09-09-2017, 08:30 PM
6.5 is poor, but too be honest I can't think of many bad throws or reads. He's had no time, and his only fault has been not being a great creator when the play breaks down.
Stanford vs. SC Game Thread
09-09-2017, 08:30 PM
(09-09-2017, 08:29 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:Where the hell was that passing attack for the rest of this game? The stupid thing is that Chryst hasn't even looked bad previously, we're just... not throwing it. Surprising how not running into stacked boxes over and over is helping us, right?
Also, did we change up pass pro, or is U$C turtling? Because Chryst stayed pretty clean there.
I think USC is playing bend and then break.
BC
(09-09-2017, 08:29 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:Where the hell was that passing attack for the rest of this game? The stupid thing is that Chryst hasn't even looked bad previously, we're just... not throwing it. Surprising how not running into stacked boxes over and over is helping us, right?
Also, did we change up pass pro, or is U$C turtling? Because Chryst stayed pretty clean there.
I think USC is playing bend and then break.
BC
09-09-2017, 08:31 PM
I think SC D-Line might be a bit gassed -- from thrashing us
Just love slamming those over-hyped beach body schools.
If you heard Cal Sucks, you'd be right.
I think SC D-Line might be a bit gassed -- from thrashing us
Just love slamming those over-hyped beach body schools.
If you heard Cal Sucks, you'd be right.
09-09-2017, 08:31 PM
Fumble, pick 6 . . . please
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-09-2017, 08:32 PM
Unless there is a miracle is it not the time to drop some of the childish names for the opponents?
09-09-2017, 08:32 PM
(09-09-2017, 08:30 PM)gocard14 link Wrote:6.5 is poor, but too be honest I can't think of many bad throws or reads. He's had no time, and his only fault has been not being a great creator when the play breaks down.
He was the least of our problems today. I wouldn't say he was brilliant (at least until that last drive), but more of the problems were the lack of good pass protection.
BC
(09-09-2017, 08:30 PM)gocard14 link Wrote:6.5 is poor, but too be honest I can't think of many bad throws or reads. He's had no time, and his only fault has been not being a great creator when the play breaks down.
He was the least of our problems today. I wouldn't say he was brilliant (at least until that last drive), but more of the problems were the lack of good pass protection.
BC
09-09-2017, 08:32 PM
Chryst has an unusual number of passes batted down at the line, I've noticed. Anyway, he hasn't been the reason Stanford's losing, but on the other hand he hasn't been a brobdingnagian positive either. While his line isn't doing him favors, neither is he creating something from nothing frequently (as we've seen Darnold do time and again).
Chryst has an unusual number of passes batted down at the line, I've noticed. Anyway, he hasn't been the reason Stanford's losing, but on the other hand he hasn't been a brobdingnagian positive either. While his line isn't doing him favors, neither is he creating something from nothing frequently (as we've seen Darnold do time and again).
09-09-2017, 08:33 PM
(09-09-2017, 08:32 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Chryst has an unusual number of passes batted down at the line, I've noticed. Anyway, he hasn't been the reason Stanford's losing, but on the other hand he hasn't been a of exceedingly large proportions positive either. While his line isn't doing him favors, neither is he creating something from nothing frequently (as we've seen Darnold do time and again).
As usual, WIM is right on the money.
BC
(09-09-2017, 08:32 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Chryst has an unusual number of passes batted down at the line, I've noticed. Anyway, he hasn't been the reason Stanford's losing, but on the other hand he hasn't been a of exceedingly large proportions positive either. While his line isn't doing him favors, neither is he creating something from nothing frequently (as we've seen Darnold do time and again).
As usual, WIM is right on the money.
BC
09-09-2017, 08:35 PM
We have 102 rushing yards in the first 10 minutes of the game.... we have 60 yards the rest of the game?? What the hell happened??
We have 102 rushing yards in the first 10 minutes of the game.... we have 60 yards the rest of the game?? What the hell happened??
09-09-2017, 08:36 PM
Part of the reason for the bad tackling is the SC runners are hitting the hole really hard. If they're going forward and you're going backward, it's hard to take a guy down.
09-09-2017, 08:37 PM
Yeah, there's something weird. Was it 2015 where it seemed like there were an unusual number of almost-sacks? This feels the same this game. Other than the picks, few of the plays are *maximized*. Maybe instead of 2nd and 8 it's 2nd and 6.
Or the one sack Stanford did manage to scrounge up. Palma misses his first shot at him, so Darnold scrambles and losses 1 yard instead of 5. A little thing but illustrative. Guys miss the first tackle but get the second one. Not a bad result, but ... not ideal.
Or the one sack Stanford did manage to scrounge up. Palma misses his first shot at him, so Darnold scrambles and losses 1 yard instead of 5. A little thing but illustrative. Guys miss the first tackle but get the second one. Not a bad result, but ... not ideal.
Yeah, there's something weird. Was it 2015 where it seemed like there were an unusual number of almost-sacks? This feels the same this game. Other than the picks, few of the plays are *maximized*. Maybe instead of 2nd and 8 it's 2nd and 6.
Or the one sack Stanford did manage to scrounge up. Palma misses his first shot at him, so Darnold scrambles and losses 1 yard instead of 5. A little thing but illustrative. Guys miss the first tackle but get the second one. Not a bad result, but ... not ideal.
Or the one sack Stanford did manage to scrounge up. Palma misses his first shot at him, so Darnold scrambles and losses 1 yard instead of 5. A little thing but illustrative. Guys miss the first tackle but get the second one. Not a bad result, but ... not ideal.
09-09-2017, 08:39 PM
Haven't seen a lot of weakness on their team. Maybe their DBs if you had to pick something. But they haven't been bad.
Talent all over the field.
Talent all over the field.
09-09-2017, 08:39 PM
(09-09-2017, 08:37 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Yeah, there's something weird. Was it 2015 where it seemed like there were an unusual number of almost-sacks? This feels the same this game. Other than the picks, few of the plays are *maximized*. Maybe instead of 2nd and 8 it's 2nd and 6.
Or the one sack Stanford did manage to scrounge up. Palma misses his first shot at him, so Darnold scrambles and losses 1 yard instead of 5. A little thing but illustrative.
Darnold is good at that. He moves in the pocket really well. And of course, we haven't had a lot of clean shots at him; their OL has mostly limited our chances to even get to the backfield, so our denominator is pretty small.
BC
(09-09-2017, 08:37 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Yeah, there's something weird. Was it 2015 where it seemed like there were an unusual number of almost-sacks? This feels the same this game. Other than the picks, few of the plays are *maximized*. Maybe instead of 2nd and 8 it's 2nd and 6.
Or the one sack Stanford did manage to scrounge up. Palma misses his first shot at him, so Darnold scrambles and losses 1 yard instead of 5. A little thing but illustrative.
Darnold is good at that. He moves in the pocket really well. And of course, we haven't had a lot of clean shots at him; their OL has mostly limited our chances to even get to the backfield, so our denominator is pretty small.
BC
![[Image: tumblr_inline_on3klaYo3E1u69rvq_500.gif]](https://68.media.tumblr.com/02139d12c4d1b67441ed9207b6de58ba/tumblr_inline_on3klaYo3E1u69rvq_500.gif)
09-09-2017, 08:40 PM
(09-09-2017, 08:39 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Haven't seen a lot of weakness on their team. Maybe their DBs if you had to pick something. But they haven't been bad.
Talent all over the field.
And a solid coaching staff. It's the whole package right now.
SC is back.
(09-09-2017, 08:39 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Haven't seen a lot of weakness on their team. Maybe their DBs if you had to pick something. But they haven't been bad.
Talent all over the field.
And a solid coaching staff. It's the whole package right now.
SC is back.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »