[Hurlburt88]

I felt like Derek mason did get dual threats figured out, and then got promoted.

[Hurlburt88]

I felt like Derek mason did get dual threats figured out, and then got promoted.

[CTcard]

And another perspective on what K-State needs to do to beat Stanford:

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...-stanford/

Of course, all five items mentioned are exactly what Stanford needs to do to beat K-State.

This article about the K State depth chart seems has a little more information in it.
https://www.kansas.com/sports/college/bi...52153.html
https://twitter.com/KStateFB/status/1432...24/photo/1

Some takeaways from the group of articles.

- It appears the K State coaching staff, K State beat writers, and indeed much of this board expects Stanford to try to be a run-heavy offense on Saturday. Among other things, K State seems to plan on abandoning their standard 4-2-5 defense for a 4-3-4 run stopping approach - at least to start.
[Others have described their 4-2-5 as essentially a 3-3-5 with a DE playing as a LB]
That view of Stanford makes some logical sense - we're worried about new QB's ability to deliver the ball and the OL probably has more experience/past success than any other unit. [Of course the OL is equally involved in the pass and run game, and it is not clear to me which one they will be better at.]
However, Stanford has not been a run heavy team, and has not made any serious attempt to be a run heavy team, for at least three years now - possibly four if quibbling over definitions. I think a question remains as to how much that has been in response to the abilities available versus the inherent coaching preference.

- K State has a very big reliance on free agents. Apparently will be starting 3 on defense and seem to have a pile on the roster. However, one we know about on offense, TE Imatorbhebhe (via SC and Illinois) won't be a starter - he apparently did not win that job yet. The guy who won the starting job is described as a blocker rather than a pass catcher.

- K State OL is really big (running 320 - 317 - 300 - 324 - 300). Don't know how good they are but the locals appear optimistic.

- K State does start a FB. The guy who won the job is the guy a beat writer described as a lesser blocker but better receiver. That seems to be opposite of the TE situation, so maybe that says something about their intended check-down order.

Overall, K State fans think their offense is better than their defense, ranging from a lot to a more modest level depending upon the level of preseason optimism infecting particular writers. At any rate, this is counter to the traditional view of K State.
Their offense does seem to be more run based than pass, though that image may be exaggerated in comparison to the rest of the Big 12. Stanford D was bad at defending pretty much everything last year, so at this point it is unclear if we'd be better at defending any one style over another.

[CTcard]

And another perspective on what K-State needs to do to beat Stanford:

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...-stanford/

Of course, all five items mentioned are exactly what Stanford needs to do to beat K-State.

This article about the K State depth chart seems has a little more information in it.
https://www.kansas.com/sports/college/bi...52153.html
https://twitter.com/KStateFB/status/1432...24/photo/1

Some takeaways from the group of articles.

- It appears the K State coaching staff, K State beat writers, and indeed much of this board expects Stanford to try to be a run-heavy offense on Saturday. Among other things, K State seems to plan on abandoning their standard 4-2-5 defense for a 4-3-4 run stopping approach - at least to start.
[Others have described their 4-2-5 as essentially a 3-3-5 with a DE playing as a LB]
That view of Stanford makes some logical sense - we're worried about new QB's ability to deliver the ball and the OL probably has more experience/past success than any other unit. [Of course the OL is equally involved in the pass and run game, and it is not clear to me which one they will be better at.]
However, Stanford has not been a run heavy team, and has not made any serious attempt to be a run heavy team, for at least three years now - possibly four if quibbling over definitions. I think a question remains as to how much that has been in response to the abilities available versus the inherent coaching preference.

- K State has a very big reliance on free agents. Apparently will be starting 3 on defense and seem to have a pile on the roster. However, one we know about on offense, TE Imatorbhebhe (via SC and Illinois) won't be a starter - he apparently did not win that job yet. The guy who won the starting job is described as a blocker rather than a pass catcher.

- K State OL is really big (running 320 - 317 - 300 - 324 - 300). Don't know how good they are but the locals appear optimistic.

- K State does start a FB. The guy who won the job is the guy a beat writer described as a lesser blocker but better receiver. That seems to be opposite of the TE situation, so maybe that says something about their intended check-down order.

Overall, K State fans think their offense is better than their defense, ranging from a lot to a more modest level depending upon the level of preseason optimism infecting particular writers. At any rate, this is counter to the traditional view of K State.
Their offense does seem to be more run based than pass, though that image may be exaggerated in comparison to the rest of the Big 12. Stanford D was bad at defending pretty much everything last year, so at this point it is unclear if we'd be better at defending any one style over another.

[needle]

Both teams have legit talent on offense but A LOT of questions on defense.

I think it's a more favorable match-up for the Stanford defense than say, going against a UCF-style precision aerial attack. But that's just a guess.

[needle]

Both teams have legit talent on offense but A LOT of questions on defense.

I think it's a more favorable match-up for the Stanford defense than say, going against a UCF-style precision aerial attack. But that's just a guess.

[TriangleTree]

Both teams have legit talent on offense but A LOT of questions on defense.

I think it's a more favorable match-up for the Stanford defense than say, going against a UCF-style precision aerial attack. But that's just a guess.

I had the misfortune of witnessing that Orlando massacre live. Gawd I hope you're right.

And to CT's point, I also hope that we come out much more balanced than K-state expects.

[TriangleTree]

Both teams have legit talent on offense but A LOT of questions on defense.

I think it's a more favorable match-up for the Stanford defense than say, going against a UCF-style precision aerial attack. But that's just a guess.

I had the misfortune of witnessing that Orlando massacre live. Gawd I hope you're right.

And to CT's point, I also hope that we come out much more balanced than K-state expects.

[lex24]

And another perspective on what K-State needs to do to beat Stanford:

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...-stanford/

Of course, all five items mentioned are exactly what Stanford needs to do to beat K-State.

This article about the K State depth chart seems has a little more information in it.
https://www.kansas.com/sports/college/bi...52153.html
https://twitter.com/KStateFB/status/1432...24/photo/1

Some takeaways from the group of articles.

- It appears the K State coaching staff, K State beat writers, and indeed much of this board expects Stanford to try to be a run-heavy offense on Saturday. Among other things, K State seems to plan on abandoning their standard 4-2-5 defense for a 4-3-4 run stopping approach - at least to start.
[Others have described their 4-2-5 as essentially a 3-3-5 with a DE playing as a LB]
That view of Stanford makes some logical sense - we're worried about new QB's ability to deliver the ball and the OL probably has more experience/past success than any other unit. [Of course the OL is equally involved in the pass and run game, and it is not clear to me which one they will be better at.]
However, Stanford has not been a run heavy team, and has not made any serious attempt to be a run heavy team, for at least three years now - possibly four if quibbling over definitions. I think a question remains as to how much that has been in response to the abilities available versus the inherent coaching preference.

- K State has a very big reliance on free agents. Apparently will be starting 3 on defense and seem to have a pile on the roster. However, one we know about on offense, TE Imatorbhebhe (via SC and Illinois) won't be a starter - he apparently did not win that job yet. The guy who won the starting job is described as a blocker rather than a pass catcher.

- K State OL is really big (running 320 - 317 - 300 - 324 - 300). Don't know how good they are but the locals appear optimistic.

- K State does start a FB. The guy who won the job is the guy a beat writer described as a lesser blocker but better receiver. That seems to be opposite of the TE situation, so maybe that says something about their intended check-down order.

Overall, K State fans think their offense is better than their defense, ranging from a lot to a more modest level depending upon the level of preseason optimism infecting particular writers. At any rate, this is counter to the traditional view of K State.
Their offense does seem to be more run based than pass, though that image may be exaggerated in comparison to the rest of the Big 12. Stanford D was bad at defending pretty much everything last year, so at this point it is unclear if we'd be better at defending any one style over another.

Let’s hope Stanford is run heavy this year.  That generally translates to a more successful season under Shaw….. Also would mean they are controlling LOS and not playing catch up constantly.

[lex24]

And another perspective on what K-State needs to do to beat Stanford:

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...-stanford/

Of course, all five items mentioned are exactly what Stanford needs to do to beat K-State.

This article about the K State depth chart seems has a little more information in it.
https://www.kansas.com/sports/college/bi...52153.html
https://twitter.com/KStateFB/status/1432...24/photo/1

Some takeaways from the group of articles.

- It appears the K State coaching staff, K State beat writers, and indeed much of this board expects Stanford to try to be a run-heavy offense on Saturday. Among other things, K State seems to plan on abandoning their standard 4-2-5 defense for a 4-3-4 run stopping approach - at least to start.
[Others have described their 4-2-5 as essentially a 3-3-5 with a DE playing as a LB]
That view of Stanford makes some logical sense - we're worried about new QB's ability to deliver the ball and the OL probably has more experience/past success than any other unit. [Of course the OL is equally involved in the pass and run game, and it is not clear to me which one they will be better at.]
However, Stanford has not been a run heavy team, and has not made any serious attempt to be a run heavy team, for at least three years now - possibly four if quibbling over definitions. I think a question remains as to how much that has been in response to the abilities available versus the inherent coaching preference.

- K State has a very big reliance on free agents. Apparently will be starting 3 on defense and seem to have a pile on the roster. However, one we know about on offense, TE Imatorbhebhe (via SC and Illinois) won't be a starter - he apparently did not win that job yet. The guy who won the starting job is described as a blocker rather than a pass catcher.

- K State OL is really big (running 320 - 317 - 300 - 324 - 300). Don't know how good they are but the locals appear optimistic.

- K State does start a FB. The guy who won the job is the guy a beat writer described as a lesser blocker but better receiver. That seems to be opposite of the TE situation, so maybe that says something about their intended check-down order.

Overall, K State fans think their offense is better than their defense, ranging from a lot to a more modest level depending upon the level of preseason optimism infecting particular writers. At any rate, this is counter to the traditional view of K State.
Their offense does seem to be more run based than pass, though that image may be exaggerated in comparison to the rest of the Big 12. Stanford D was bad at defending pretty much everything last year, so at this point it is unclear if we'd be better at defending any one style over another.

Let’s hope Stanford is run heavy this year.  That generally translates to a more successful season under Shaw….. Also would mean they are controlling LOS and not playing catch up constantly.

[martyup]

It's funny to hear for calls on this board for us to be run heavy.  I personally don't mind watching a good ball control offense grind it out on the ground.  However, in the recent past when we were run heavy and winning games consistently, there were several Cardboard members that complained that Stanford football was boring and decreasing the broadcast value of college football.  Some even posited that they would rather watch a Leach team blow a big lead in a high scoring shootout than watch Stanford grind out a 2 point win by controlling the clock with a ground and pound running attack.

I say, just win.

[martyup]

It's funny to hear for calls on this board for us to be run heavy.  I personally don't mind watching a good ball control offense grind it out on the ground.  However, in the recent past when we were run heavy and winning games consistently, there were several Cardboard members that complained that Stanford football was boring and decreasing the broadcast value of college football.  Some even posited that they would rather watch a Leach team blow a big lead in a high scoring shootout than watch Stanford grind out a 2 point win by controlling the clock with a ground and pound running attack.

I say, just win.

[bl82]

I don't care whether we are run-heavy or pass-heavy or perfectly balanced. What I would really love to see is for us to be less predictable. Let's start with doing things that are unusual for us in terms of down and distance. I'd like to see more deception and misdirection. Something that the defense can't easily anticipate -- or quickly react to.

I know that in our first game we want to establish our identity, focus on our strengths and get a lot of reps for the players and plays that we intend to be our core offense going forward, but let's at least make an effort to keep the defense on their heels and perhaps even make it more difficult for the next teams we play to have such an easy task of game planning.

I'm thinking more about offense than defense here, as our defense seems to be a little more unpredictable, but in a year in which we are thin in the defensive backfield and are battling injuries, plus have considerable issues with our front seven, we need to be creative in terms of blitzes and pressure in general in order to try to disrupt KSU's offense. Bend, don't break can't be the mantra on every drive and every play. We need to pick our spots and attack aggressively. It only takes one big defensive play to stop a drive.

So...let's at least mix it up and keep it interesting!

[bl82]

I don't care whether we are run-heavy or pass-heavy or perfectly balanced. What I would really love to see is for us to be less predictable. Let's start with doing things that are unusual for us in terms of down and distance. I'd like to see more deception and misdirection. Something that the defense can't easily anticipate -- or quickly react to.

I know that in our first game we want to establish our identity, focus on our strengths and get a lot of reps for the players and plays that we intend to be our core offense going forward, but let's at least make an effort to keep the defense on their heels and perhaps even make it more difficult for the next teams we play to have such an easy task of game planning.

I'm thinking more about offense than defense here, as our defense seems to be a little more unpredictable, but in a year in which we are thin in the defensive backfield and are battling injuries, plus have considerable issues with our front seven, we need to be creative in terms of blitzes and pressure in general in order to try to disrupt KSU's offense. Bend, don't break can't be the mantra on every drive and every play. We need to pick our spots and attack aggressively. It only takes one big defensive play to stop a drive.

So...let's at least mix it up and keep it interesting!

[BostonCard]

It's funny to hear for calls on this board for us to be run heavy.  I personally don't mind watching a good ball control offense grind it out on the ground.  However, in the recent past when we were run heavy and winning games consistently, there were several Cardboard members that complained that Stanford football was boring and decreasing the broadcast value of college football.  Some even posited that they would rather watch a Leach team blow a big lead in a high scoring shootout than watch Stanford grind out a 2 point win by controlling the clock with a ground and pound running attack.

I say, just win.

To be fair, it is different people on the board.  I think Lex (particularly) has been quite consistent in saying that Stanford has historically been most successful with a run-heavy approach, and he defended it when we used it.

BC

[BostonCard]

It's funny to hear for calls on this board for us to be run heavy.  I personally don't mind watching a good ball control offense grind it out on the ground.  However, in the recent past when we were run heavy and winning games consistently, there were several Cardboard members that complained that Stanford football was boring and decreasing the broadcast value of college football.  Some even posited that they would rather watch a Leach team blow a big lead in a high scoring shootout than watch Stanford grind out a 2 point win by controlling the clock with a ground and pound running attack.

I say, just win.

To be fair, it is different people on the board.  I think Lex (particularly) has been quite consistent in saying that Stanford has historically been most successful with a run-heavy approach, and he defended it when we used it.

BC

[French Rage]

Since the game is in Dallas, do we get to sue any of the QBs if they audible out of the planned play more than 6 minutes into the game?

[French Rage]

Since the game is in Dallas, do we get to sue any of the QBs if they audible out of the planned play more than 6 minutes into the game?

[BobK]

Love it Rage

[BobK]

Love it Rage

[teejers1]

Since the game is in Dallas, do we get to sue any of the QBs if they audible out of the planned play more than 6 minutes into the game?

Or sue the coach for burning a timeout to avoid a DOG penalty in 1H?  (In truth, my sense is that staff improved on this front significantly in last season+).  

P.S.  On "run-heavy" offense, Lex has always tried to paint a dichotomy of "run first offense" or "Leach Air Raid" offense.  That is a false dichotomy/red herring.  Stanford has never been (and has no prospect of becoming) an Air Raid offense.  The issue is balance from a pro-style O vs. (over) reliance on running game.  And does the staff have the ability to adjust and be effective when run-first preference is not working?

And btw, run-heavy vs. balanced is entirely separate from the predictable/non-predictable discussion, as bl82 notes.

[teejers1]

Since the game is in Dallas, do we get to sue any of the QBs if they audible out of the planned play more than 6 minutes into the game?

Or sue the coach for burning a timeout to avoid a DOG penalty in 1H?  (In truth, my sense is that staff improved on this front significantly in last season+).  

P.S.  On "run-heavy" offense, Lex has always tried to paint a dichotomy of "run first offense" or "Leach Air Raid" offense.  That is a false dichotomy/red herring.  Stanford has never been (and has no prospect of becoming) an Air Raid offense.  The issue is balance from a pro-style O vs. (over) reliance on running game.  And does the staff have the ability to adjust and be effective when run-first preference is not working?

And btw, run-heavy vs. balanced is entirely separate from the predictable/non-predictable discussion, as bl82 notes.

[gailtate]

It's funny to hear for calls on this board for us to be run heavy.  I personally don't mind watching a good ball control offense grind it out on the ground.  However, in the recent past when we were run heavy and winning games consistently, there were several Cardboard members that complained that Stanford football was boring and decreasing the broadcast value of college football.  Some even posited that they would rather watch a Leach team blow a big lead in a high scoring shootout than watch Stanford grind out a 2 point win by controlling the clock with a ground and pound running attack.

I say, just win.

In six decades of Stanford football, I've never witnessed a "boring" win. And I've never looked back on a loss and declared it first and foremost "exciting", no matter how close it was. A win is something you savor. A loss can range from stinging to excruciating.

[gailtate]

It's funny to hear for calls on this board for us to be run heavy.  I personally don't mind watching a good ball control offense grind it out on the ground.  However, in the recent past when we were run heavy and winning games consistently, there were several Cardboard members that complained that Stanford football was boring and decreasing the broadcast value of college football.  Some even posited that they would rather watch a Leach team blow a big lead in a high scoring shootout than watch Stanford grind out a 2 point win by controlling the clock with a ground and pound running attack.

I say, just win.

In six decades of Stanford football, I've never witnessed a "boring" win. And I've never looked back on a loss and declared it first and foremost "exciting", no matter how close it was. A win is something you savor. A loss can range from stinging to excruciating.

[teejers1]

It's funny to hear for calls on this board for us to be run heavy.  I personally don't mind watching a good ball control offense grind it out on the ground.  However, in the recent past when we were run heavy and winning games consistently, there were several Cardboard members that complained that Stanford football was boring and decreasing the broadcast value of college football.  Some even posited that they would rather watch a Leach team blow a big lead in a high scoring shootout than watch Stanford grind out a 2 point win by controlling the clock with a ground and pound running attack.

I say, just win.

In six decades of Stanford football, I've never witnessed a "boring" win. And I've never looked back on a loss and declared it first and foremost "exciting", no matter how close it was. A win is something you savor. A loss can range from stinging to excruciating.

I have witnessed several "boring" wins, and I definitely did not "savor" them.  The W at ASU a few years back, where Stanford let ASU back in the game (and almost lost) - by literally taking any semblance of a foot off the O gas pedal - was anything but "savored."  Maybe that makes me a bad fan.  Regardless, I suspect it makes me like a majority of Stanford fans.

[teejers1]

It's funny to hear for calls on this board for us to be run heavy.  I personally don't mind watching a good ball control offense grind it out on the ground.  However, in the recent past when we were run heavy and winning games consistently, there were several Cardboard members that complained that Stanford football was boring and decreasing the broadcast value of college football.  Some even posited that they would rather watch a Leach team blow a big lead in a high scoring shootout than watch Stanford grind out a 2 point win by controlling the clock with a ground and pound running attack.

I say, just win.

In six decades of Stanford football, I've never witnessed a "boring" win. And I've never looked back on a loss and declared it first and foremost "exciting", no matter how close it was. A win is something you savor. A loss can range from stinging to excruciating.

I have witnessed several "boring" wins, and I definitely did not "savor" them.  The W at ASU a few years back, where Stanford let ASU back in the game (and almost lost) - by literally taking any semblance of a foot off the O gas pedal - was anything but "savored."  Maybe that makes me a bad fan.  Regardless, I suspect it makes me like a majority of Stanford fans.

[VB Card]

Stanford Daily preview of the 2021 football season 

Part 1: https://stanforddaily.com/2021/09/02/gui...21-part-1/

Part 2: https://stanforddaily.com/2021/09/02/sta...21-part-2/  

Part 3: https://stanforddaily.com/2021/09/03/sta...ll-part-3/

[VB Card]

Stanford Daily preview of the 2021 football season 

Part 1: https://stanforddaily.com/2021/09/02/gui...21-part-1/

Part 2: https://stanforddaily.com/2021/09/02/sta...21-part-2/  

Part 3: https://stanforddaily.com/2021/09/03/sta...ll-part-3/

[Spiny_Norman]

My $0.02 on the offense.

Like many, I really like the OL position group. A couple of those guys have a little nasty streak. I like seeing them play with a chip on their shoulder.
⁠
But even with the experience and capability of the OLine, Stanford will have to show that it can run when opponents bring 7 or 8 (or even 9) defenders into the box to stop it. When Stanford runs plays with Heimuli and Fisk on the field, it's almost assuredly a run. Stanford does not have elite speed at WR or a QB like Davis Mills who can drop dimes to make an opponent hold back a safety. Defenses are going to load up to stop the run and try to force Stanford into 3rd and long. It's been a formula for opponent success for several years. I have heard stories that opponent coaches think that Stanford's offense is relatively easy to prepare for.


So the questions are 1) Can the QB play at an elevated level to keep defenses honest? 2) Can the coaches put the offense in good positions to be successful? I have my doubts about both but I sure hope to be surprised.

[Spiny_Norman]

My $0.02 on the offense.

Like many, I really like the OL position group. A couple of those guys have a little nasty streak. I like seeing them play with a chip on their shoulder.
⁠
But even with the experience and capability of the OLine, Stanford will have to show that it can run when opponents bring 7 or 8 (or even 9) defenders into the box to stop it. When Stanford runs plays with Heimuli and Fisk on the field, it's almost assuredly a run. Stanford does not have elite speed at WR or a QB like Davis Mills who can drop dimes to make an opponent hold back a safety. Defenses are going to load up to stop the run and try to force Stanford into 3rd and long. It's been a formula for opponent success for several years. I have heard stories that opponent coaches think that Stanford's offense is relatively easy to prepare for.


So the questions are 1) Can the QB play at an elevated level to keep defenses honest? 2) Can the coaches put the offense in good positions to be successful? I have my doubts about both but I sure hope to be surprised.

[old spanish trail]

Do we know if Pakola is back?

[old spanish trail]

Do we know if Pakola is back?

[BobK]

Almost certainly not to play if even on the team

[BobK]

Almost certainly not to play if even on the team

[gailtate]

My $0.02 on the offense.

Like many, I really like the OL position group. A couple of those guys have a little nasty streak. I like seeing them play with a chip on their shoulder.
⁠
But even with the experience and capability of the OLine, Stanford will have to show that it can run when opponents bring 7 or 8 (or even 9) defenders into the box to stop it. When Stanford runs plays with Heimuli and Fisk on the field, it's almost assuredly a run. Stanford does not have elite speed at WR or a QB like Davis Mills who can drop dimes to make an opponent hold back a safety. Defenses are going to load up to stop the run and try to force Stanford into 3rd and long. It's been a formula for opponent success for several years. I have heard stories that opponent coaches think that Stanford's offense is relatively easy to prepare for.


So the questions are 1) Can the QB play at an elevated level to keep defenses honest? 2) Can the coaches put the offense in good positions to be successful? I have my doubts about both but I sure hope to be surprised.

Stanford's been "easy to prepare for" because it's thin on elite football athletes in the trenches and D-backfield. These were the nasty guys who won the Orange Bowl and the Rose Bowls. The so-called skill positions have always drawn the attention and the oohs an aahs of the die-hard cheerleaders but without the carnivores -- the "connective tissue" of big-time teams -- you fall short. Get this kind of talent back in the mix and pretty good QBs can look stellar. Without them, those same QBs (and RBs and WRs) will always struggle. Oversimplified analysis, of course, but still valid. It's a pretty simple game. Regardless of how complex your playbook is.

[gailtate]

My $0.02 on the offense.

Like many, I really like the OL position group. A couple of those guys have a little nasty streak. I like seeing them play with a chip on their shoulder.
⁠
But even with the experience and capability of the OLine, Stanford will have to show that it can run when opponents bring 7 or 8 (or even 9) defenders into the box to stop it. When Stanford runs plays with Heimuli and Fisk on the field, it's almost assuredly a run. Stanford does not have elite speed at WR or a QB like Davis Mills who can drop dimes to make an opponent hold back a safety. Defenses are going to load up to stop the run and try to force Stanford into 3rd and long. It's been a formula for opponent success for several years. I have heard stories that opponent coaches think that Stanford's offense is relatively easy to prepare for.


So the questions are 1) Can the QB play at an elevated level to keep defenses honest? 2) Can the coaches put the offense in good positions to be successful? I have my doubts about both but I sure hope to be surprised.

Stanford's been "easy to prepare for" because it's thin on elite football athletes in the trenches and D-backfield. These were the nasty guys who won the Orange Bowl and the Rose Bowls. The so-called skill positions have always drawn the attention and the oohs an aahs of the die-hard cheerleaders but without the carnivores -- the "connective tissue" of big-time teams -- you fall short. Get this kind of talent back in the mix and pretty good QBs can look stellar. Without them, those same QBs (and RBs and WRs) will always struggle. Oversimplified analysis, of course, but still valid. It's a pretty simple game. Regardless of how complex your playbook is.

[martyup]

I just learned that our game is one of two that will be used to test a new video replay system -- Mutually Collaborative Video Review.  Apparently, video reviews will take place in some remote operations center.

[martyup]

I just learned that our game is one of two that will be used to test a new video replay system -- Mutually Collaborative Video Review.  Apparently, video reviews will take place in some remote operations center.

[gailtate]

I just learned that our game is one of two that will be used to test a new video replay system -- Mutually Collaborative Video Review.  Apparently, video reviews will take place in some remote operations center.

You're kidding, right?

[gailtate]

I just learned that our game is one of two that will be used to test a new video replay system -- Mutually Collaborative Video Review.  Apparently, video reviews will take place in some remote operations center.

You're kidding, right?