09-09-2017, 08:40 PM
The fat lady sings. :(
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Stanford vs. SC Game Thread
Our defense has given up 603 yards.
That was not a good game.
BC
That was not a good game.
BC
09-09-2017, 08:41 PM
Let's hope we play them again in December.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-09-2017, 08:43 PM
Let's see Little and Sarell.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-09-2017, 08:43 PM
There was your bad throw by Chryst. Should have been intercepted. But when you are down 18, you need to take risks, so I don't fault him.
BC
BC
There was your bad throw by Chryst. Should have been intercepted. But when you are down 18, you need to take risks, so I don't fault him.
BC
BC
09-09-2017, 08:44 PM
(09-09-2017, 08:37 PM)Mick link Wrote:Might be looking at a national champion here.
I'd say that is a little overblown. Our D sucks. Also, S.C. Is far from a complete team. Bama would destroy them
09-09-2017, 08:44 PM
At least the Dodgers lost again, have now lost 8 in a row, and 14 of last 15!
At least the Dodgers lost again, have now lost 8 in a row, and 14 of last 15!
09-09-2017, 08:47 PM
Not the game I expected tp see. Both of our lines are getting pushed around and out muscled. Not a lot of "intellectual brutality" on the field tonight - well, at least not from Stanford.
Coach Shaw and his staff have got some work to do.
Coach Shaw and his staff have got some work to do.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
Not the game I expected tp see. Both of our lines are getting pushed around and out muscled. Not a lot of "intellectual brutality" on the field tonight - well, at least not from Stanford.
Coach Shaw and his staff have got some work to do.
Coach Shaw and his staff have got some work to do.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
09-09-2017, 08:49 PM
(09-09-2017, 08:44 PM)norcard link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=17352.msg199932#msg199932 date=1505014662]
Might be looking at a national champion here.
I'd say that is a little overblown. Our D sucks. Also, S.C. Is far from a complete team. Bama would destroy them
[/quote]
They do look like a college football playoff team, though.
BC
(09-09-2017, 08:44 PM)norcard link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=17352.msg199932#msg199932 date=1505014662]
Might be looking at a national champion here.
I'd say that is a little overblown. Our D sucks. Also, S.C. Is far from a complete team. Bama would destroy them
[/quote]
They do look like a college football playoff team, though.
BC
09-09-2017, 08:50 PM
So what can be done? In the short term, not sure how much. It's hard to scheme around being destroyed on both lines. So absent moving Sarrell and/or Little into the lineup with alacrity, I'm not sure what the solution is here. (Beyond hoping SC is *really* that good.)
In the long term, I think this should be a kick in the butt for Shaw and the staff to recruit better. A team's generally going to succeed or not with its older guys. In Stanford's case, the old guys are a tiny 2013 class and a pretty good 2014 class (which has been gutted a bit by McCaffrey's and Thomas's departures).
Of especial interest is the lines. The 2013 class had two linemen, Oser and Bright. Oser retired medically. The 2014 class had seven linemen, but its top-rated offensive linemen (Reilly Gibbons) left quickly. Thomas was, of course, a superstar. But both highly-rated linemen are now departed, meaning that between the 2013 and 2014 classes, no highly-ranked linemen survive.
What's the point here? That, if current trends continue, we'll be having a morose thread of this nature around 2022 or so. Why? The class of 2018 is both tiny and lacks highly-rated linemen.
EDIT: forgot Casey Tucker, which is the exception that proves the point, given he's sitting out for some odd reason.
In the long term, I think this should be a kick in the butt for Shaw and the staff to recruit better. A team's generally going to succeed or not with its older guys. In Stanford's case, the old guys are a tiny 2013 class and a pretty good 2014 class (which has been gutted a bit by McCaffrey's and Thomas's departures).
Of especial interest is the lines. The 2013 class had two linemen, Oser and Bright. Oser retired medically. The 2014 class had seven linemen, but its top-rated offensive linemen (Reilly Gibbons) left quickly. Thomas was, of course, a superstar. But both highly-rated linemen are now departed, meaning that between the 2013 and 2014 classes, no highly-ranked linemen survive.
What's the point here? That, if current trends continue, we'll be having a morose thread of this nature around 2022 or so. Why? The class of 2018 is both tiny and lacks highly-rated linemen.
EDIT: forgot Casey Tucker, which is the exception that proves the point, given he's sitting out for some odd reason.
So what can be done? In the short term, not sure how much. It's hard to scheme around being destroyed on both lines. So absent moving Sarrell and/or Little into the lineup with alacrity, I'm not sure what the solution is here. (Beyond hoping SC is *really* that good.)
In the long term, I think this should be a kick in the butt for Shaw and the staff to recruit better. A team's generally going to succeed or not with its older guys. In Stanford's case, the old guys are a tiny 2013 class and a pretty good 2014 class (which has been gutted a bit by McCaffrey's and Thomas's departures).
Of especial interest is the lines. The 2013 class had two linemen, Oser and Bright. Oser retired medically. The 2014 class had seven linemen, but its top-rated offensive linemen (Reilly Gibbons) left quickly. Thomas was, of course, a superstar. But both highly-rated linemen are now departed, meaning that between the 2013 and 2014 classes, no highly-ranked linemen survive.
What's the point here? That, if current trends continue, we'll be having a morose thread of this nature around 2022 or so. Why? The class of 2018 is both tiny and lacks highly-rated linemen.
EDIT: forgot Casey Tucker, which is the exception that proves the point, given he's sitting out for some odd reason.
In the long term, I think this should be a kick in the butt for Shaw and the staff to recruit better. A team's generally going to succeed or not with its older guys. In Stanford's case, the old guys are a tiny 2013 class and a pretty good 2014 class (which has been gutted a bit by McCaffrey's and Thomas's departures).
Of especial interest is the lines. The 2013 class had two linemen, Oser and Bright. Oser retired medically. The 2014 class had seven linemen, but its top-rated offensive linemen (Reilly Gibbons) left quickly. Thomas was, of course, a superstar. But both highly-rated linemen are now departed, meaning that between the 2013 and 2014 classes, no highly-ranked linemen survive.
What's the point here? That, if current trends continue, we'll be having a morose thread of this nature around 2022 or so. Why? The class of 2018 is both tiny and lacks highly-rated linemen.
EDIT: forgot Casey Tucker, which is the exception that proves the point, given he's sitting out for some odd reason.
09-09-2017, 08:50 PM
(09-09-2017, 08:50 PM)amartinsu13 link Wrote:We played like UCLA: SOFT
Blech!
Hard to argue with that though.
09-09-2017, 08:51 PM
(09-09-2017, 08:40 PM)Trevmiesterj link Wrote:And a solid coaching staff. It's the whole package right now.
SC is back.
I take a lot of issue with this. We've been wondering all year if we're for real, and while we were hopped up from destroying Rice it's clear that we're not a contender. We just don't have the horses on the DL.
But extrapolating that SC is back from this one game? That's absurd. I know the announcers are saying it over and over, but don't we remember Texas last year? SC has good players no doubt, but those good players derped their way to trailing against a quite-probably bad WMU team for 3 quarters. This coaching staff took how many games to figure out that Darnold was the better QB last year?
I dunno, I keep saying this, but Helton was demonstrably worse than Sark the year he took over midway. He got worse results from the same guys. Then he took all that time to pick the better QB despite lots of chatter coming out from SC quarters that he was better? It's possible he's figuring it out as he goes, but my guess is when he goes up against a team that's similarly skilled in the trenches, he'll get clowned.
(09-09-2017, 08:40 PM)Trevmiesterj link Wrote:And a solid coaching staff. It's the whole package right now.
SC is back.
I take a lot of issue with this. We've been wondering all year if we're for real, and while we were hopped up from destroying Rice it's clear that we're not a contender. We just don't have the horses on the DL.
But extrapolating that SC is back from this one game? That's absurd. I know the announcers are saying it over and over, but don't we remember Texas last year? SC has good players no doubt, but those good players derped their way to trailing against a quite-probably bad WMU team for 3 quarters. This coaching staff took how many games to figure out that Darnold was the better QB last year?
I dunno, I keep saying this, but Helton was demonstrably worse than Sark the year he took over midway. He got worse results from the same guys. Then he took all that time to pick the better QB despite lots of chatter coming out from SC quarters that he was better? It's possible he's figuring it out as he goes, but my guess is when he goes up against a team that's similarly skilled in the trenches, he'll get clowned.
09-09-2017, 08:53 PM
Yeah, unclear to me how good Helton is. Then again...does it matter? Believing is enough -- or like 80% of it -- in college football. With sufficient belief you get the recruits and so on. Helton doesn't appear to be as catastrophically incompetent as his predecessors and momentum will create its own magic.
Yeah, unclear to me how good Helton is. Then again...does it matter? Believing is enough -- or like 80% of it -- in college football. With sufficient belief you get the recruits and so on. Helton doesn't appear to be as catastrophically incompetent as his predecessors and momentum will create its own magic.
09-09-2017, 08:54 PM
(09-09-2017, 08:50 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:So what can be done? In the short term, not sure how much. It's hard to scheme around being destroyed on both lines. So absent moving Sarrell and/or Little into the lineup with alacrity, I'm not sure what the solution is here. (Beyond hoping SC is *really* that good.)
In the long term, I think this should be a kick in the butt for Shaw and the staff to recruit better. A team's generally going to succeed or not with its older guys. In Stanford's case, the old guys are a tiny 2013 class and a pretty good 2014 class (which has been gutted a bit by McCaffrey's and Thomas's departures).
Of especial interest is the lines. The 2013 class had two linemen, Oser and Bright. Oser retired medically. The 2014 class had six offensive linemen, but its top-rated offensive linemen (Reilly Gibbons) left quickly. Thomas was, of course, a superstar. But both highly-rated linemen are now departed, meaning that between the 2013 and 2014 classes, no highly-ranked linemen survive.
What's the point here? That, if current trends continue, we'll be having a morose thread of this nature around 2022 or so. Why? The class of 2018 is both tiny and lacks highly-rated linemen.
Our D line pipeline looks so weak. And this has been true for a while now. Outside of Solomon Thomas and Aziz Shittu, our DL recruits under Shaw have not been highly regarded or panned out
(09-09-2017, 08:50 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:So what can be done? In the short term, not sure how much. It's hard to scheme around being destroyed on both lines. So absent moving Sarrell and/or Little into the lineup with alacrity, I'm not sure what the solution is here. (Beyond hoping SC is *really* that good.)
In the long term, I think this should be a kick in the butt for Shaw and the staff to recruit better. A team's generally going to succeed or not with its older guys. In Stanford's case, the old guys are a tiny 2013 class and a pretty good 2014 class (which has been gutted a bit by McCaffrey's and Thomas's departures).
Of especial interest is the lines. The 2013 class had two linemen, Oser and Bright. Oser retired medically. The 2014 class had six offensive linemen, but its top-rated offensive linemen (Reilly Gibbons) left quickly. Thomas was, of course, a superstar. But both highly-rated linemen are now departed, meaning that between the 2013 and 2014 classes, no highly-ranked linemen survive.
What's the point here? That, if current trends continue, we'll be having a morose thread of this nature around 2022 or so. Why? The class of 2018 is both tiny and lacks highly-rated linemen.
Our D line pipeline looks so weak. And this has been true for a while now. Outside of Solomon Thomas and Aziz Shittu, our DL recruits under Shaw have not been highly regarded or panned out
09-09-2017, 08:57 PM
Quote:But extrapolating that SC is back from this one game? That's absurd.
I think it was a continuation of the rise from last year culminating in the Rose Bowl win. Believe me, I don't want to see them improve to be one of the top teams in FCS, but with that running game, Darnold and solid line play, it's hard not to give them credit.
That may change next year when Darnold goes to the NFL.
Quote:But extrapolating that SC is back from this one game? That's absurd.
I think it was a continuation of the rise from last year culminating in the Rose Bowl win. Believe me, I don't want to see them improve to be one of the top teams in FCS, but with that running game, Darnold and solid line play, it's hard not to give them credit.
That may change next year when Darnold goes to the NFL.
09-09-2017, 08:59 PM
Whatever becomes of Helton you have to like him. They could have scored again.
The DL was overwhelmed but what was worse was the tackling. Looked like a Teevens defense.
Chryst didn't lose the game but he has no mobility. Has no ability to slide in the pocket.
Why not play the freshman tackles. Could not have been worse.
The DL was overwhelmed but what was worse was the tackling. Looked like a Teevens defense.
Chryst didn't lose the game but he has no mobility. Has no ability to slide in the pocket.
Why not play the freshman tackles. Could not have been worse.
Whatever becomes of Helton you have to like him. They could have scored again.
The DL was overwhelmed but what was worse was the tackling. Looked like a Teevens defense.
Chryst didn't lose the game but he has no mobility. Has no ability to slide in the pocket.
Why not play the freshman tackles. Could not have been worse.
The DL was overwhelmed but what was worse was the tackling. Looked like a Teevens defense.
Chryst didn't lose the game but he has no mobility. Has no ability to slide in the pocket.
Why not play the freshman tackles. Could not have been worse.
09-09-2017, 08:59 PM
And I thought the USC DC called a great game. This isn't just Helton, they clearly have talent on their staff.
And I thought the USC DC called a great game. This isn't just Helton, they clearly have talent on their staff.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »