Oct 4 | Stanford

[woolybug25]

Getting up on them early is the key. I just don't believe in Hogan yet. Force Stanford to pass the ball to win this game.

Therein lies the problem... we don't exactly "start fast".

We need to be on point, protect the ball and exploit big plays.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Just glad this is a 12:30 start(PST)!!!!

Seriously. Finally another day game.

 

[IrishLax]

Therein lies the problem... we don't exactly "start fast".

We need to be on point, protect the ball and exploit big plays.

Do you think we should kickoff instead of taking the ball? I think we should.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Do you think we should kickoff instead of taking the ball? I think we should.

That's probably not a bad idea. We're usually rolling by the 3rd quarter. First possession? Not so much.

 

[aubeirish]

Call me crazy, but I actually think Hunt is better than Hogan. He just plays on a far less talented team.

Not Crazy at all. Hunt made some really impressive throws against us. Put Hunt in the Stanford offense, and I would be a bit worried about it. Hogan is not terrible, but he's not great.

 

[woolybug25]

Do you think we should kickoff instead of taking the ball? I think we should.

For the reason Whiskey posted above, I think that we should defer. This is unusual for me, as I almost always prefer us taking the ball first. I prefer it for two reasons; a) You can dictate the tempo of the game by scoring first and forcing your opponent to follow suit. This can also get a "run first" team out of their game plan quicker by putting them behind, forcing them to throw. b) Keeps the opponent off the field. Ideally, you take the ball first and spend the majority of the 1st quarter making your longest TD drive of the game. This gives you a clear advantage from a TOP standpoint and allows a spread team like ours the ability to open it up offensively, and rush the passer on defense.

Stanford is a different bird though. I don't see us being able to any of the above against a team like Stanford. This game could easily be a 21-17 type game where the first half is a battle of will in the trenches and the second half will dictate who wins the game. If that is the case, then getting the ball first in the second half will give us a leg up on winning the game by winning the second half.

 

[rocket66]

Do you think we should kickoff instead of taking the ball? I think we should.

YES! Let the defense start the momentum for the team - they certainly deserve it.

 

[irishtrain]

I'm very interested in watching this smart/ well coached/ intelligent defense go up against cro magnon man. Golson and this offense will put up points. Do you just leave the running game and throw 60 times or keep trying to run with conviction-I don't know. Stanford by a little bit. Please make me wrong boys-Go Irish!

 

[TheChosen1]

From an article I just read.

Cardinal Defense… Stanford held Chris Petersen’s Washington team to just 2.6 yards/play. The Cardinal are allowing only 3.34 yards/play on the season and stopping 72 percent of third down attempts. Stanford has permitted just three trips to the red zone over four games, conceding one touchdown. If their offense could find some level of stability and efficiency…

 

[BobbyMac]

From an article I just read.

Red zone, shmed zone... Golson's in the red zone at his own 40.

.

 

[ickythump1225]

I feel good about this matchup. This is the first game our young guys will be really emotionally up for since Michigan. I also think Golson will pick on their secondary. We need to run for 80 yards. I really think we can score on almost anybody. I also think our dbs are exceptional. I think our pass rush will be good enough.

I agree with this. We have a young team that I think is prone to "getting up" or "down" about games due to their youth. You could tell they were pumped for Rice because it was the opener and pumped for Michigan. They seemed a little flat and down during Purdue. Our 2012 was laden with senior leadership and I think was pretty apt at keeping an even keel. I think our team is going to be PUMPED for this game.

 

[ickythump1225]

For the reason Whiskey posted above, I think that we should defer. This is unusual for me, as I almost always prefer us taking the ball first. I prefer it for two reasons; a) You can dictate the tempo of the game by scoring first and forcing your opponent to follow suit. This can also get a "run first" team out of their game plan quicker by putting them behind, forcing them to throw. b) Keeps the opponent off the field. Ideally, you take the ball first and spend the majority of the 1st quarter making your longest TD drive of the game. This gives you a clear advantage from a TOP standpoint and allows a spread team like ours the ability to open it up offensively, and rush the passer on defense.

Stanford is a different bird though. I don't see us being able to any of the above against a team like Stanford. This game could easily be a 21-17 type game where the first half is a battle of will in the trenches and the second half will dictate who wins the game. If that is the case, then getting the ball first in the second half will give us a leg up on winning the game by winning the second half.

This. For whatever reason, outside of the Purdue game, we just don't seem to click very well on the first drive. We were doing all right on the first drive against Syracuse but the fumble set us back big time.

 

[Grahambo]

Do you think we should kickoff instead of taking the ball? I think we should.

That's probably not a bad idea. We're usually rolling by the 3rd quarter. First possession? Not so much.

For the reason Whiskey posted above, I think that we should defer. This is unusual for me, as I almost always prefer us taking the ball first. I prefer it for two reasons; a) You can dictate the tempo of the game by scoring first and forcing your opponent to follow suit. This can also get a "run first" team out of their game plan quicker by putting them behind, forcing them to throw. b) Keeps the opponent off the field. Ideally, you take the ball first and spend the majority of the 1st quarter making your longest TD drive of the game. This gives you a clear advantage from a TOP standpoint and allows a spread team like ours the ability to open it up offensively, and rush the passer on defense.

Stanford is a different bird though. I don't see us being able to any of the above against a team like Stanford. This game could easily be a 21-17 type game where the first half is a battle of will in the trenches and the second half will dictate who wins the game. If that is the case, then getting the ball first in the second half will give us a leg up on winning the game by winning the second half.

I've always preferred to defer and to receive the ball to start the 2nd half. Statistically speaking, is there any data out there that supports deferring vs receiving to start a game?

 

[Black Irish]

For the reason Whiskey posted above, I think that we should defer. This is unusual for me, as I almost always prefer us taking the ball first. I prefer it for two reasons; a) You can dictate the tempo of the game by scoring first and forcing your opponent to follow suit. This can also get a "run first" team out of their game plan quicker by putting them behind, forcing them to throw. b) Keeps the opponent off the field. Ideally, you take the ball first and spend the majority of the 1st quarter making your longest TD drive of the game. This gives you a clear advantage from a TOP standpoint and allows a spread team like ours the ability to open it up offensively, and rush the passer on defense.

Stanford is a different bird though. I don't see us being able to any of the above against a team like Stanford. This game could easily be a 21-17 type game where the first half is a battle of will in the trenches and the second half will dictate who wins the game. If that is the case, then getting the ball first in the second half will give us a leg up on winning the game by winning the second half.

It seems more often than not that the 1st drive doesn't mean much. The first off the bat TD doesn't usually happen against solid teams. I liken it to boxing; rarely do you see anything explosive in the first round or two. Things don't get serious until further on. So I think, in my humble opinion, that ND should defer if they win the toss. I'd always rather have the ball starting the second half.

 

[gkIrish]

Always. Defer.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Always. Defer.

Unless you're Texas, then you have to kick twice....

 

[irish#underground]

My opinion is we're a better team & we roll the trees by 17...

 

[BabyIrish]

Just rewatched the 2012 game and here are some observations:
1.Golson and Rees endured constant pressure. Lombard got burned alot at rt.
2.Because of the pressure and Golson being so young, he missed some open players in the passing game.
3. Stanford's d played with a high motor but we started to expose that by doing draw plays to help create space for our running backs in the second half. Before that our running game was anemic.
4. Our d completely dominated their offense. They were never really close to scoring a td at all.

Obviously two years ago wont be the same as this year but these observations make me nervous about the run game alot. However i think Golson could have the ability to do some serious damage in the passing game. I think our d won't be as dominant but still has the ability to do great against their offense.

Can't wait to watch this game!

 

[Norcal Irish]

Let's keep this simple. Does anyone besides me want to see us run the football and dominate? I know we shuffled our OL but we have the talent to pound the football. Just my thought.

 

[ickythump1225]

Just rewatched the 2012 game and here are some observations:
1.Golson and Rees endured constant pressure. Lombard got burned alot at rt.
2.Because of the pressure and Golson being so young, he missed some open players in the passing game.
3. Stanford's d played with a high motor but we started to expose that by doing draw plays to help create space for our running backs in the second half. Before that our running game was anemic.
4. Our d completely dominated their offense. They were never really close to scoring a td at all.

Obviously two years ago wont be the same as this year but these observations make me nervous about the run game alot. However i think Golson could have the ability to do some serious damage in the passing game. I think our d won't be as dominant but still has the ability to do great against their offense.

Can't wait to watch this game!

While our defense might not be quite as good our offense is better than the 2012 team and I don't think this year's Stanford defense is as good as that 2012 one. It was an upset when we beat Stanford then because they were probably the better team overall that year. It's a different story this year. Hell we hung in with them last year with Rees at QB.

 

[stlnd01]

While our defense might not be quite as good our offense is better than the 2012 team and I don't think this year's Stanford defense is as good as that 2012 one. It was an upset when we beat Stanford then because they were probably the better team overall that year. It's a different story this year. Hell we hung in with them last year with Rees at QB.

Their offense was pretty rough the first half of 2012. They had some QB who wasn't much and eventually got replaced by Hogan. But our offense wasn't much either. I don't think our defense is quite as good as it was then, but it's far better than most thought it would be going into the season. Stanford's D looks pretty good, especially given the quality of competition they've played (USC and Washington don't suck).
Still, we're the best offense they'll have played, and I think we score some points. Mostly this game comes down to us stopping them (or them stopping themselves, as happened against USC).

 

[ickythump1225]

Their offense was pretty rough the first half of 2012. They had some QB who wasn't much and eventually got replaced by Hogan. But our offense wasn't much either. I don't think our defense is quite as good as it was then, but it's far better than most thought it would be going into the season. Stanford's D looks pretty good, especially given the quality of competition they've played (USC and Washington don't suck).
Still, we're the best offense they'll have played, and I think we score some points. Mostly this game comes down to us stopping them (or them stopping themselves, as happened against USC).

Their offense might be even worse this year. They looked completely inept against Washington. They needed a really stupid fake punt attempt by Washington to get a short field in order to score the go ahead TD. If Washington's QB didn't completely suck UW might have won.

 

[ulukinatme]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Brian VanGorder vs. the Stanford offense: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GoIrish?src=hash">#GoIrish</a> <a href="http://t.co/5ykzv3aYJi">pic.twitter.com/5ykzv3aYJi</a></p>— Knute Rockne (@Rocknes_Ghost) <a href="https://twitter.com/Rocknes_Ghost/status/516687219252535296">September 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[dublinirish]

2014 #16 Stanford at Washington | Noonkick

full game replay of stanford vs UW for anyone who wants to watch

 

[UmphreakDomer]

i hate that Stanford has made me nervous for close to a decade.

 

[CarrollVermin]

There was a guy from the Pac-12 Network on with The First Team (?) on XM91 this morning talking about the match-up. In a nutshell:

1. Stanford O-Line is very good. Part of the "best o-line recruiting class in modern history" and can protect very well.

2. This team is the "most talented" that Stanford has had in recent years, per position.

3. Skill positions are the most talented they have had, but have not "erupted" yet. Looking for that to happen sooner than later.

4. QB play has been hampered by lack of play from skill sets.

He looks forward to the match-up. Says this will be the best defense that EG faces this year. Didn't offer a prediction, other that it would be another "classic ND vs. Stanford game".

 

[BurningRiver]

i hate that Stanford has made me nervous for close to a decade.

I like it. It means Stanford has become a legitimate program, and college football needs programs like Stanford (and ND) to be good.

 

[dublinirish]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Amir Carlise is back at his starting slot receiver position on this weeks depth chart. Torii Hunter Jr. is now backing up Will Fuller</p>— Down The Tunnel (@DwnTheTunnel) <a href="https://twitter.com/DwnTheTunnel/status/516973204175597568">September 30, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Austin Collinsworth is behind Max Redfield on this weeks depth chart</p>— Down The Tunnel (@DwnTheTunnel) <a href="https://twitter.com/DwnTheTunnel/status/516973520828780544">September 30, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[dublinirish]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Update on the Gatorade bottle on Brian Kelly's podium. This week, it has a reddish hue to it vs. last week's orange. Analyze as you wish.</p>— Bob Wieneke (@BWienekeNDI) <a href="https://twitter.com/BWienekeNDI/status/516976378340970496">September 30, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[dublinirish]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>WATCH LIVE: <a href="https://twitter.com/CoachBrianKelly">@CoachBrianKelly</a> press conference

<a href="https://twitter.com/NDonNBC">@NDonNBC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/NDFootball">@NDFootball</a>

NBCSN subscribers→ <a href="http://t.co/x9NMg4nDWv">http://t.co/x9NMg4nDWv</a> <a href="http://t.co/GXbPQcNQr3">pic.twitter.com/GXbPQcNQr3</a></p>— NBC Sports LiveExtra (@LiveExtra) <a href="https://twitter.com/LiveExtra/status/516978298094895104">September 30, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>