[washingtonismoney]

Football fans have always had a "what have you done lately for me; you're only as good as your last game" attitude toward coaches, but lately it seems like it is really accelerating and getting out of hand.

Dunno if you're referring to Kelly or Shaw here, but the people who are vocally Shaw-skeptical are mostly people who've always been Shaw-skeptical, dating back to his hiring.

[washingtonismoney]

Football fans have always had a "what have you done lately for me; you're only as good as your last game" attitude toward coaches, but lately it seems like it is really accelerating and getting out of hand.

Dunno if you're referring to Kelly or Shaw here, but the people who are vocally Shaw-skeptical are mostly people who've always been Shaw-skeptical, dating back to his hiring.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=15906.msg175637#msg175637 date=1476470045]
Football fans have always had a "what have you done lately for me; you're only as good as your last game" attitude toward coaches, but lately it seems like it is really accelerating and getting out of hand.

Dunno if you're referring to Kelly or Shaw here, but the people who are vocally Shaw-skeptical are mostly people who've always been Shaw-skeptical, dating back to his hiring.
[/quote]

Actually I was referring to football fans in general. I agree that Stanford fans are probably the least guilty of this type of behavior.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=15906.msg175637#msg175637 date=1476470045]
Football fans have always had a "what have you done lately for me; you're only as good as your last game" attitude toward coaches, but lately it seems like it is really accelerating and getting out of hand.

Dunno if you're referring to Kelly or Shaw here, but the people who are vocally Shaw-skeptical are mostly people who've always been Shaw-skeptical, dating back to his hiring.
[/quote]

Actually I was referring to football fans in general. I agree that Stanford fans are probably the least guilty of this type of behavior.

[Phogge]

With respect, Wazzu would smoke you guys. Mike Leach does wonders with his obstacles. They outplayed Stanford last year but Leach went cuckoo in the 4th Q. They are probably the only team on UDub's schedule that can beat the Huskies.

[Phogge]

With respect, Wazzu would smoke you guys. Mike Leach does wonders with his obstacles. They outplayed Stanford last year but Leach went cuckoo in the 4th Q. They are probably the only team on UDub's schedule that can beat the Huskies.

[OutsiderFan]

And KSU is a very solid team.  They lost by 13 at Stanford and by 1 at WVU, in a game they pretty well outplayed WVU. 

Frankly, ND has played nobody very good.  Texas - no.  Nevada - no. Michigan State - no. Duke - no.  Syracuse - no.  NC State - I'm not so sure, but certainly not Top 25 caliber. 

And at this point, I'm not sure if Stanford can be considered good.  If ND wins like 31-13, it will say a lot more about Stanford stinking than ND being good. 

One thing about the game on Saturday, it will be the best weather and field conditions these teams have had in a game between them in quite a while.  Forecast says clear and mid-60s all through evening.  Low of 67!

[OutsiderFan]

And KSU is a very solid team.  They lost by 13 at Stanford and by 1 at WVU, in a game they pretty well outplayed WVU. 

Frankly, ND has played nobody very good.  Texas - no.  Nevada - no. Michigan State - no. Duke - no.  Syracuse - no.  NC State - I'm not so sure, but certainly not Top 25 caliber. 

And at this point, I'm not sure if Stanford can be considered good.  If ND wins like 31-13, it will say a lot more about Stanford stinking than ND being good. 

One thing about the game on Saturday, it will be the best weather and field conditions these teams have had in a game between them in quite a while.  Forecast says clear and mid-60s all through evening.  Low of 67!

[NDIrish]

And KSU is a very solid team.  They lost by 13 at Stanford and by 1 at WVU, in a game they pretty well outplayed WVU. 

Frankly, ND has played nobody very good.  Texas - no.  Nevada - no. Michigan State - no. Duke - no.  Syracuse - no.  NC State - I'm not so sure, but certainly not Top 25 caliber. 

And at this point, I'm not sure if Stanford can be considered good.  If ND wins like 31-13, it will say a lot more about Stanford stinking than ND being good. 

One thing about the game on Saturday, it will be the best weather and field conditions these teams have had in a game between them in quite a while.  Forecast says clear and mid-60s all through evening.  Low of 67!

I agree Notre dame is not very good.  I think by the end of the year the offense will be pretty good but the defense will not be good all year. 

[NDIrish]

And KSU is a very solid team.  They lost by 13 at Stanford and by 1 at WVU, in a game they pretty well outplayed WVU. 

Frankly, ND has played nobody very good.  Texas - no.  Nevada - no. Michigan State - no. Duke - no.  Syracuse - no.  NC State - I'm not so sure, but certainly not Top 25 caliber. 

And at this point, I'm not sure if Stanford can be considered good.  If ND wins like 31-13, it will say a lot more about Stanford stinking than ND being good. 

One thing about the game on Saturday, it will be the best weather and field conditions these teams have had in a game between them in quite a while.  Forecast says clear and mid-60s all through evening.  Low of 67!

I agree Notre dame is not very good.  I think by the end of the year the offense will be pretty good but the defense will not be good all year. 

[BostonCard]

Well, by my admittedly crude metric, Notre Dame's defense is roughly comparable to WSU's, and we struggled mightily against the Cougars (9 offensive points plus one pick six).

My hope rests in the belief that we can play better than that, and that we will get at least some of the injured players back.  But we had so many problems in that game that it is not clear how we are going to score in the 20's, which I think is the minimum we'll need to beat you guys.  Maybe if the D plays out of its mind.

I still picked us to win in the game (feel free to join), but that was a triumph of hope over experience.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, by my admittedly crude metric, Notre Dame's defense is roughly comparable to WSU's, and we struggled mightily against the Cougars (9 offensive points plus one pick six).

My hope rests in the belief that we can play better than that, and that we will get at least some of the injured players back.  But we had so many problems in that game that it is not clear how we are going to score in the 20's, which I think is the minimum we'll need to beat you guys.  Maybe if the D plays out of its mind.

I still picked us to win in the game (feel free to join), but that was a triumph of hope over experience.

BC

[JohnR34231]

Well, by my admittedly crude metric, Votre Dame's defense is roughly comparable to WSU's, and we struggled mightily against the Cougars (9 offensive points plus one pick six).

My hope rests in the belief that we can play better than that, and that we will get at least some of the injured players back.  But we had so many problems in that game that it is not clear how we are going to score in the 20's, which I think is the minimum we'll need to beat you guys.  Maybe if the D plays out of its mind.

I still picked us to win in the game (feel free to join), but that was a triumph of hope over experience.

BC

Yeah, I think any sane prediction of a Cardinal victory has to be based on the premise that we will play much, much better that we have in the last two weeks.
Will we? Well, I thought we would against the Cougs, so as you say if we do this week it will be the triumph of hope over experience.

[JohnR34231]

Well, by my admittedly crude metric, Votre Dame's defense is roughly comparable to WSU's, and we struggled mightily against the Cougars (9 offensive points plus one pick six).

My hope rests in the belief that we can play better than that, and that we will get at least some of the injured players back.  But we had so many problems in that game that it is not clear how we are going to score in the 20's, which I think is the minimum we'll need to beat you guys.  Maybe if the D plays out of its mind.

I still picked us to win in the game (feel free to join), but that was a triumph of hope over experience.

BC

Yeah, I think any sane prediction of a Cardinal victory has to be based on the premise that we will play much, much better that we have in the last two weeks.
Will we? Well, I thought we would against the Cougs, so as you say if we do this week it will be the triumph of hope over experience.

[stupac2]

Right, if we play the way we have the past two weeks we might not beat the club flag football team. Projecting us to beat anyone on our schedule (except maybe Rice) is projecting improvement. If McCaffrey really is banged up and we really are that bad on the lines then this game will be just as ugly as the past two.

[stupac2]

Right, if we play the way we have the past two weeks we might not beat the club flag football team. Projecting us to beat anyone on our schedule (except maybe Rice) is projecting improvement. If McCaffrey really is banged up and we really are that bad on the lines then this game will be just as ugly as the past two.

[CTcard]

Well, by my admittedly crude metric, Votre Dame's defense is roughly comparable to WSU's,

What's your crude metric?

[CTcard]

Well, by my admittedly crude metric, Votre Dame's defense is roughly comparable to WSU's,

What's your crude metric?

[yvonne]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=15906.msg175633#msg175633 date=1476468203]
[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=15906.msg175632#msg175632 date=1476467833]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=15906.msg175629#msg175629 date=1476467125]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=15906.msg175628#msg175628 date=1476466903]
[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=15906.msg175627#msg175627 date=1476466557]
Is there really any truth to shaws seat getting warm at Stanford? Or is that just news crap

The latter.

BTW I will also be pleasantly surprised if we score 28 points.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I like to hear that! Because despite their faults, I do think this offense can score.
[/quote]

I hate to be so cynical, but you have to remember that our total offensive production over the last three weeks is three touchdowns, two of which came when the games were out of reach.
[/quote]

Yeah, but this defense is bad...1 sack going into nc state... seriously tell Shaw to just keep throwing it deep, they can't cover
[/quote]

Sadly, neither Stanford nor ND fans are sandbagging.

[yvonne]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=15906.msg175633#msg175633 date=1476468203]
[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=15906.msg175632#msg175632 date=1476467833]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=15906.msg175629#msg175629 date=1476467125]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=15906.msg175628#msg175628 date=1476466903]
[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=15906.msg175627#msg175627 date=1476466557]
Is there really any truth to shaws seat getting warm at Stanford? Or is that just news crap

The latter.

BTW I will also be pleasantly surprised if we score 28 points.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I like to hear that! Because despite their faults, I do think this offense can score.
[/quote]

I hate to be so cynical, but you have to remember that our total offensive production over the last three weeks is three touchdowns, two of which came when the games were out of reach.
[/quote]

Yeah, but this defense is bad...1 sack going into nc state... seriously tell Shaw to just keep throwing it deep, they can't cover
[/quote]

Sadly, neither Stanford nor ND fans are sandbagging.

[martyup]

Hey NDIRISH.  Glad to see you back.  All is well with the Cardinal.  ::)  Sure we had a couple of bumps in the road, but we're really just fine.  :o



Nothing to worry about here.  :-\

[martyup]

Hey NDIRISH.  Glad to see you back.  All is well with the Cardinal.  ::)  Sure we had a couple of bumps in the road, but we're really just fine.  :o



Nothing to worry about here.  :-\

[OutsiderFan]

This sure isn't your daddy's trash talk.

ND fan: We suck. 
SU fan: No, we suck.
ND fan: We couldn't hit water falling out of a boat!
SU fan: We're so bad, we don't even think to put our boats in water!

Not exactly the titanic tilt 2015 was.  More like the Titanic tilt in 2016...

[OutsiderFan]

This sure isn't your daddy's trash talk.

ND fan: We suck. 
SU fan: No, we suck.
ND fan: We couldn't hit water falling out of a boat!
SU fan: We're so bad, we don't even think to put our boats in water!

Not exactly the titanic tilt 2015 was.  More like the Titanic tilt in 2016...

[martyup]

This sure isn't your daddy's trash talk.

ND fan: We suck. 
SU fan: No, we suck.
ND fan: We couldn't hit water falling out of a boat!
SU fan: We're so bad, we don't even think to put our boats in water!

Not exactly the titanic tilt 2015 was.  More like the Titanic tilt in 2016...

Both sides are managing expectations.

[martyup]

This sure isn't your daddy's trash talk.

ND fan: We suck. 
SU fan: No, we suck.
ND fan: We couldn't hit water falling out of a boat!
SU fan: We're so bad, we don't even think to put our boats in water!

Not exactly the titanic tilt 2015 was.  More like the Titanic tilt in 2016...

Both sides are managing expectations.

[NDIrish]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=15906.msg175666#msg175666 date=1476503798]
This sure isn't your daddy's trash talk.

ND fan: We suck. 
SU fan: No, we suck.
ND fan: We couldn't hit water falling out of a boat!
SU fan: We're so bad, we don't even think to put our boats in water!

Not exactly the titanic tilt 2015 was.  More like the Titanic tilt in 2016...

Both sides are managing expectations.
[/quote]

Just being honest, this offense and special teams are prett much what I thought they would be, weaker in the run than I thought but able to score and developing, can not believe how bad the defense is.  Glad it's not Early in the season cause I would be talking trash not knowing any better lol

[NDIrish]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=15906.msg175666#msg175666 date=1476503798]
This sure isn't your daddy's trash talk.

ND fan: We suck. 
SU fan: No, we suck.
ND fan: We couldn't hit water falling out of a boat!
SU fan: We're so bad, we don't even think to put our boats in water!

Not exactly the titanic tilt 2015 was.  More like the Titanic tilt in 2016...

Both sides are managing expectations.
[/quote]

Just being honest, this offense and special teams are prett much what I thought they would be, weaker in the run than I thought but able to score and developing, can not believe how bad the defense is.  Glad it's not Early in the season cause I would be talking trash not knowing any better lol

[JJJ]

[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=15906.msg175625#msg175625 date=1476466134]
I'll probably loose all credibility with that schedule comment, lol

I did check sos and stanfords was rated quite a bit higher but not sure if that was rating full schedule or games played

Just to put some numbers to that.

Sagarin ranks Stanford's schedule (games played so far) as the #1 most difficult in the country with a rating of 83.05.
Roughly this means that Stanford's average opponent would be Sagarin rated as the #21 team in the country, between Florida and Baylor.


[/quote]

I'm not so versed in this. So the #1 most difficult schedule in the country so far is the equivalent of having played five to six #21 teams in the country thus far? So all the guys who played top 10 teams (or ARE top 10 teams) have also played quite a few patsies such that the average is well above #21? I guess I don't blame our inexperienced players for their performance to date, or the record. Although it would've felt good to win one or two more... Let's get back on track tomorrow!!!

[JJJ]

[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=15906.msg175625#msg175625 date=1476466134]
I'll probably loose all credibility with that schedule comment, lol

I did check sos and stanfords was rated quite a bit higher but not sure if that was rating full schedule or games played

Just to put some numbers to that.

Sagarin ranks Stanford's schedule (games played so far) as the #1 most difficult in the country with a rating of 83.05.
Roughly this means that Stanford's average opponent would be Sagarin rated as the #21 team in the country, between Florida and Baylor.


[/quote]

I'm not so versed in this. So the #1 most difficult schedule in the country so far is the equivalent of having played five to six #21 teams in the country thus far? So all the guys who played top 10 teams (or ARE top 10 teams) have also played quite a few patsies such that the average is well above #21? I guess I don't blame our inexperienced players for their performance to date, or the record. Although it would've felt good to win one or two more... Let's get back on track tomorrow!!!

[BostonCard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15906.msg175638#msg175638 date=1476470318]
[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=15906.msg175625#msg175625 date=1476466134]
I'll probably loose all credibility with that schedule comment, lol

I did check sos and stanfords was rated quite a bit higher but not sure if that was rating full schedule or games played

Just to put some numbers to that.

Sagarin ranks Stanford's schedule (games played so far) as the #1 most difficult in the country with a rating of 83.05.
Roughly this means that Stanford's average opponent would be Sagarin rated as the #21 team in the country, between Florida and Baylor.


[/quote]

I'm not so versed in this. So the #1 most difficult schedule in the country so far is the equivalent of having played five to six #21 teams in the country thus far? So all the guys who played top 10 teams (or ARE top 10 teams) have also played quite a few patsies such that the average is well above #21? I guess I don't blame our inexperienced players for their performance to date, or the record. Although it would've felt good to win one or two more... Let's get back on track tomorrow!!!
[/quote]

Yup, last year, the team with the toughest schedule was Alabama, and it played a schedule strength that was, on average, comparable to the 20th ranked team in the country.  If you break it down, they had 15 games, of which 3 were against top-10 opponents, and 11 of which were against top-30 opponents (and thus four games against sub-30 opponents).  An "average" of #20 seems about right.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15906.msg175638#msg175638 date=1476470318]
[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=15906.msg175625#msg175625 date=1476466134]
I'll probably loose all credibility with that schedule comment, lol

I did check sos and stanfords was rated quite a bit higher but not sure if that was rating full schedule or games played

Just to put some numbers to that.

Sagarin ranks Stanford's schedule (games played so far) as the #1 most difficult in the country with a rating of 83.05.
Roughly this means that Stanford's average opponent would be Sagarin rated as the #21 team in the country, between Florida and Baylor.


[/quote]

I'm not so versed in this. So the #1 most difficult schedule in the country so far is the equivalent of having played five to six #21 teams in the country thus far? So all the guys who played top 10 teams (or ARE top 10 teams) have also played quite a few patsies such that the average is well above #21? I guess I don't blame our inexperienced players for their performance to date, or the record. Although it would've felt good to win one or two more... Let's get back on track tomorrow!!!
[/quote]

Yup, last year, the team with the toughest schedule was Alabama, and it played a schedule strength that was, on average, comparable to the 20th ranked team in the country.  If you break it down, they had 15 games, of which 3 were against top-10 opponents, and 11 of which were against top-30 opponents (and thus four games against sub-30 opponents).  An "average" of #20 seems about right.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15906.msg175651#msg175651 date=1476482726]
Well, by my admittedly crude metric, Votre Dame's defense is roughly comparable to WSU's,

What's your crude metric?
[/quote]

Posted here: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg175644

S&P rates Washington State as the 93rd ranked defense, so not very good.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef

Washington is ranked #10;
Votre Dame is ranked #32
We are still somehow ranked #16

So I guess take that with a grain of salt.

On a ypp basis:
Rushing YPP:
UW 3.45
Stanford 3.71
ND 4.01
Wazzu 4.03

Passing YPA:
UW 5.7
Stanford 7.8
ND 8.0
WSU 8.1

Pass efficiency D:
UW 113.3
WSU 137.7
Stanford 141.5
ND 141.8


Basically, ND is marginally better than Washington State in ypp, not taking opponents into account and slightly worse when you go by PER defense.  Given that, unless we heal up or figure things out quickly, hard to see us scoring in the 20's.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15906.msg175651#msg175651 date=1476482726]
Well, by my admittedly crude metric, Votre Dame's defense is roughly comparable to WSU's,

What's your crude metric?
[/quote]

Posted here: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg175644

S&P rates Washington State as the 93rd ranked defense, so not very good.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef

Washington is ranked #10;
Votre Dame is ranked #32
We are still somehow ranked #16

So I guess take that with a grain of salt.

On a ypp basis:
Rushing YPP:
UW 3.45
Stanford 3.71
ND 4.01
Wazzu 4.03

Passing YPA:
UW 5.7
Stanford 7.8
ND 8.0
WSU 8.1

Pass efficiency D:
UW 113.3
WSU 137.7
Stanford 141.5
ND 141.8


Basically, ND is marginally better than Washington State in ypp, not taking opponents into account and slightly worse when you go by PER defense.  Given that, unless we heal up or figure things out quickly, hard to see us scoring in the 20's.

BC

[JJJ]

[quote author=JJJ link=topic=15906.msg175670#msg175670 date=1476505056]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15906.msg175638#msg175638 date=1476470318]
[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=15906.msg175625#msg175625 date=1476466134]
I'll probably loose all credibility with that schedule comment, lol

I did check sos and stanfords was rated quite a bit higher but not sure if that was rating full schedule or games played

Just to put some numbers to that.

Sagarin ranks Stanford's schedule (games played so far) as the #1 most difficult in the country with a rating of 83.05.
Roughly this means that Stanford's average opponent would be Sagarin rated as the #21 team in the country, between Florida and Baylor.


[/quote]

I'm not so versed in this. So the #1 most difficult schedule in the country so far is the equivalent of having played five to six #21 teams in the country thus far? So all the guys who played top 10 teams (or ARE top 10 teams) have also played quite a few patsies such that the average is well above #21? I guess I don't blame our inexperienced players for their performance to date, or the record. Although it would've felt good to win one or two more... Let's get back on track tomorrow!!!
[/quote]

Yup, last year, the team with the toughest schedule was Alabama, and it played a schedule strength that was, on average, comparable to the 20th ranked team in the country.  If you break it down, they had 15 games, of which 3 were against top-10 opponents, and 11 of which were against top-30 opponents (and thus four games against sub-30 opponents).  An "average" of #20 seems about right.

BC
[/quote]

Wow, thanks. Didn't know our schedule so far this year isn't that far removed from what Bama faced last year!  :o

[JJJ]

[quote author=JJJ link=topic=15906.msg175670#msg175670 date=1476505056]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15906.msg175638#msg175638 date=1476470318]
[quote author=NDIrish link=topic=15906.msg175625#msg175625 date=1476466134]
I'll probably loose all credibility with that schedule comment, lol

I did check sos and stanfords was rated quite a bit higher but not sure if that was rating full schedule or games played

Just to put some numbers to that.

Sagarin ranks Stanford's schedule (games played so far) as the #1 most difficult in the country with a rating of 83.05.
Roughly this means that Stanford's average opponent would be Sagarin rated as the #21 team in the country, between Florida and Baylor.


[/quote]

I'm not so versed in this. So the #1 most difficult schedule in the country so far is the equivalent of having played five to six #21 teams in the country thus far? So all the guys who played top 10 teams (or ARE top 10 teams) have also played quite a few patsies such that the average is well above #21? I guess I don't blame our inexperienced players for their performance to date, or the record. Although it would've felt good to win one or two more... Let's get back on track tomorrow!!!
[/quote]

Yup, last year, the team with the toughest schedule was Alabama, and it played a schedule strength that was, on average, comparable to the 20th ranked team in the country.  If you break it down, they had 15 games, of which 3 were against top-10 opponents, and 11 of which were against top-30 opponents (and thus four games against sub-30 opponents).  An "average" of #20 seems about right.

BC
[/quote]

Wow, thanks. Didn't know our schedule so far this year isn't that far removed from what Bama faced last year!  :o

[thunder_chik]

A little bit of Stanford bashing on ESPN Game Day this a.m.  They ran the clip of Stanford fans reading a newspaper during the last game, and put up a chart showing Alabama's defense has scored more touchdowns than our offense so far this season.  I don't begrudge them criticism, but the commentators were laughing at us. Grrrrr  >:(

[thunder_chik]

A little bit of Stanford bashing on ESPN Game Day this a.m.  They ran the clip of Stanford fans reading a newspaper during the last game, and put up a chart showing Alabama's defense has scored more touchdowns than our offense so far this season.  I don't begrudge them criticism, but the commentators were laughing at us. Grrrrr  >:(

[Phogge]

The Irish and Indian fan bases are working through some issues.

[Phogge]

The Irish and Indian fan bases are working through some issues.