Yesterday, 07:11 PM
Our O is killing our D
Stanford Miami Game Thread. . . .
Yesterday, 07:17 PM
on the play where Tafiti tipped the pass......replay clearly shows Zach Rowell being held.
it's blatant.
it's blatant.
Cal delenda est
Yesterday, 07:28 PM
(Yesterday, 06:06 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Sitting in NorVA, no other Stanford fans here at the Grill Bar in Reston
They probably all decided that they would be better off working the late night at ScorecardResearch or something.
Miami is what we were about 15 years ago.
"When you compare the sorrows of real life to the pleasures of the imaginary one, you will never want to live again, only dream forever." -- Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo (1846)
(Yesterday, 06:06 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Sitting in NorVA, no other Stanford fans here at the Grill Bar in Reston
They probably all decided that they would be better off working the late night at ScorecardResearch or something.
Miami is what we were about 15 years ago.
"When you compare the sorrows of real life to the pleasures of the imaginary one, you will never want to live again, only dream forever." -- Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo (1846)
Yesterday, 07:43 PM
(This post was last modified: Yesterday, 07:56 PM by cardcrimson.)
Warren looks really good, as does Caden.
Stupid penalties killing us on both sides of the ball.
Secondary is absolutely awful.
FWIW, the guys on the Alabama board thought the no PI call was bogus. We could've used that break. . . .
The offsides on the 3rd and 9 cost us four points, as did the drop in the end zone. Second TD drop in two weeks. . ..
Stupid penalties killing us on both sides of the ball.
Secondary is absolutely awful.
FWIW, the guys on the Alabama board thought the no PI call was bogus. We could've used that break. . . .
The offsides on the 3rd and 9 cost us four points, as did the drop in the end zone. Second TD drop in two weeks. . ..
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday, 07:56 PM by cardcrimson.)
Warren looks really good, as does Caden.
Stupid penalties killing us on both sides of the ball.
Secondary is absolutely awful.
FWIW, the guys on the Alabama board thought the no PI call was bogus. We could've used that break. . . .
The offsides on the 3rd and 9 cost us four points, as did the drop in the end zone. Second TD drop in two weeks. . ..
Stupid penalties killing us on both sides of the ball.
Secondary is absolutely awful.
FWIW, the guys on the Alabama board thought the no PI call was bogus. We could've used that break. . . .
The offsides on the 3rd and 9 cost us four points, as did the drop in the end zone. Second TD drop in two weeks. . ..
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
Jesus... getting smoked.
47 yard strike to Toney, again for paydirt
-- not a complex play. Mensah has all night.
Mensah: 26 of 29 for about 400 yds, 5 TDs
Toney is 230 yds of that and 3 TDs.
Can we put a guy on Toney?!!!
Hey, Stanford -- they are throwing the ball to Toney!
My prediction of 45 - 10 looks too conservative
47 yard strike to Toney, again for paydirt
-- not a complex play. Mensah has all night.
Mensah: 26 of 29 for about 400 yds, 5 TDs
Toney is 230 yds of that and 3 TDs.
Can we put a guy on Toney?!!!
Hey, Stanford -- they are throwing the ball to Toney!
My prediction of 45 - 10 looks too conservative
Jesus... getting smoked.
47 yard strike to Toney, again for paydirt
-- not a complex play. Mensah has all night.
Mensah: 26 of 29 for about 400 yds, 5 TDs
Toney is 230 yds of that and 3 TDs.
Can we put a guy on Toney?!!!
Hey, Stanford -- they are throwing the ball to Toney!
My prediction of 45 - 10 looks too conservative
47 yard strike to Toney, again for paydirt
-- not a complex play. Mensah has all night.
Mensah: 26 of 29 for about 400 yds, 5 TDs
Toney is 230 yds of that and 3 TDs.
Can we put a guy on Toney?!!!
Hey, Stanford -- they are throwing the ball to Toney!
My prediction of 45 - 10 looks too conservative
Yesterday, 08:45 PM
i won't be surprised if Miami wins the national championship.
Cal delenda est
Yesterday, 09:24 PM
If we made it to the end without any serious injuries that’s something positive
Well, that was NOT fun.
Positives:
Stanford with zero turnovers. Warren threw one up for grabs that probably should have been picked, but other than that showed some real composure. If we play teams with similar talent, not turning the ball over is a tried and true way to get wins in close games.
Caden High, welcome back!
Treading lightly here, but imo Stanford's run defense, while not stellar, actually was respectable considering the opponent.
Negatives:
Yes, you could almost say everything else, but I will be brief and point to the dismal production from the running game. It really wasn't great against Hawaii and today, against a much, much better opponent, it was basically non-existent. Hopefully things look better when/if some of the injured linemen come back. Another tried-and-true way to win games is, if you have a lead late, run the ball. Couldn't do it against Hawaii, and nothing I saw today makes me think Stanford will be able to in the future (again, hopefully getting some guys back will help).
Everything else:
For those at the stadium, was E-40 any good?
Positives:
Stanford with zero turnovers. Warren threw one up for grabs that probably should have been picked, but other than that showed some real composure. If we play teams with similar talent, not turning the ball over is a tried and true way to get wins in close games.
Caden High, welcome back!
Treading lightly here, but imo Stanford's run defense, while not stellar, actually was respectable considering the opponent.
Negatives:
Yes, you could almost say everything else, but I will be brief and point to the dismal production from the running game. It really wasn't great against Hawaii and today, against a much, much better opponent, it was basically non-existent. Hopefully things look better when/if some of the injured linemen come back. Another tried-and-true way to win games is, if you have a lead late, run the ball. Couldn't do it against Hawaii, and nothing I saw today makes me think Stanford will be able to in the future (again, hopefully getting some guys back will help).
Everything else:
For those at the stadium, was E-40 any good?
Well, that was NOT fun.
Positives:
Stanford with zero turnovers. Warren threw one up for grabs that probably should have been picked, but other than that showed some real composure. If we play teams with similar talent, not turning the ball over is a tried and true way to get wins in close games.
Caden High, welcome back!
Treading lightly here, but imo Stanford's run defense, while not stellar, actually was respectable considering the opponent.
Negatives:
Yes, you could almost say everything else, but I will be brief and point to the dismal production from the running game. It really wasn't great against Hawaii and today, against a much, much better opponent, it was basically non-existent. Hopefully things look better when/if some of the injured linemen come back. Another tried-and-true way to win games is, if you have a lead late, run the ball. Couldn't do it against Hawaii, and nothing I saw today makes me think Stanford will be able to in the future (again, hopefully getting some guys back will help).
Everything else:
For those at the stadium, was E-40 any good?
Positives:
Stanford with zero turnovers. Warren threw one up for grabs that probably should have been picked, but other than that showed some real composure. If we play teams with similar talent, not turning the ball over is a tried and true way to get wins in close games.
Caden High, welcome back!
Treading lightly here, but imo Stanford's run defense, while not stellar, actually was respectable considering the opponent.
Negatives:
Yes, you could almost say everything else, but I will be brief and point to the dismal production from the running game. It really wasn't great against Hawaii and today, against a much, much better opponent, it was basically non-existent. Hopefully things look better when/if some of the injured linemen come back. Another tried-and-true way to win games is, if you have a lead late, run the ball. Couldn't do it against Hawaii, and nothing I saw today makes me think Stanford will be able to in the future (again, hopefully getting some guys back will help).
Everything else:
For those at the stadium, was E-40 any good?
Yesterday, 10:46 PM
The OL was overwhelmed today. They did mostly ok on pass protection when Miami rushed 4. But they were on their heels whenever Miami blitzed or stunted. To the credit of Davis Warren, he was only sacked once. But he was often on the run or had to rush a throw as he was about to get hit. Stanford reverted back to a recent common practice of holding a TE back to help with pass blocking. It helped, but that meant one fewer potential receiver in the pattern and that seemed to throw off Warren. Remember the days when Stanford had RBs that could effectively pick up a blitzer? A very valuable skill which I didn't much in evidence tonight.
The OL has been the Achilles heel of Stanford FB for a number of years now and it seems again to be a weak link.
The OL has been the Achilles heel of Stanford FB for a number of years now and it seems again to be a weak link.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
The OL was overwhelmed today. They did mostly ok on pass protection when Miami rushed 4. But they were on their heels whenever Miami blitzed or stunted. To the credit of Davis Warren, he was only sacked once. But he was often on the run or had to rush a throw as he was about to get hit. Stanford reverted back to a recent common practice of holding a TE back to help with pass blocking. It helped, but that meant one fewer potential receiver in the pattern and that seemed to throw off Warren. Remember the days when Stanford had RBs that could effectively pick up a blitzer? A very valuable skill which I didn't much in evidence tonight.
The OL has been the Achilles heel of Stanford FB for a number of years now and it seems again to be a weak link.
The OL has been the Achilles heel of Stanford FB for a number of years now and it seems again to be a weak link.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
Today, 07:40 AM
(Yesterday, 10:46 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: The OL has been the Achilles heel of Stanford FB for a number of years now and it seems again to be a weak link.This IMO covers the main problem we have. While I am confident that the guys that are out injured are "better" than the players we have out there, I strongly suspect they are not that much "better". The hope that Stanford could be a run-heavy team playing possession football while taking some "shots" is and for "a number of years" has been a fantasy. We do not have an OL that can do that. To his credit, David Shaw tried to "adapt" to this problem. He kind of made it work for a couple of years, and was greatly benefited by having Bryce Love to provide a running threat even when our line really couldn't open running lanes reliably. In the end though it proved impossible. It still is.
We are indeed fortunate the OL we have is capable of pass blocking at the level it does. Not great, but it is much better than the run blocking. Of course, we have seen lots of this video before. On the plus side, we have a QB that at least so far seems to be able to operate behind this line even with its limitations. Even more important we have and receivers that are getting open. This was true even against Miami. In the recent past Stanford had real problems getting anyone open. ATM that isn't the case. IMO part of that is better coaching and better scheme for the players we have. Unfortunately as was pointed out in the Hawaii game our receivers didn't exactly help out the QB by reliably catching the ball. It was much worse last night. The 3rd and 2 play at the start of the game presaged the rest of the night. Catchable ball simply dropped by the receiver. In this particular case the receiver, who already had first down yardage when the ball was thrown, failed to catch it because he was looking downfield to maximize YAC. Sound familiar? Simply can't happen. A team like Stanford MUST catch the ball reliably. We aren't good enough to make up for drops of catchable passes. Some strategic yelling at the players may be required :-). Unless this gets fixed very quickly, we are in for a long year.
(Yesterday, 10:46 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Remember the days when Stanford had RBs that could effectively pick up a blitzer? A very valuable skill which I didn't much in evidence tonight.Indeed. When not using play action Stanford is relying on the RB posing a threat as a pass receiver. The hope is to force the defense to cover him and therefore not blitz much. That doesn't reliably work in general, especially when the RBs are not a credible threat in the passing game. The defense can still send 5 and cover (or ignore) the RB. Even CMAC, who was a superb receiving threat, had to pick up blitzes. He wasn't great at it (size limitation) but he did reliably at least slow the blitzer/leaker down. BL and all his successors did not do much blitz pickup. When you play that way you really must, at a minimum, have a running back that can reliably function as a "hot" receiver and is deployed to do that. We aren't doing that.
(Yesterday, 10:46 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: The OL has been the Achilles heel of Stanford FB for a number of years now and it seems again to be a weak link.This IMO covers the main problem we have. While I am confident that the guys that are out injured are "better" than the players we have out there, I strongly suspect they are not that much "better". The hope that Stanford could be a run-heavy team playing possession football while taking some "shots" is and for "a number of years" has been a fantasy. We do not have an OL that can do that. To his credit, David Shaw tried to "adapt" to this problem. He kind of made it work for a couple of years, and was greatly benefited by having Bryce Love to provide a running threat even when our line really couldn't open running lanes reliably. In the end though it proved impossible. It still is.
We are indeed fortunate the OL we have is capable of pass blocking at the level it does. Not great, but it is much better than the run blocking. Of course, we have seen lots of this video before. On the plus side, we have a QB that at least so far seems to be able to operate behind this line even with its limitations. Even more important we have and receivers that are getting open. This was true even against Miami. In the recent past Stanford had real problems getting anyone open. ATM that isn't the case. IMO part of that is better coaching and better scheme for the players we have. Unfortunately as was pointed out in the Hawaii game our receivers didn't exactly help out the QB by reliably catching the ball. It was much worse last night. The 3rd and 2 play at the start of the game presaged the rest of the night. Catchable ball simply dropped by the receiver. In this particular case the receiver, who already had first down yardage when the ball was thrown, failed to catch it because he was looking downfield to maximize YAC. Sound familiar? Simply can't happen. A team like Stanford MUST catch the ball reliably. We aren't good enough to make up for drops of catchable passes. Some strategic yelling at the players may be required :-). Unless this gets fixed very quickly, we are in for a long year.
(Yesterday, 10:46 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Remember the days when Stanford had RBs that could effectively pick up a blitzer? A very valuable skill which I didn't much in evidence tonight.Indeed. When not using play action Stanford is relying on the RB posing a threat as a pass receiver. The hope is to force the defense to cover him and therefore not blitz much. That doesn't reliably work in general, especially when the RBs are not a credible threat in the passing game. The defense can still send 5 and cover (or ignore) the RB. Even CMAC, who was a superb receiving threat, had to pick up blitzes. He wasn't great at it (size limitation) but he did reliably at least slow the blitzer/leaker down. BL and all his successors did not do much blitz pickup. When you play that way you really must, at a minimum, have a running back that can reliably function as a "hot" receiver and is deployed to do that. We aren't doing that.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »