Cheers to Spavital and the Offense

3,852 Views | 40 Replies | Last: 7 mo ago by StillNoStanfurdium
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He runs a hurry-up hi-tempo offense, yet Cal received the ball with 6:52, and killed the entirety of the clock.

Cal was never able to do that successfully with dykes, but adapting your play style to the in-game circumstance is winning football.

Kudos to the OC to coach the offense to slow the game down and still be effective. Kudos to the oline for grinding forward. Kudos to Ott for making it all happen.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Spav has to show the level creativity that the staff did last year against UCLA to keep the game close. And Ott needs to not fumble like he did last year.

And the defense will need to play out of their minds for us to be able to come out with a win.

Crossing my fingers but chip seems to have Wilcox's number. And the defensive turnaround that UCLA has had this year is ridiculous.
Joegeo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Joegeo said:

UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.


Stanford has the worst defense in the country, we cannot spend too much time patting ourselves on the back for scoring 27 against a team that gave up 62 the previous week.

UCLA is #6 in the country in fewest yards per play, #8 in fewest points per drive. All while facing some of the best offenses in the country.

We cannot drive and score playing straight up. We cannot waste 1st down running Ott into the pile for 2 yards. We will need a lot of misdirection. Throwing off play action in running situations.
ducktilldeath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Joegeo said:

UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.
They're by far the best defense in the conference.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Important caveat - UCLA has the weakest schedule in the conference by far, they missed the top 2 teams Oregon and UW, and had arguably the weakest OOC sched in the entire history of their program:
NC Central
Coastal Carolina
SDSU (dead last in the MWC, 1-6)

We would be 7-4 with that schedule, same as them.
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Joegeo said:

UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.


Stanford has the worst defense in the country, we cannot spend too much time patting ourselves on the back for scoring 27 against a team that gave up 62 the previous week.

UCLA is #6 in the country in fewest yards per play, #8 in fewest points per drive. All while facing some of the best offenses in the country.

We cannot drive and score playing straight up. We cannot waste 1st down running Ott into the pile for 2 yards. We will need a lot of misdirection. Throwing off play action in running situations.
You make some good points, but we essentially scored 34.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Important caveat - UCLA has the weakest schedule in the conference by far, they missed the top 2 teams Oregon and UW, and had arguably the weakest OOC sched in the entire history of their program:
NC Central
Coastal Carolina
SDSU (dead last in the MWC, 1-6)

We would be 7-4 with that schedule, same as them.


So if we had played USC at the LA Coliseum instead of Memorial Stadium we win instead of lose?

I do think you can argue if we played their schedule we would be 6-5 instead of 5-6.

However, if they played our schedule they beat Auburn and USC and are still 7-4.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chazzed said:

calumnus said:

Joegeo said:

UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.


Stanford has the worst defense in the country, we cannot spend too much time patting ourselves on the back for scoring 27 against a team that gave up 62 the previous week.

UCLA is #6 in the country in fewest yards per play, #8 in fewest points per drive. All while facing some of the best offenses in the country.

We cannot drive and score playing straight up. We cannot waste 1st down running Ott into the pile for 2 yards. We will need a lot of misdirection. Throwing off play action in running situations.
You make some good points, but we essentially scored 34.


True, so we essentially scored 34 against a team that gives up 36 on average. A team that gave up 62 the week before. And three of our "TDs" were after their best defensive player was ejected.

Anyway, I think we all agree, It will take better scheming from Spavital to beat UCLA than it took to beat Stanford.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCLA lost to ASU (pretty badly so), which we beat. They did beat USC, so it's a wash among the teams we both played.

If we played Colorado, Arizona and SDSU instead of Washington, Oregon and Auburn, we're probably 7-4 instead of 5-6.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

UCLA lost to ASU (pretty badly so), which we beat. They did beat USC, so it's a wash among the teams we both played.

If we played Colorado, Arizona and SDSU instead of Washington, Oregon and Auburn, we're probably 7-4 instead of 5-6.


The lost the ASU game because they had a third string QB. They beat Stanford 42-7. We were still in doubt at the start of the 4th quarter
wc22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Cal88 said:

Important caveat - UCLA has the weakest schedule in the conference by far, they missed the top 2 teams Oregon and UW, and had arguably the weakest OOC sched in the entire history of their program:
NC Central
Coastal Carolina
SDSU (dead last in the MWC, 1-6)

We would be 7-4 with that schedule, same as them.


So if we had played USC at the LA Coliseum instead of Memorial Stadium we win instead of lose?

I do think you can argue if we played their schedule we would be 6-5 instead of 5-6.

However, if they played our schedule they beat Auburn and USC and are still 7-4.
What about UCLA makes you bring up the two games the players, not the coaches, lost? Coaches deserve lots of heat this year. Not for Auburn or USC.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

UCLA lost to ASU (pretty badly so), which we beat. They did beat USC, so it's a wash among the teams we both played.

If we played Colorado, Arizona and SDSU instead of Washington, Oregon and Auburn, we're probably 7-4 instead of 5-6.


OK, yeah I forgot they lost to ASU. They could easily be 8-3. Yeah, good chance we could be 7-4 right now, if we played their schedule with Arizona a likely loss and Colorado and @SDSU likely wins (though certainly not guaranteed. Wilcox teams usually loses one game on the road to an inferior team).
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wc22 said:

calumnus said:

Cal88 said:

Important caveat - UCLA has the weakest schedule in the conference by far, they missed the top 2 teams Oregon and UW, and had arguably the weakest OOC sched in the entire history of their program:
NC Central
Coastal Carolina
SDSU (dead last in the MWC, 1-6)

We would be 7-4 with that schedule, same as them.


So if we had played USC at the LA Coliseum instead of Memorial Stadium we win instead of lose?

I do think you can argue if we played their schedule we would be 6-5 instead of 5-6.

However, if they played our schedule they beat Auburn and USC and are still 7-4.
What about UCLA makes you bring up the two games the players, not the coaches, lost? Coaches deserve lots of heat this year. Not for Auburn or USC.


Are you following the thread?

The premise I originally responded to (and agreed with) is UCLA is the toughest defense we will face and we will need better scheming from Spavital to score against than against Stanford (the worst defense we have faced).

Cal88 introduced the fact that UCLA has played an easier schedule than we have. Essentially questioning whether their defense is as good as it appears. It is a good point, but the rest is a digression. I don't think anyone really questions the fact that UCLA's defense is far better than Stanford's and a lot of what worked against Stanford will not work against UCLA. Your blaming the players for past losses is just a further digression.
wc22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

wc22 said:

calumnus said:

Cal88 said:

Important caveat - UCLA has the weakest schedule in the conference by far, they missed the top 2 teams Oregon and UW, and had arguably the weakest OOC sched in the entire history of their program:
NC Central
Coastal Carolina
SDSU (dead last in the MWC, 1-6)

We would be 7-4 with that schedule, same as them.


So if we had played USC at the LA Coliseum instead of Memorial Stadium we win instead of lose?

I do think you can argue if we played their schedule we would be 6-5 instead of 5-6.

However, if they played our schedule they beat Auburn and USC and are still 7-4.
What about UCLA makes you bring up the two games the players, not the coaches, lost? Coaches deserve lots of heat this year. Not for Auburn or USC.


Are you following the thread?

The premise I originally responded to (and agreed with) is UCLA is the toughest defense we will face and we will need better scheming from Spavital to score against than against Stanford (the worst defense we have faced).

Cal88 introduced the fact that UCLA has played an easier schedule than we have. Essentially questioning whether their defense is as good as it appears. It is a good point, but the rest is a digression. I don't think anyone really questions the fact that UCLA's defense is far better than Stanford's and a lot of what worked against Stanford will not work against UCLA. Your blaming the players for past losses is just a further digression.
1. UCLA missed Washington and Oregon which you casually admit and then dismiss like that isn't a big deal/ I actually didn't bring that up, but any discussion of UCLA's defense should.
2. The players absolutely lost the USC and Auburn games. There is a lot of blame to the coaches on the blowouts, but we would have won both games in players didn't make errors that are beyond coaching. Really, Wilcox did a great job against both teams. Idiots that don't know ball, like you, obfuscate.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wc22 said:

calumnus said:

wc22 said:

calumnus said:

Cal88 said:

Important caveat - UCLA has the weakest schedule in the conference by far, they missed the top 2 teams Oregon and UW, and had arguably the weakest OOC sched in the entire history of their program:
NC Central
Coastal Carolina
SDSU (dead last in the MWC, 1-6)

We would be 7-4 with that schedule, same as them.


So if we had played USC at the LA Coliseum instead of Memorial Stadium we win instead of lose?

I do think you can argue if we played their schedule we would be 6-5 instead of 5-6.

However, if they played our schedule they beat Auburn and USC and are still 7-4.
What about UCLA makes you bring up the two games the players, not the coaches, lost? Coaches deserve lots of heat this year. Not for Auburn or USC.


Are you following the thread?

The premise I originally responded to (and agreed with) is UCLA is the toughest defense we will face and we will need better scheming from Spavital to score against than against Stanford (the worst defense we have faced).

Cal88 introduced the fact that UCLA has played an easier schedule than we have. Essentially questioning whether their defense is as good as it appears. It is a good point, but the rest is a digression. I don't think anyone really questions the fact that UCLA's defense is far better than Stanford's and a lot of what worked against Stanford will not work against UCLA. Your blaming the players for past losses is just a further digression.
1. UCLA missed Washington and Oregon which you casually admit and then dismiss like that isn't a big deal/ I actually didn't bring that up, but any discussion of UCLA's defense should.
2. The players absolutely lost the USC and Auburn games. There is a lot of blame to the coaches on the blowouts, but we would have won both games in players didn't make errors that are beyond coaching. Really, Wilcox did a great job against both teams. Idiots that don't know ball, like you, obfuscate.


Resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks now?

No one is attacking the coaches in this thread. You do not need to throw players under the bus to defend them. I never made ANY claim as to why we lost to USC or Auburn, just that we lost. You are making up paper tigers. Why?

Moreover, I have said many times the play calling was terrific against Stanford. We dominated the LOS. They cannot stop the run so run. No need to be overly cute. Stanford sucks. Our players are simply better than theirs.

The question in this thread is UCLA's defense vs Stanford's defense. You claim to "know ball" are you saying the same plays that were successful against Stanford will be successful against UCLA? Or will you just blame the players if they are not?

And I am not saying Spavital won't be more creative against UCLA, only that UCLA is better so he will need to be. That is all. It isn't that complicated and shouldn't be controversial.



Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
the outcome will depend on the yucla mindset. if they come to play their best game, they can beat us. but, there's something about yucla, historically, that makes them go soft at unpredictable times. maybe they come in with a can't lose attitude. i think that's what explains the asu loss. livin' is too easy in westwood. is chip still serving caviar at the team buffet?

cal 24-23.
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear said:

the outcome will depend on the yucla mindset. if they come to play their best game, they can beat us. but, there's something about yucla, historically, that makes them go soft at unpredictable times. maybe they come in with a can't lose attitude. i think that's what explains the asu loss. livin' is too easy in westwood. is chip still serving caviar at the team buffet?

cal 24-23.

From your lips to God's ears.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that under Chip Kelly, even a woeful UCLA squad seems to get up for a Cal game. Maybe I'm just misremembering , but it seems that Chip Kelly always has Wilcox's number and prepares the Bruins to play well against Cal.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01Bear said:

Rushinbear said:

the outcome will depend on the yucla mindset. if they come to play their best game, they can beat us. but, there's something about yucla, historically, that makes them go soft at unpredictable times. maybe they come in with a can't lose attitude. i think that's what explains the asu loss. livin' is too easy in westwood. is chip still serving caviar at the team buffet?

cal 24-23.

From your lips to God's ears.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that under Chip Kelly, even a woeful UCLA squad seems to get up for a Cal game. Maybe I'm just misremembering , but it seems that Chip Kelly always has Wilcox's number and prepares the Bruins to play well against Cal.


You are not misremembering - all you have to do is look at Chip"s record vs Wilcox. Chip has won all but one including several times we were at 5 wins looking for a win together into a bowl.
Joegeo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Joegeo said:

UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.


Stanford has the worst defense in the country, we cannot spend too much time patting ourselves on the back for scoring 27 against a team that gave up 62 the previous week.

UCLA is #6 in the country in fewest yards per play, #8 in fewest points per drive. All while facing some of the best offenses in the country.

We cannot drive and score playing straight up. We cannot waste 1st down running Ott into the pile for 2 yards. We will need a lot of misdirection. Throwing off play action in running situations.
Yup and we also need WRs to break tackles on the short passes for bigger gains. Ott can break tackles but if UCLA secondary aren't missing tackles, it makes this game much tougher on Spav and the offense.
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

UCLA lost to ASU (pretty badly so), which we beat. They did beat USC, so it's a wash among the teams we both played.

If we played Colorado, Arizona and SDSU instead of Washington, Oregon and Auburn, we're probably 7-4 instead of 5-6.
Where are you getting confidence that we can beat Arizona this year when we barely squeezed out a win against ASU?
Basketball Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

01Bear said:

Rushinbear said:

the outcome will depend on the yucla mindset. if they come to play their best game, they can beat us. but, there's something about yucla, historically, that makes them go soft at unpredictable times. maybe they come in with a can't lose attitude. i think that's what explains the asu loss. livin' is too easy in westwood. is chip still serving caviar at the team buffet?

cal 24-23.

From your lips to God's ears.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that under Chip Kelly, even a woeful UCLA squad seems to get up for a Cal game. Maybe I'm just misremembering , but it seems that Chip Kelly always has Wilcox's number and prepares the Bruins to play well against Cal.


You are not misremembering - all you have to do is look at Chip"s record vs Wilcox. Chip has won all but one including several times we were at 5 wins looking for a win together into a bowl.

UCLA will not have a problem getting up for the game against Cal. If nothing else, Calimony is a good reason to start with. I hope we win the game, but if we do, it'll be a big upset.
concernedparent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

chazzed said:

calumnus said:

Joegeo said:

UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.


Stanford has the worst defense in the country, we cannot spend too much time patting ourselves on the back for scoring 27 against a team that gave up 62 the previous week.

UCLA is #6 in the country in fewest yards per play, #8 in fewest points per drive. All while facing some of the best offenses in the country.

We cannot drive and score playing straight up. We cannot waste 1st down running Ott into the pile for 2 yards. We will need a lot of misdirection. Throwing off play action in running situations.
You make some good points, but we essentially scored 34.


True, so we essentially scored 34 against a team that gives up 36 on average. A team that gave up 62 the week before. And three of our "TDs" were after their best defensive player was ejected.

Anyway, I think we all agree, It will take better scheming from Spavital to beat UCLA than it took to beat Stanford.

Sinclair grades out as the 6th worst linebacker in the country.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

Cal88 said:

UCLA lost to ASU (pretty badly so), which we beat. They did beat USC, so it's a wash among the teams we both played.

If we played Colorado, Arizona and SDSU instead of Washington, Oregon and Auburn, we're probably 7-4 instead of 5-6.
Where are you getting confidence that we can beat Arizona this year when we barely squeezed out a win against ASU?

In my calculation above, we win 2 out of these three (CU, UA, SDSU). so if we had UCLA's schedule that translates to 7-4 instead of 5-6.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concernedparent said:

calumnus said:

chazzed said:

calumnus said:

Joegeo said:

UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.


Stanford has the worst defense in the country, we cannot spend too much time patting ourselves on the back for scoring 27 against a team that gave up 62 the previous week.

UCLA is #6 in the country in fewest yards per play, #8 in fewest points per drive. All while facing some of the best offenses in the country.

We cannot drive and score playing straight up. We cannot waste 1st down running Ott into the pile for 2 yards. We will need a lot of misdirection. Throwing off play action in running situations.
You make some good points, but we essentially scored 34.


True, so we essentially scored 34 against a team that gives up 36 on average. A team that gave up 62 the week before. And three of our "TDs" were after their best defensive player was ejected.

Anyway, I think we all agree, It will take better scheming from Spavital to beat UCLA than it took to beat Stanford.

Sinclair grades out as the 6th worst linebacker in the country.


And yet, he is Stanford's best player on defense.
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

DoubtfulBear said:

Cal88 said:

UCLA lost to ASU (pretty badly so), which we beat. They did beat USC, so it's a wash among the teams we both played.

If we played Colorado, Arizona and SDSU instead of Washington, Oregon and Auburn, we're probably 7-4 instead of 5-6.
Where are you getting confidence that we can beat Arizona this year when we barely squeezed out a win against ASU?

In my calculation above, we win 2 out of these three (CU, UA, SDSU). so if we had UCLA's schedule that translates to 7-4 instead of 5-6.
Colorado is better than what their record shows. They lost single score games against USC, Stanford, Oregon State, and Arizona. They could've easily been 8-3 or better if the ball bounced the right one on a couple possessions and especially if Travis Hunter didn't get injured against CSU.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

Cal88 said:

DoubtfulBear said:

Cal88 said:

UCLA lost to ASU (pretty badly so), which we beat. They did beat USC, so it's a wash among the teams we both played.

If we played Colorado, Arizona and SDSU instead of Washington, Oregon and Auburn, we're probably 7-4 instead of 5-6.
Where are you getting confidence that we can beat Arizona this year when we barely squeezed out a win against ASU?

In my calculation above, we win 2 out of these three (CU, UA, SDSU). so if we had UCLA's schedule that translates to 7-4 instead of 5-6.
Colorado is better than what their record shows. They lost single score games against USC, Stanford, Oregon State, and Arizona. They could've easily been 8-3 or better if the ball bounced the right one on a couple possessions and especially if Travis Hunter didn't get injured against CSU.


We have had a ton of injuries. Our third string RB coughed up the football when trying to ice the game against SC because the two guys in front of him were hurt. You should have drinks with DoubtfulBuff, and you can talk about how lame your own teams are and how unlucky the others are.
concernedparent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

concernedparent said:

calumnus said:

chazzed said:

calumnus said:

Joegeo said:

UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.


Stanford has the worst defense in the country, we cannot spend too much time patting ourselves on the back for scoring 27 against a team that gave up 62 the previous week.

UCLA is #6 in the country in fewest yards per play, #8 in fewest points per drive. All while facing some of the best offenses in the country.

We cannot drive and score playing straight up. We cannot waste 1st down running Ott into the pile for 2 yards. We will need a lot of misdirection. Throwing off play action in running situations.
You make some good points, but we essentially scored 34.


True, so we essentially scored 34 against a team that gives up 36 on average. A team that gave up 62 the week before. And three of our "TDs" were after their best defensive player was ejected.

Anyway, I think we all agree, It will take better scheming from Spavital to beat UCLA than it took to beat Stanford.

Sinclair grades out as the 6th worst linebacker in the country.


And yet, he is Stanford's best player on defense.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looked up our strength of schedule, the ELO has us at #15, pretty high but I thought it might have been a bit higher.

https://www.warrennolan.com/fbs/2023/sos-elo

Looking closer, it's the SOS to date, so it will go further up after we play UCLA.
bearsandgiants
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubtfulBear said:

Cal88 said:

DoubtfulBear said:

Cal88 said:

UCLA lost to ASU (pretty badly so), which we beat. They did beat USC, so it's a wash among the teams we both played.

If we played Colorado, Arizona and SDSU instead of Washington, Oregon and Auburn, we're probably 7-4 instead of 5-6.
Where are you getting confidence that we can beat Arizona this year when we barely squeezed out a win against ASU?

In my calculation above, we win 2 out of these three (CU, UA, SDSU). so if we had UCLA's schedule that translates to 7-4 instead of 5-6.
Colorado is better than what their record shows. They lost single score games against USC, Stanford, Oregon State, and Arizona. They could've easily been 8-3 or better if the ball bounced the right one on a couple possessions and especially if Travis Hunter didn't get injured against CSU.
This excuse sounds all too familiar. Better teams find a way for this not to happen. I like to think we're becoming a better team, but the realist in me, and recent history, suggests we'll be saying this very thing about the Bears on Sunday morning. Just praying that the football gods don't make it so.
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearsandgiants said:

DoubtfulBear said:

Cal88 said:

DoubtfulBear said:

Cal88 said:

UCLA lost to ASU (pretty badly so), which we beat. They did beat USC, so it's a wash among the teams we both played.

If we played Colorado, Arizona and SDSU instead of Washington, Oregon and Auburn, we're probably 7-4 instead of 5-6.
Where are you getting confidence that we can beat Arizona this year when we barely squeezed out a win against ASU?

In my calculation above, we win 2 out of these three (CU, UA, SDSU). so if we had UCLA's schedule that translates to 7-4 instead of 5-6.
Colorado is better than what their record shows. They lost single score games against USC, Stanford, Oregon State, and Arizona. They could've easily been 8-3 or better if the ball bounced the right one on a couple possessions and especially if Travis Hunter didn't get injured against CSU.
This excuse sounds all too familiar. Better teams find a way for this not to happen. I like to think we're becoming a better team, but the realist in me, and recent history, suggests we'll be saying this very thing about the Bears on Sunday morning. Just praying that the football gods don't make it so.
Yes, it's the exact excuse that Wilcox apologists use on this board all the time. Unfortunate that they don't appreciate the irony
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
doubtful, r u gonna be at the rose bowl saturday nite to create energy for the bears & see how this plays out?

wuz u at the stanford game, did u storm the field?...did u have FUN like the other 25,000+ cal fans on the field?

btw, these are simple yes or no questions
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concernedparent said:

calumnus said:

concernedparent said:

calumnus said:

chazzed said:

calumnus said:

Joegeo said:

UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.


Stanford has the worst defense in the country, we cannot spend too much time patting ourselves on the back for scoring 27 against a team that gave up 62 the previous week.

UCLA is #6 in the country in fewest yards per play, #8 in fewest points per drive. All while facing some of the best offenses in the country.

We cannot drive and score playing straight up. We cannot waste 1st down running Ott into the pile for 2 yards. We will need a lot of misdirection. Throwing off play action in running situations.
You make some good points, but we essentially scored 34.


True, so we essentially scored 34 against a team that gives up 36 on average. A team that gave up 62 the week before. And three of our "TDs" were after their best defensive player was ejected.

Anyway, I think we all agree, It will take better scheming from Spavital to beat UCLA than it took to beat Stanford.

Sinclair grades out as the 6th worst linebacker in the country.


And yet, he is Stanford's best player on defense.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true.


True. He is only their second leading tackler, but was leading the team in tackles when he was ejected.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

concernedparent said:

calumnus said:

concernedparent said:

calumnus said:

chazzed said:

calumnus said:

Joegeo said:

UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.


Stanford has the worst defense in the country, we cannot spend too much time patting ourselves on the back for scoring 27 against a team that gave up 62 the previous week.

UCLA is #6 in the country in fewest yards per play, #8 in fewest points per drive. All while facing some of the best offenses in the country.

We cannot drive and score playing straight up. We cannot waste 1st down running Ott into the pile for 2 yards. We will need a lot of misdirection. Throwing off play action in running situations.
You make some good points, but we essentially scored 34.


True, so we essentially scored 34 against a team that gives up 36 on average. A team that gave up 62 the week before. And three of our "TDs" were after their best defensive player was ejected.

Anyway, I think we all agree, It will take better scheming from Spavital to beat UCLA than it took to beat Stanford.

Sinclair grades out as the 6th worst linebacker in the country.


And yet, he is Stanford's best player on defense.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true.


True. He is only their second leading tackler, but was leading the team in tackles when he was ejected.


I thought Andre Carter and Deltha Oneal were the best defensive players on the Cal 1999 Team. According to your standards, they were middle of the pack, due to lack of tackles.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

calumnus said:

concernedparent said:

calumnus said:

concernedparent said:

calumnus said:

chazzed said:

calumnus said:

Joegeo said:

UCLA will be a tough challenge as they might be a top 3 defense in the conference. Spav needs to scheme open some TD because I don't think Cal has the talent to just go up and down the field on offense solely on talent.


Stanford has the worst defense in the country, we cannot spend too much time patting ourselves on the back for scoring 27 against a team that gave up 62 the previous week.

UCLA is #6 in the country in fewest yards per play, #8 in fewest points per drive. All while facing some of the best offenses in the country.

We cannot drive and score playing straight up. We cannot waste 1st down running Ott into the pile for 2 yards. We will need a lot of misdirection. Throwing off play action in running situations.
You make some good points, but we essentially scored 34.


True, so we essentially scored 34 against a team that gives up 36 on average. A team that gave up 62 the week before. And three of our "TDs" were after their best defensive player was ejected.

Anyway, I think we all agree, It will take better scheming from Spavital to beat UCLA than it took to beat Stanford.

Sinclair grades out as the 6th worst linebacker in the country.


And yet, he is Stanford's best player on defense.
Just because you say so doesn't make it true.


True. He is only their second leading tackler, but was leading the team in tackles when he was ejected.


I thought Andre Carter and Deltha Oneal were the best defensive players on the Cal 1999 Team. According to your standards, they were middle of the pack, due to lack of tackles.


I don't disagree. 1st Carter dominated in sacks and tackles for a loss and Deltha dominated with pick sixes. There is no one like that on Stanford's team, but if you think someone else is better I won't disagree. Sinclair was their leading tackler at the point he got ejected. That is all. I will defer to your opinion of who you think their best defensive player is.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.