Beavers NUKE Palo Alto

by Jake Bertalotto on Aug 28, 2008 9:51 PM PDT in Football Comment 20 comments

Interested to hear your thoughts from the game. Feel free to do it here or in the FanPosts section. Myself and CV3000 will get our thoughts up in the near future.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I feel bad too...

I think I speak for a lot of us Duck fans over at AtQ when I say that we feel your pain. Loss by touchback when you’re just inches from tying the game is just something we know too well.

Tough Luck, Beavs

by hazmat5793 on Aug 28, 2008 9:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sux

Yep, it’s no way to lose a game.

by MarineCorpsDuck on Aug 28, 2008 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stop talking like this...

you duck fans! You’re making me feel guilty for disliking you so much!

Anyway, we lost, so I’ll give a toast to sportsmanship. Thanks for the support.

Jeremy

by olzeke on Aug 28, 2008 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it was a crappy rule when it happened to us

and it is a crappy rule now.

They've gone to plaid!

by gribbit1 on Aug 28, 2008 10:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We outplayed Stanford in this game. When we wanted to move the ball we did so at will. Our defense played well in the second half when it needed to most. We just had too many COLOSSAL mistakes. The safety, the pick six, the “I can’t just hold onto the ball, get out of bounds, and come back on the field for first and goal from the two” play.

Moevao looked decent. He made some bad decisions and missed some wide open receivers. It’s good to see that he can throw over 50 passes and still maintain a decent level of efficiency while minimizing mistakes. I am not concerned about our offense in games to come, although the lack of depth on the line was painfully clear tonight.

The defense had some serious lapses, especially in the first half. The 3rd and 15 run, a couple of other big runs where our gap control was simply nonexistent or our tackling was poor. When it mattered though they buckled down and got some big 3-and-outs, allowing us to almost come back and fumble it through the end zone instead of going out of bounds with first and goal.

Despite the lack of a consistent between-the-tackles running game, we still accumulated over 100 yards on the ground. The Rodgers brothers proved themselves dangerous, and I saw flashes of brilliance from little J. Our receiving corps appears just as deep and dangerous as billed, so that is promising.

Overall, I feel better about this game than I probably should. Either Stanford has a horrible secondary, or our passing offense is just that good. Possibly a bit of both. Either way, as the season progresses I think we will eliminate the huge mistakes and be very good.

For the season opener, I’d much rather have an offensive explosion and lose due to a few mistakes, because that seems like an easier problem to fix.

Things happen for a reason they say, but I say there's a reason things happen.

by sixth on Aug 28, 2008 10:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I like this assessment

For I feel very much the same way.

I would say that Moevao actually looked very good and what really impressed me was that he made some bad throws, made a couple bigger mistakes (safety and INT for a TD), and had a bad break on that one INT, BUT he kept coming and wow we should have gone to OT. He showed some nice leadership on those bigger drives. As CV said awhile back (and looks that reports of CV’s death have been greatly exaggerated!) he looks like a QB now, much much better than last year. As for Stanford’s secondary I think they are not that bad overall ask USC.

I agree and what I am worried about is we very much need to tighten up the run D for it looked great at times but at other times had big time lapses and that isn’t going to cut it this year and especially going into next week. Pass D looked okay and just needs to get over the mental mistakes. But I’m assuming this will all come around as the year moves forward.

Our running game YES we need a N to S running game, a power running attack, to keep it honest. Yep to the question below of where in the heck was McCants? A player compared to Jackson and we see nothing of him? My guess is Riley will address this as a big priority. That said I like A LOT the mixing up and spreading the field and the Rodger brothers lived up to the bill and it will be very fun to watch them all year.

Another concern is the O line needs to get and stay healthy.

But wow are the receiving corps amazing or what? We have some play makers and nice to see Mike Hass has returned in the form of Morales!

I agree I should feel worse about the game than I ended up feeling. Do I hate the fact we are 0-1 for the year? Heck yes! Do I even hate worse the fact we are 0-1 in Pac-10 so far? Yes and heck yes! But a tough first game schedule wise and I think an argument can be made that this younger and inexperienced team would have benefited from a Idaho type of game, but on the other side of things I personally think they showed tons of promise and played it TOUGH to the last seconds and should have learned a lot. This will hopefully bode well for the Penn State game.

I don’t know why but I feel good about this team. We just need to hang with them through some tough games for I think for this team will reward us big time at times and overall we’ll have a good year. Sure it is football and we have a very tough schedule this year and it could the other way this season, and I was thinking these thoughts when we were down 16. But you know what the team sure didn’t think that way and impressed me in the end.

-RVM

by rvm on Aug 29, 2008 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

its a crappy rule

was last year when it happened to us, and still is now. Way to punitive for the offense.

Regroup, and take it to Penn State next week.

--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog

by Addicted to Quack on Aug 28, 2008 10:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

right....now that the beavs have worked out the bugs

they should be able to contend with Penn State. Good Luck, guys.

by hazmat5793 on Aug 28, 2008 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shane Morales was money!!

McCants was no where to be seen. any did we even have a tight end in the game?

Woof

by Charles Barkley McLovin on Aug 28, 2008 10:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

he was money!

The whole WR corp played well tonight, but Morales has handled everything that came his way. Very impressive.

As far as McCants, all I know is that we need a number one guy to go to in the backfield. I just don’t think he got enough playing time. I love Quizz. I think he’ll do great things for the Beavs, but let McCants prove himself a little more. Our total rushing yards was pitiful because nobody in the backfield had enough consistency to put a game together.

Jeremy

by olzeke on Aug 28, 2008 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jeremy Perry would have helped too

Woof

by Charles Barkley McLovin on Aug 28, 2008 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bad D, Bad D

Sheesh, last year I was saying, “where is our offense?” This year it is the opposite. The D has big holes to fill. Our touted secondary sucked. We needed Al A. tonight, we really did.

Offense was impressive. Only a few stupid mistakes by Moevau, but ten times better than what we saw last year. My only complaint is the running game. McCants didn’t get into a rhythm because he didn’t have the chance to. Quizz looks great, but McCants could lead the way if given a chance.

I don’t know. I’m down, and it seems like at the beginning of every year I start questioning Riley, then he goes on some 7 or 8 game winning streak at the end which makes me love the guy. I hope he can pull this team through again. But to get another 9 win season will be much tougher this year now that there’s a big loss at the start.

Whatever happened to the good ol’ warmup game against Pocatello High, er, I mean Idaho State? Something like that would have been a better way to start. Oh well. PSU next, and we gotta be ready.

Jeremy

by olzeke on Aug 28, 2008 10:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Despite the lack of a consistent between-the-tackles running game, we still accumulated over 100 yards on the ground.

It was only 86 yards on the ground.

But an impressive 404 yards through the air.

Moevao looked good for the most part. There were times when he looked lost, but overall he did well.

Civil War Sports .::. www.CivilWarSports.com

by Pac10Rivalry on Aug 29, 2008 8:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Moevao was up and down

when he got in a rythem, like that 80 yard drive, he was golden. When he was flustered or pressured he seemed to rush his throws, like the safety or throwing the ball at the feet of Sammie

Woof

by Charles Barkley McLovin on Aug 29, 2008 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anal retention will get you nowhere in life.

120 yards were gained on running plays.

by CV3000 on Aug 29, 2008 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Neither will ignorance.

Big deal… 120 yards gained. There were still 34 yards lost.

Total is 86 yards.

But, I’m guessing you’re making the 120 yard argument so the “stats” seem better.

Kind of like the Beavs secondary doing their job by holding Stanford to only 91 yards passing? But what was left out of that equation is Stanford only attempted 17 passes and completed 10. That’s 9.1 yards completed per pass.

Stanford was just content using an effective ground game.

Civil War Sports .::. www.CivilWarSports.com

by Pac10Rivalry on Aug 29, 2008 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

mmm...the original point was about the backs gaining over 100 yards....

Moevao giving up 30 has little to do with the running game, though the stats are thrown together for archaic reasons in college football. There was one running play that was stuffed for ~~4 (or a recovered fumble?). The rest was okay-ish, though we would have liked to see more running~~-especially flysweeps.

Anyways……..nobody is really sure what you were trying to point out by attempting to correct an already true statement. And we’re also not sure what yards per completion is doing in any informed discussion. But, we’re okay with that. And we still love you for your anal retention.

Have a great weekend, everybody!

by CV3000 on Aug 29, 2008 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously?

The points are about production… and losing yardage is also included in the overall production.

No one in the world, except when trying to make some state look better, says, “Well, our team gained 175 yards (or insert your number here), so we played one hell of a game.”

When in face, the overall production, due to the run plays that lose yards, was probably less. In some cases much less, but that’s another topic all together.

I’m hoping you’re intelligent enough to actually recognize what total production is all about and how it does, in fact, pertain to a discussion of this nature. It’s ignorant to look at only the positive gained yards and make a statement of how positive the rushing was.

I don’t think it’s anal retention at all. Rather, it’s looking at the equation as a whole so all can get a true perspective of the running game. It’s nice to wrap it all nice and pretty and say they accumulated over 100 yards and leave it at that. But it’s not a true representation and you know it.

Civil War Sports .::. www.CivilWarSports.com

by Pac10Rivalry on Aug 29, 2008 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

again, the original point was that the running backs gained over 100...

(there was 1 running play that lost 4 yards. the others were passing plays.)

…you’re just being incredibly anti-social, and for no apparent reason.

Seriously.

by CV3000 on Aug 30, 2008 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How many points did we allow to Stanford??

Like a few folks have mentioned here the over all performance wasn’t awful. However what really concerns me and I hope Coach Banker is jumping down their throats, was letting Stanford score 38 (granted 9 were off turnovers) points on our defense!

If recent past is any indication, Stanford is not an offensive juggernaut… there are several other pac-10 teams with better weapons and better skill players which makes me extremely concerned. I was hoping for 7-8 wins, however after seeing last nights performance, yes they did make a good comeback attempt, I’ll be happy with 6. Maybe Stanford’s O is better than it has been in the past and we just witnessed our D’s first game rust., maybe!

I just hope this isn’t a sign of things to come.

Go Beavs!!

by calripken08 on Aug 29, 2008 2:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs