the final drive!
https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...1783946241
BC
To run the ball to the middle with 30 something seconds left on the clock on 3rd down and 3 was very gutsy. This was very unShaw like call, very gutsy and I am glad it worked out.
09-25-2016, 01:07 AM
McCaffrey rushed for 138 at 5.3 per carry, and the postgame reports are that he was contained. When H-man talk rolls around, let that be the case for McCaffrey -- that 138 yards on 26 carries is considered a victory for the opposing defense.
McCaffrey rushed for 138 at 5.3 per carry, and the postgame reports are that he was contained. When H-man talk rolls around, let that be the case for McCaffrey -- that 138 yards on 26 carries is considered a victory for the opposing defense.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »