10-07-2017, 10:52 PM
(10-07-2017, 10:51 PM)Durty Nelly link Wrote:Don't we only lose Kalambayi and Phillips for the first half next week?
Yes.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Stanford v. Utah live thread
Yes.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
10-07-2017, 10:53 PM
(10-07-2017, 10:47 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:BC, you're a smart guy.
The question is not whose offense is "better?"
Â
Stanford's O should be better given the talent differential . . . and it shouldn't be close. But when you give away plays and surrender possessions, you equalize what should not be equal. Stanford should have a "close to unstoppable" offense with a good OL and a once-a-generation talent in Bryce Love. But they do not.
I just wish the Cardinal O would have the same mind set that basketball teams do in March Madness: every possession is valuable/important. You should maximize your chance at scoring every time (unless burning clock late is a good result in and of itself).
Having complained to high heaven about the O (to everyone's fatigue), I will say this: "beating the Utes in SLC is no easy feat and the team and coaches should feel good about that. If not for the two ejections, I'd say the D played very well.
On to Oregon. Hope they are as undermanned as Stanford will be next Saturday.
MOVE THOSE GOALPOSTS.
(10-07-2017, 10:47 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:BC, you're a smart guy.
The question is not whose offense is "better?"
Â
Stanford's O should be better given the talent differential . . . and it shouldn't be close. But when you give away plays and surrender possessions, you equalize what should not be equal. Stanford should have a "close to unstoppable" offense with a good OL and a once-a-generation talent in Bryce Love. But they do not.
I just wish the Cardinal O would have the same mind set that basketball teams do in March Madness: every possession is valuable/important. You should maximize your chance at scoring every time (unless burning clock late is a good result in and of itself).
Having complained to high heaven about the O (to everyone's fatigue), I will say this: "beating the Utes in SLC is no easy feat and the team and coaches should feel good about that. If not for the two ejections, I'd say the D played very well.
On to Oregon. Hope they are as undermanned as Stanford will be next Saturday.
MOVE THOSE GOALPOSTS.
10-07-2017, 10:55 PM
(10-07-2017, 10:47 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:On to Oregon. Hope they are as undermanned as Stanford will be next Saturday.
Oregon will be way more undermanned than Stanford; the drop-off from Herbert to the freshman who played tonight is very large.
10-07-2017, 10:55 PM
(10-07-2017, 10:49 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17608.msg205060#msg205060 date=1507441536]
Wasn't pretty but I'll take it.
If you had just read some of the posts here you would have thought we lost by three touchdowns.
I think those guys see the potential of the team and don't think we are playing as well as we could. Everyone has a different approach to dealing with frustration. If your benchmark is getting the win, it's hard to hear all of the complaining when you win.
[/quote]
They're not playing tackling dummies! The other team has good players too. Utah played good goal-line defense and kept us out of the end zone, without that this was a blowout. Does that point to things to work on? Sure, I suppose, but sometimes the other guys just do good things. We were significantly more efficient than they were over the course of the whole game in a way that should give you confidence going forward.
(10-07-2017, 10:49 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17608.msg205060#msg205060 date=1507441536]
Wasn't pretty but I'll take it.
If you had just read some of the posts here you would have thought we lost by three touchdowns.
I think those guys see the potential of the team and don't think we are playing as well as we could. Everyone has a different approach to dealing with frustration. If your benchmark is getting the win, it's hard to hear all of the complaining when you win.
[/quote]
They're not playing tackling dummies! The other team has good players too. Utah played good goal-line defense and kept us out of the end zone, without that this was a blowout. Does that point to things to work on? Sure, I suppose, but sometimes the other guys just do good things. We were significantly more efficient than they were over the course of the whole game in a way that should give you confidence going forward.
10-07-2017, 10:58 PM
Turnovers were key. Plus The Love.Â
Did not throw to TEs enough, after it clearly worked in Q1Â
We control our own destiny:Â WIN OUT.
Did not throw to TEs enough, after it clearly worked in Q1Â
We control our own destiny:Â WIN OUT.
Just love slamming those over-hyped beach body schools.
If you heard Cal Sucks, you'd be right.
Turnovers were key. Plus The Love.Â
Did not throw to TEs enough, after it clearly worked in Q1Â
We control our own destiny:Â WIN OUT.
Did not throw to TEs enough, after it clearly worked in Q1Â
We control our own destiny:Â WIN OUT.
Just love slamming those over-hyped beach body schools.
If you heard Cal Sucks, you'd be right.
10-07-2017, 10:59 PM
(10-07-2017, 10:51 PM)Durty Nelly link Wrote:Don't we only lose Kalambayi and Phillips for the first half next week?
Yes. We'll see them around 9:30pm next Saturday.
10-07-2017, 11:00 PM
(10-07-2017, 10:47 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:BC, you're a smart guy.
The question is not whose offense is "better?"
Â
Stanford's O should be better given the talent differential . . . and it shouldn't be close. But when you give away plays and surrender possessions, you equalize what should not be equal. Stanford should have a "close to unstoppable" offense with a good OL and a once-a-generation talent in Bryce Love. But they do not.
I just wish the Cardinal O would have the same mind set that basketball teams do in March Madness: every possession is valuable/important. You should maximize your chance at scoring every time (unless burning clock late is a good result in and of itself).
Having complained to high heaven about the O (to everyone's fatigue), I will say this: "beating the Utes in SLC is no easy feat and the team and coaches should feel good about that. If not for the two ejections, I'd say the D played very well.
On to Oregon. Hope they are as undermanned as Stanford will be next Saturday.
Great points. We were very fortunate to come away with a win. The stars aligned at the end.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(10-07-2017, 10:47 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:BC, you're a smart guy.
The question is not whose offense is "better?"
Â
Stanford's O should be better given the talent differential . . . and it shouldn't be close. But when you give away plays and surrender possessions, you equalize what should not be equal. Stanford should have a "close to unstoppable" offense with a good OL and a once-a-generation talent in Bryce Love. But they do not.
I just wish the Cardinal O would have the same mind set that basketball teams do in March Madness: every possession is valuable/important. You should maximize your chance at scoring every time (unless burning clock late is a good result in and of itself).
Having complained to high heaven about the O (to everyone's fatigue), I will say this: "beating the Utes in SLC is no easy feat and the team and coaches should feel good about that. If not for the two ejections, I'd say the D played very well.
On to Oregon. Hope they are as undermanned as Stanford will be next Saturday.
Great points. We were very fortunate to come away with a win. The stars aligned at the end.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
10-07-2017, 11:03 PM
(10-07-2017, 10:58 PM)ADPATERSON link Wrote:Turnovers were key. Plus The Love.Â
Did not throw to TEs enough, after it clearly worked in Q1Â
We control our own destiny:Â WIN OUT.
Tight ends did have 6 out of our 13 receptions for the game.
BC
(10-07-2017, 10:58 PM)ADPATERSON link Wrote:Turnovers were key. Plus The Love.Â
Did not throw to TEs enough, after it clearly worked in Q1Â
We control our own destiny:Â WIN OUT.
Tight ends did have 6 out of our 13 receptions for the game.
BC
10-07-2017, 11:06 PM
Yeah all of 13 receptions... Throw it more.
Just love slamming those over-hyped beach body schools.
If you heard Cal Sucks, you'd be right.
Yeah all of 13 receptions... Throw it more.
Just love slamming those over-hyped beach body schools.
If you heard Cal Sucks, you'd be right.
10-08-2017, 03:27 AM
(10-07-2017, 10:55 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=martyup link=topic=17608.msg205067#msg205067 date=1507441750]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17608.msg205060#msg205060 date=1507441536]
Wasn't pretty but I'll take it.
If you had just read some of the posts here you would have thought we lost by three touchdowns.
I think those guys see the potential of the team and don't think we are playing as well as we could. Everyone has a different approach to dealing with frustration. If your benchmark is getting the win, it's hard to hear all of the complaining when you win.
[/quote]
They're not playing tackling dummies! The other team has good players too. Utah played good goal-line defense and kept us out of the end zone, without that this was a blowout. Does that point to things to work on? Sure, I suppose, but sometimes the other guys just do good things. We were significantly more efficient than they were over the course of the whole game in a way that should give you confidence going forward.
[/quote]
It will be interesting to see how the Utes do against U$C next weekend. That should give us a little better read on how good a team it was we beat.
(10-07-2017, 10:55 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=martyup link=topic=17608.msg205067#msg205067 date=1507441750]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17608.msg205060#msg205060 date=1507441536]
Wasn't pretty but I'll take it.
If you had just read some of the posts here you would have thought we lost by three touchdowns.
I think those guys see the potential of the team and don't think we are playing as well as we could. Everyone has a different approach to dealing with frustration. If your benchmark is getting the win, it's hard to hear all of the complaining when you win.
[/quote]
They're not playing tackling dummies! The other team has good players too. Utah played good goal-line defense and kept us out of the end zone, without that this was a blowout. Does that point to things to work on? Sure, I suppose, but sometimes the other guys just do good things. We were significantly more efficient than they were over the course of the whole game in a way that should give you confidence going forward.
[/quote]
It will be interesting to see how the Utes do against U$C next weekend. That should give us a little better read on how good a team it was we beat.
10-08-2017, 08:40 AM
Really glad that I fell asleep in the 4th quarter.
I'm a Pollyanna, who thinks that with Mr. Phillips sitting out the first 1/2 next week will give a chance to blood the younger DLs. Swann looked "good to go" last night. Hopefully Williams et. al. will step up against the *ucks.
As for the QB situation it is still a cluster*uck. Costello is clearly the better QB than Chryst. I actually liked the use of the "Burns package" in previous weeks and I'm very proud of Ryan for taking one for the team. As far as I can see there is no significant upside for Chryst, whereas there is substantial upside for Costello and the team (and in the future, for Mills).
I'm a Pollyanna, who thinks that with Mr. Phillips sitting out the first 1/2 next week will give a chance to blood the younger DLs. Swann looked "good to go" last night. Hopefully Williams et. al. will step up against the *ucks.
As for the QB situation it is still a cluster*uck. Costello is clearly the better QB than Chryst. I actually liked the use of the "Burns package" in previous weeks and I'm very proud of Ryan for taking one for the team. As far as I can see there is no significant upside for Chryst, whereas there is substantial upside for Costello and the team (and in the future, for Mills).
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
Really glad that I fell asleep in the 4th quarter.
I'm a Pollyanna, who thinks that with Mr. Phillips sitting out the first 1/2 next week will give a chance to blood the younger DLs. Swann looked "good to go" last night. Hopefully Williams et. al. will step up against the *ucks.
As for the QB situation it is still a cluster*uck. Costello is clearly the better QB than Chryst. I actually liked the use of the "Burns package" in previous weeks and I'm very proud of Ryan for taking one for the team. As far as I can see there is no significant upside for Chryst, whereas there is substantial upside for Costello and the team (and in the future, for Mills).
I'm a Pollyanna, who thinks that with Mr. Phillips sitting out the first 1/2 next week will give a chance to blood the younger DLs. Swann looked "good to go" last night. Hopefully Williams et. al. will step up against the *ucks.
As for the QB situation it is still a cluster*uck. Costello is clearly the better QB than Chryst. I actually liked the use of the "Burns package" in previous weeks and I'm very proud of Ryan for taking one for the team. As far as I can see there is no significant upside for Chryst, whereas there is substantial upside for Costello and the team (and in the future, for Mills).
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
10-08-2017, 08:51 AM
(10-08-2017, 08:40 AM)Stymie link Wrote:Really glad that I fell asleep in the 4th quarter.I remember so well that people on this board were calling for Chryst during the Hogan era. Though I do admit that Costello looks better to my untrained eye, I also need to note that Shaw has in fact won three in a row since my last post commenting on the offense. At some point I have to begin to doubt my gut and doubt what I thought I knew about offenses and trust his results. Almost from Harbaugh year 1 I have instinctively found fault with our offenses and have usually been proved wrong. So, for myself, I have resolved to be a little less judgemental about Shaw.
I'm a Pollyanna, who thinks that with Mr. Phillips sitting out the first 1/2 next week will give a chance to blood the younger DLs. Swann looked "good to go" last night. Hopefully Williams et. al. will step up against the *ucks.
As for the QB situation it is still a cluster*uck. Costello is clearly the better QB than Chryst. I actually liked the use of the "Burns package" in previous weeks and I'm very proud of Ryan for taking one for the team. As far as I can see there is no significant upside for Chryst, whereas there is substantial upside for Costello and the team (and in the future, for Mills).
Now next year...will we have a three way quarterback controversy? I hear that Mills is pretty special. Maybe not having a dominant, firmly ensconced quarterback (a la Hogan) will make it easier for Mills to step forward next year.
(10-08-2017, 08:40 AM)Stymie link Wrote:Really glad that I fell asleep in the 4th quarter.I remember so well that people on this board were calling for Chryst during the Hogan era. Though I do admit that Costello looks better to my untrained eye, I also need to note that Shaw has in fact won three in a row since my last post commenting on the offense. At some point I have to begin to doubt my gut and doubt what I thought I knew about offenses and trust his results. Almost from Harbaugh year 1 I have instinctively found fault with our offenses and have usually been proved wrong. So, for myself, I have resolved to be a little less judgemental about Shaw.
I'm a Pollyanna, who thinks that with Mr. Phillips sitting out the first 1/2 next week will give a chance to blood the younger DLs. Swann looked "good to go" last night. Hopefully Williams et. al. will step up against the *ucks.
As for the QB situation it is still a cluster*uck. Costello is clearly the better QB than Chryst. I actually liked the use of the "Burns package" in previous weeks and I'm very proud of Ryan for taking one for the team. As far as I can see there is no significant upside for Chryst, whereas there is substantial upside for Costello and the team (and in the future, for Mills).
Now next year...will we have a three way quarterback controversy? I hear that Mills is pretty special. Maybe not having a dominant, firmly ensconced quarterback (a la Hogan) will make it easier for Mills to step forward next year.
10-09-2017, 11:31 AM
I think it is worth pointing out that Wilner had some insight on the game. Utah was having success running the ball against us (excluding sacks, 31 carries for 158 yards, 5.1 ypc). Yet in the critical second half, they seemed to abandon the run and put the game in the hands of their back-up quarterback. From the 12:02 mark in the fourth quarter when we made it a 10 point game with Love's big run until the last 2:51 mark in the fourth quarter where time dictated that Utah had to pass, Utah passed it 6 times and ran it three times. The result was two interceptions.
Whittingham has proven himself a great coach, but I bet he probably wishes he would have run the ball a bit more against us in the fourth quarter. 12 minutes (and even 6 minutes, when the second-to-last drive started) is more than enough time to get two scores running the ball. And yet, once Utah went into pass mode, it seemed our front seven "pinned their ears" as they say, and pressured Williams a bunch, forcing the two interceptions. Would have worked too in the last drive, but for the targetting penalties.
BC
Whittingham has proven himself a great coach, but I bet he probably wishes he would have run the ball a bit more against us in the fourth quarter. 12 minutes (and even 6 minutes, when the second-to-last drive started) is more than enough time to get two scores running the ball. And yet, once Utah went into pass mode, it seemed our front seven "pinned their ears" as they say, and pressured Williams a bunch, forcing the two interceptions. Would have worked too in the last drive, but for the targetting penalties.
BC
I think it is worth pointing out that Wilner had some insight on the game. Utah was having success running the ball against us (excluding sacks, 31 carries for 158 yards, 5.1 ypc). Yet in the critical second half, they seemed to abandon the run and put the game in the hands of their back-up quarterback. From the 12:02 mark in the fourth quarter when we made it a 10 point game with Love's big run until the last 2:51 mark in the fourth quarter where time dictated that Utah had to pass, Utah passed it 6 times and ran it three times. The result was two interceptions.
Whittingham has proven himself a great coach, but I bet he probably wishes he would have run the ball a bit more against us in the fourth quarter. 12 minutes (and even 6 minutes, when the second-to-last drive started) is more than enough time to get two scores running the ball. And yet, once Utah went into pass mode, it seemed our front seven "pinned their ears" as they say, and pressured Williams a bunch, forcing the two interceptions. Would have worked too in the last drive, but for the targetting penalties.
BC
Whittingham has proven himself a great coach, but I bet he probably wishes he would have run the ball a bit more against us in the fourth quarter. 12 minutes (and even 6 minutes, when the second-to-last drive started) is more than enough time to get two scores running the ball. And yet, once Utah went into pass mode, it seemed our front seven "pinned their ears" as they say, and pressured Williams a bunch, forcing the two interceptions. Would have worked too in the last drive, but for the targetting penalties.
BC
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »