|
Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2012 2:28 PM
Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
According to multiple tweets, including Bruce Feldman, starting DT Terrence Stephens is suspended for RB. ( improper benefits)
Last edited 12/21/2012 2:32 PM by thebadge10
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2012 2:30 PM
Re: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
So do the Badgers hang 70 on them?  thebadge10 wrote: According to multiple tweets, including Bruce Feldman, starting DT Terrence Stevens is suspended for RB. ( improper benefits) |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2012 2:32 PM
Re: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
Pls don't jinx the game ALA TCU  |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2012 2:33 PM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
Terrence Stephens- oops, you got it now
Last edited 12/21/2012 2:34 PM by Badgers919
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2012 5:41 PM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
Sucks for them, I am really liking our chances in this game!
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2012 11:30 PM
Re: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
This explains why their run defense was shredded by UCLA in the Championship Game.
A 3-4 team losing their NT is in trouble against what we do.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 12:33 AM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
Actually, it doesn't explain why UCLA did so well in the championship game as Stephens didn't play in the last 3 or 4 games and the run defense was solid except for the championship game. However, I'm not minimizing the importance of not having him. He's an outstanding NG and was instrumental to the success of our defense by taking on double and triple teams that allowed our LBs to run free; we'll really miss him against your monster OL and it's a big advantage for the Badgers that he is out. Definitely a concern for us, but nothing we can do but buckle up the chin straps.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 12:41 AM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
stanfan wrote: Actually, it doesn't explain why UCLA did so well in the championship game as Stephens didn't play in the last 3 or 4 games and the run defense was solid except for the championship game. However, I'm not minimizing the importance of not having him. He's an outstanding NG and was instrumental to the success of our defense by taking on double and triple teams that allowed our LBs to run free; we'll really miss him against your monster OL and it's a big advantage for the Badgers that he is out. Definitely a concern for us, but nothing we can do but buckle up the chin straps. I assume you are a Stanford fan, so why is that you say he didn't play in the last 3 or 4 games when that's not true according to ESPN or cfbstats.com? Everything I've looked at shows he played against Oregon and OSU which were the two games before the UCLA games. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 12:51 AM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
He didn't play in the 2 UCLA games. That's it.
In the 1st UCLA game, they fell behind big pretty quickly and after halftime they were passing the ball much more than they would have wanted to.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 9:05 AM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
Yes, he played but then your next question should be how many downs did he have in each of those two games?
Stanford is very deep in the front seven and can go two deep w/o much of a drop-off. I would have to look at the stats but Chase Thomas is the one player who plays every down but for the most part the situation dictates who plays...
If you have not seen Stanford defense play, you will see two to three players coming off the field on every down...
It has helped Stanford in the 4th and especially late in the 4th as many of their games have been won by the defense to stop their opponents cold. OSU, WSU, UCLA, USC, ORE, SJS and ARI come to mind...
In their two losses, both UW and ND scored in the 4th to win...
CB
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 9:16 AM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
Every team rotates defensive linemen.
A good NT is the entire key to a 3-4 defense, and is the hardest to replace. Starting a second stringer and spelling him with a third stringer is a blow to any defense. From what I can tell from your roster on the Stanford website, you'll have 1 DT with playing experience available.
Last edited 12/22/2012 9:32 AM by TerraceChair
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 9:42 AM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
Even with a good new hire to settle the big issue here, likely still too many coaching distractions at UW (the departing guys) to prepare well and beat Stanford.
Go Badgers! On Wisconsin! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 9:48 AM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
NCBadger wrote: Even with a good new hire to settle the big issue here, likely still too many coaching distractions at UW (the departing guys) to prepare well and beat Stanford. Not accordinig to the information coming out of the practices so far. Wisconsin may lose the Rose Bowl, but not for your stated reasons. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 9:54 AM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
Shhh. I should have added a winkie for you. --------------------------------------------- --- Badger1964 wrote: NCBadger wrote: Even with a good new hire to settle the big issue here, likely still too many coaching distractions at UW (the departing guys) to prepare well and beat Stanford. Not accordinig to the information coming out of the practices so far. Wisconsin may lose the Rose Bowl, but not for your stated reasons.--------------------------------------------- Go Badgers! On Wisconsin! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 9:56 AM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
NCBadger wrote: Even with a good new hire to settle the big issue here, likely still too many coaching distractions at UW (the departing guys) to prepare well and beat Stanford. In fact, quite the opposite. It appears BA has kept them focused and even more driven for success. After watching BA address the team, it makes ME want to suit up! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 10:32 AM
RE: Stanford starting DT suspended for RB
And a winkie for you, too. --------------------------------------------- --- Vannly wrote: NCBadger wrote: Even with a good new hire to settle the big issue here, likely still too many coaching distractions at UW (the departing guys) to prepare well and beat Stanford. In fact, quite the opposite. It appears BA has kept them focused and even more driven for success. After watching BA address the team, it makes ME want to suit up! --------------------------------------------- Go Badgers! On Wisconsin! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 1:37 PM
Yeah, but they got nowhere on the ground...
that first half, which gives some Stanford fans hope. Stanford slides over a few guys from other DL positions to help with this loss. It's a loss for sure, but Stanford should be able to overcome it. If not, then they're not the best 2-loss team in the country.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 1:39 PM
More than one...
b/c Stanford slides guys around on the DL more than you realize. Still a loss, of course, but it's not as if we only have one guy who's played in the DT spot at all this season.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 3:57 PM
Re: More than one...
drewbug wrote: b/c Stanford slides guys around on the DL more than you realize. Still a loss, of course, but it's not as if we only have one guy who's played in the DT spot at all this season. All anyone is saying is that it's an advantage for us to have him out than have him playing. How big the loss is won't be known by anyone until the game is all said and done. Point is, it's good for us and bad for Stanford. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 5:25 PM
Re: More than one...
this is going to be big boy fball as Stanford has no speed on O and UW only has abby in terms of a dowwfield threat. going to be like michy vs OSU circa 1977. The CF guys all but assured UW would have no chance vs Stanfords D, AKA 86 Bears  but hmmmmm, what D held high octane O's to a mere 1/3 their season average on SEVERAL OCCASIONS. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2012 6:12 PM
Well, duh. I'm responding to specific points.
My posts make that clear, I hope.
Happy Holidays and here's to a good, clean game come Jan. 1st.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
