Positives
Comments
-
You're stuck in 1965.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
This. Maybe I'm stuck in 1965 but you never fake punt in your own territory. It's not the Party Bowl vs. Oklahomo where are you have nothing to lose and your stupid running back proposes to loose cheerleaders on the sideline.sdawg14 said:the only problem I have with the fake punt is where Washington was where they did it. They should have been at Stanford's 35 or 40 when you are in no mans land for a field goal and a punt does not do you much good and then try a fake with Shaq Thompson.
Statistically it makes no sense to fake a punt in your own territory. You are much more likely to just convert it on offense than with a fake that the defense is sitting on. You do it where you shouldn't on the field because of the surprise element.
That's why surprise onside kicks are recovered at a higher rate than ones you line up for. -
Peterman called the best play he could on the fake punt, given the lack of offense. And that should tell us something as to how bad he he believed the QB and OL are, and the quality of his RB's.
-
Ross's kick return for TD was a positive.
-
Onside kicks are a desperation move. They were tied of the time. Durkee had done a good job all day. Kick the ball and make Shaw and Hogan Family go 85-90 yards. I don't see them getting a touchdown. They might get a field goal. There's a good chance they get conservative when they're backed up like that.allpurpleallgold said:
You're stuck in 1965.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
This. Maybe I'm stuck in 1965 but you never fake punt in your own territory. It's not the Party Bowl vs. Oklahomo where are you have nothing to lose and your stupid running back proposes to loose cheerleaders on the sideline.sdawg14 said:the only problem I have with the fake punt is where Washington was where they did it. They should have been at Stanford's 35 or 40 when you are in no mans land for a field goal and a punt does not do you much good and then try a fake with Shaq Thompson.
Statistically it makes no sense to fake a punt in your own territory. You are much more likely to just convert it on offense than with a fake that the defense is sitting on. You do it where you shouldn't on the field because of the surprise element.
That's why surprise onside kicks are recovered at a higher rate than ones you line up for. -
I am also on the "punting was the right call but I understand why he faked it" wagon.
-
Stanford isn't the second best team in the league.allpurpleallgold said:
Here's the thing I don't get, we were playing Stanford. I'm not into moral victories. But this "depressingly bad" shit doesn't make any sense. That's a good team. Losing to the second best team in the league by 7 is not enough to freak out over.PurpleJ said:Good news: We still play in the Pac-12
Bad news: We lost and looked depressingly bad in the 2nd half (adjustments?)
Hope this helps. -
That argument works on their 40.dnc said:
Because the defense was already gassed and the offense can't generate anything on it's own.Houhusky said:
why?RaceBannon said:I think punting was the right move as well and I was pissed that he faked it. But I understand why he did.
On your 40, you still need 20 more yards if you're right, and they only need 10 if you're wrong.
It was a fucking stupid decision.
-
Who is the 2nd best team in the league? My gut says Oregon or UCLA...
-
LIPO.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford isn't the second best team in the league.allpurpleallgold said:
Here's the thing I don't get, we were playing Stanford. I'm not into moral victories. But this "depressingly bad" shit doesn't make any sense. That's a good team. Losing to the second best team in the league by 7 is not enough to freak out over.PurpleJ said:Good news: We still play in the Pac-12
Bad news: We lost and looked depressingly bad in the 2nd half (adjustments?)
Hope this helps. -
Correct, those are the top two teams in the league, and at the moment it's not even close.PurpleJ said:Who is the 2nd best team in the league? My gut says Oregon or UCLA...
-
USC 13, at Stanford 10.allpurpleallgold said:
LIPO.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford isn't the second best team in the league.allpurpleallgold said:
Here's the thing I don't get, we were playing Stanford. I'm not into moral victories. But this "depressingly bad" shit doesn't make any sense. That's a good team. Losing to the second best team in the league by 7 is not enough to freak out over.PurpleJ said:Good news: We still play in the Pac-12
Bad news: We lost and looked depressingly bad in the 2nd half (adjustments?)
Hope this helps.
-
USC 0 at BC 1,000,000,000TierbsHsotBoobs said:
USC 13, at Stanford 10.allpurpleallgold said:
LIPO.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford isn't the second best team in the league.allpurpleallgold said:
Here's the thing I don't get, we were playing Stanford. I'm not into moral victories. But this "depressingly bad" shit doesn't make any sense. That's a good team. Losing to the second best team in the league by 7 is not enough to freak out over.PurpleJ said:Good news: We still play in the Pac-12
Bad news: We lost and looked depressingly bad in the 2nd half (adjustments?)
Hope this helps. -
So BC 1,000,000,000 at Stanford -3allpurpleallgold said:
USC 0 at BC 1,000,000,000TierbsHsotBoobs said:
USC 13, at Stanford 10.allpurpleallgold said:
LIPO.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Stanford isn't the second best team in the league.allpurpleallgold said:
Here's the thing I don't get, we were playing Stanford. I'm not into moral victories. But this "depressingly bad" shit doesn't make any sense. That's a good team. Losing to the second best team in the league by 7 is not enough to freak out over.PurpleJ said:Good news: We still play in the Pac-12
Bad news: We lost and looked depressingly bad in the 2nd half (adjustments?)
Hope this helps. -
Last year Stanford beat them both. None of them are last year's team bu its awfully warm for November
