The CardBoard
Bloomgren to Rice? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Bloomgren to Rice? (/thread-15169.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - BostonCard - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 10:06 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:You're right, Hulk and Goose, the Michigan State Rose Bowl performance was so much better.

If only there were a larger sample size of Rose Bowls to chose from.

BC

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - CTcard - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 07:31 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:I attended the Willingham Rose Bowl in 2000 and his Seattle Bowl game in 2002.  I cannot imagine a
Stanford fan longing for a return of those two offenses--and those were Willingham's two best teams.
(12-11-2017, 10:06 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:You're right, Hulk and Goose, the Michigan State Rose Bowl performance was so much better.

Interesting question, at least as far as wallowing in misery can be interesting.

Here is what Stanford did on offense:

Rose Bowl 2000
rush: 27 carries, -5 yards, -0.19 yds/rush
pass: 18-35, 264 yds, 51%, 7.54 yds/att
total: 259 yds, 4.18 yds/play
points: 9
Opponent: Wisconsin #15 defense (yds/game = 302)

Seattle Bowl 2001
rush: 36 carries, 125 yards, 3.47 yds/rush
pass: 17-34, 225 yds, 50%, 6.62 yds/pass
total: 350 yds, 5.00 yds/play
points: 14
opponent: Georgia Tech #32 defense (yds/game = 333)

Rose Bowl 2014
rush: 36 carries, 162 yds, 4.50 yds/carry
pass: 10-18, 143 yds*, 55.5%, 7.94 yds/att
total: 305 yds, 5.65 yds/play
points: 20
opponent: Michigan State #2 defense (yds/game = 252), #1 defense (yds/play = 4.04)

Sun Bowl 2016 (worst offense in a bowl game under Shaw)**
rush: 43 carries, 129 yds, 3.00 yds/carry
pass: 9-18, 154 yds, 50%, 8.55 yds/att
total: 283 yds, 4.64 yds/play
points: 25
opponent: North Carolina #63 defense (yds/gm = 408), #43 defense (yds/play = 5.37)


* passing in that game should have been at least 11-19, but for the incorrectly penalized bad-hold, fake FG attempt that should have left us with first and goal at the MSU 9. Strangely, the box score on the official site lists that penalty as "illegal formation". While it was difficult to impossible to hear the official's announcement of the penalty, it most certainly was not "illegal formation".

** While it seemed meaningful to include the two worst offensive performance in a bowl for purposes of comparison to the Seattle and Rose Bowls under Willingham, in fact those were not the two worst bowl performances under Willingham. The worst would be the Liberty Bowl where we lost to East Carolina and managed to roll up 211 yards of total offense.



Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Ratmandoo - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 04:16 PM)CTcard link Wrote:* passing in that game should have been at least 11-19, but for the incorrectly penalized bad-hold, fake FG attempt that should have left us with first and goal at the MSU 9. Strangely, the box score on the official site lists that penalty as "illegal formation". While it was difficult to impossible to hear the official's announcement of the penalty, it most certainly was not "illegal formation".

I thought the penalty was for illegal man downfield. One of the blocking linemen got too far down the field past the line of scrimmage.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - teejers1 - 12-11-2017

And the numbers provided by CTC do not account for roster talent - it assumes a constant.  I'd say the more recent teams are WAY more talented - heck, I give Shaw kudos for recruiting well and riding the Stanford wave of popularity well.  But that's what makes it all the more infuriating.

The 2000 Rose Bowl team lost its starting center and it was a freaking turn style up the gut.  And that doesn't include Walters with a bad arm and Howard with nothing on the DL.

For the most recent Sun Bowl, yes Stanford didn't have McFredo (but we know Love is great - and he was real good that game, too, including catching a wheel route for a TD).  But I'll give Shaw a bit of a pass on that game (against a not-very-good D) if only because Burns was totally unprepared to play the game.  Some of that may be on coaching, but I put most of that on a player who didn't expect to play; practiced accordingly; and then went full on deer-in-headlights when called upon.



Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - CTcard - 12-12-2017

(12-11-2017, 06:16 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:And the numbers provided by CTC do not account for roster talent - it assumes a constant.
No it does not assume a constant. It assumes nothing whatsoever about roster talent.


Quote: I give Shaw kudos for ... riding the Stanford wave of popularity well. 
Really?


Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - lex24 - 12-12-2017

Ah the cute little McFredo line again. As for the 99 team , excellent offense. But if you look at Willimghams years his offenses were very inconsistent. A couple good years. And some very bad ones. That 99 team had excellent talent.  Good QB. Great WR. 2 other good WR A solid good running back.  And a good o line. 
Btw here are Stanford’s ranks in scoring under Willingham:  95: 32d  96. 79th. 97. 60th. 98. 62nd. 99th. 9th. 00 70th. 01. 12th.

4 bad years. 1 ave 2 excellent. I’m curious did he learn to coach those two years and forget in the others.? And he must have really forgot everything between ‘99 and ‘00. Maybe he was concerned about the fake millennial.

I liked that 2000 team a lot also. One of the reason is it came out of nowhere Lost the opener by about a 100. There were no expectations. Thus a major surprise. It helped that it was not a strong Pac 10 that year. But that doesn’t matter. They gave us the first RB in 28 years. Pretty cool stuff


quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18293.msg217988#msg217988 date=1513041386]
And the numbers provided by CTC do not account for roster talent - it assumes a constant.  I'd say the more recent teams are WAY more talented - heck, I give Shaw kudos for recruiting well and riding the Stanford wave of popularity well.  But that's what makes it all the more infuriating.

The 2000 Rose Bowl team lost its starting center and it was a freaking turn style up the gut.  And that doesn't include Walters with a bad arm and Howard with nothing on the DL.

For the most recent Sun Bowl, yes Stanford didn't have McFredo (but we know Love is great - and he was real good that game, too, including catching a wheel route for a TD).  But I'll give Shaw a bit of a pass on that game (against a not-very-good D) if only because Burns was totally unprepared to play the game.  Some of that may be on coaching, but I put most of that on a player who didn't expect to play; practiced accordingly; and then went full on deer-in-headlights when called upon.
[/quote]

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - teejers1 - 12-12-2017

Don't know if CTC is serious or not, but I do give Shaw credit for recruiting.  I admit to being no recruitnik.  And I may have raised a "principle question" in not recruiting Rosen - where is the line drawn at "helping mature" a cocky 17 year old vs. avoiding a kid like the plague? (compare J. Winston) - but ultimately have given Shaw a lot of leeway on recruiting because (a) he's generally done very well, and (b) the staff-kid-recruiting process is much more of a black hole than are the plays we all see called and run on Saturdays.

And I do think Shaw is a much better recruiter than Willingham (and at least as good as Harbs) and that Shaw is riding the "Stanford is hot" wave well.  While most of us have always thought Stanford a "no-brainer" destination for college if one can get in, it's only relatively recently that the forces of Silicon Valley and Football Prominence have coalesced to make Stanford absolutely on fire.


Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Hulk01 - 12-12-2017

Ty was an unforgivably bad recruiter.  He left Buddy without an offensive line: One recruit (Brian Head) over two complete classes.

But Ty apparently was able to improve his short game during that time.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - BostonCard - 12-12-2017

The knock on Willingham was that he was a "lazy" recruiter; that he was content to let Stanford recruit itself while he played golf (though that may have been an unfair knock on Willingham).  The other issue is that while Willingham recruited well at the high end, there was not a lot of depth.  As you point out, recruiting is much more opaque (and was even more opaque back then before recruits were self-publicizing on twitter and other social media), than things such as in-game play calling for which you know more or less what was called and what the circumstances were.

Here's the thing; while playcalling is the most visible thing a coach does (and the results for which can most easily be measured), it is the least important of the things that Stupac listed.  Recruiting, player development, and overall gameplan are all substantially more important.  So, you harping on the playcalling or "the offense" seems to be a bit of a misplaced emphasis.

BC

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Goose - 12-12-2017

(12-12-2017, 10:55 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:And I do think Shaw is a much better recruiter than Willingham (and at least as good as Harbaugh) and that Shaw is riding the "Stanford is hot" wave well.  While most of us have always thought Stanford a "no-brainer" destination for college if one can get in, it's only relatively recently that the forces of Silicon Valley and Football Prominence have coalesced to make Stanford absolutely on fire.
While I would agree that there is a positive feedback loop involved, I would argue that Shaw has created a lot of the "forces" referred to above. JH started the change, but I don't think JH could really "sell" the intellectual brutality persona. He was EUTM, which is not the same thing at all. Shaw makes the idea that Stanford can be a great school and at the same time have a great football team not just plausible, but "normal and expected". History says it isn't so, but right now, the story is that it will be going forward. That is largely because David Shaw can make it so plausible, even pedestrian, that it will be so, and the "forces" buy into that image.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - washingtonismoney - 12-12-2017

(12-12-2017, 11:19 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:The knock on Willingham was that he was a "lazy" recruiter; that he was content to let Stanford recruit itself while he played golf (though that may have been an unfair knock on Willingham).  The other issue is that while Willingham recruited well at the high end, there was not a lot of depth.  As you point out, recruiting is much more opaque (and was even more opaque back then before recruits were self-publicizing on twitter and other social media), than things such as in-game play calling for which you know more or less what was called and what the circumstances were.

Here's the thing; while playcalling is the most visible thing a coach does (and the results for which can most easily be measured), it is the least important of the things that Stupac listed.  Recruiting, player development, and overall gameplan are all substantially more important.  So, you harping on the playcalling or "the offense" seems to be a bit of a misplaced emphasis.

Since it's back to "recapitulate old arguments," my main beef with playcalling is... the people who are good at it seem to change every year! I've forgotten where we are in the "Lane Kiffin is a good/bad playcaller" cycle, but it's turned a few times for sure.

It's also difficult to assess whether something is a good playcall not merely because it depends on players' execution (the common thing we've brought up over and over again), but because the expected value of a well-executed play can be hard to suss out. A good example, this year, is "running Bryce Love into a heavy box." Lots of complaints about that on Stanford fan boards. I don't even necessarily disagree with those complaints. Still, I think people should be pondering whether such seemingly futile play calls were the necessary price to pay for Love's spectacular runs. Putting your safeties in the box looks great when you stuff the run ... and not so great when you have zero angle against a full-speed Love.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - CTcard - 12-12-2017

(12-12-2017, 10:55 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:Don't know if CTC is serious or not,

I am never all that serious on this board.


Still, you seem to be striving for a place in the backhanded compliment hall of fame.

Quote:Shaw is riding the "Stanford is hot" wave well.  While most of us have always thought Stanford a "no-brainer" destination for college if one can get in, it's only relatively recently that the forces of Silicon Valley and Football Prominence have coalesced to make Stanford absolutely on fire.


Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - teejers1 - 12-12-2017

I consider myself very complimentary of Shaw in all of what he does head-coaching-wise, save one area (which happens to be one of the most visible to Joe Fan on game day).  But I guess when you're a vocal critic in one area, the Absolute Defenders are inclined to interpret comments in other areas through a different strainer.

As for the "riding the wave" comment which you term a backhanded compliment, do you not think Stanford is exceptionally hot right now?  Do you not think that Stanford got very warm (if not hot), football-wise, under Harbs?  Do you not think Shaw has done an admirable job recruiting in this warm/hot period to keep it so?  [As an aside, there are folks on TOS who bitch and moan about his recruiting, too . . . which I don't really get].

And to be very clear, I think Shaw is the kind of guy with the disposition and human-interaction skills that can keep the "hotness" going much longer than can the mercurial/tiring Harbaugh.  And I know which man I'd rather have coaching Stanford (hint:  it's not Harbaugh).

That about covers it.  Backhand, forehand, whateverhand.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - lex24 - 12-12-2017

“Since it's back to "recapitulate old arguments," my main beef with playcalling is... the people who are good at it seem to change every year! I've forgotten where we are in the "Lane Kiffin is a good/bad playcaller" cycle, but it's turned a few times for sure. ”.

Best local example I can think of is Tedford. Went from being a “brilliant “ play caller to predictable etc.

One of the reasons I look year to year is based on the assumption that one doesn’t suddenly learn or forget how to coach. Thus Willingham can have the 62nd best scoring offense in 08. The 9th best in ‘99 and the 70th  best in 2000.  Followed by the 12th best in 2001.  Wildly inconsistent. Why.  Well I’m guessing he had better talent in 99 and 01. 



Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - jacketree - 12-12-2017

I get what Teejers is saying.  Sometimes one more pitch between tackles against a stacked box on first down is one too many. 

But as neat as going to the RB in 1999 was, that wasn't a great team.  I give them credit for handling ASU when the Devils were playing at home with a Rose Bowl on the line, but if UCLA doesn't beat UW, that team is in yet another garbage bowl.  Really funny RB though - defense showed pretty well outside of a couple RON DAYNE!!! runs, but the offense was MIA.  I get the injuries - Stanford does have better depth now.  Year 2000 only had a win against a crummy USC team and a pull out of the arse OT win against Cal.  Blah.  2001 was pretty good - arguably a dropped pass away from being a dropped pass away from something.  But I don't recall it being otherworldly or worth dismantling what they do now for what they did then.  Wasn't is just pretty basic pro-set offense with decent balance?  They didn't constantly run the play clock down to 0:02, which drives me a little crazy; or use stacked formations when wider gap spacing is probably better; but I'm not getting the nostalgia to party like it's 1999. I really don't remember those offenses as particularly memorable.  Defenses were a little shaky IIRC.

I do get irked about people complaining about the Fiesta and MSU Rose Bowl losses.  Those were Top 4 teams they played in Ok State and MSU.  Either was a play or two away from the playoff, as was probably Stanford.  Good teams play good teams tight and that was the case both times. Fiesta Bowl:  perfect late game execution; kid just missed the kick.  Should have let Luck keep firing right?  That's great in the alternate universe that doesn't include an end zone pick or anything.  Seem to remember Luck throwing a huge interception that lead to the tying score.  But yeah, hindsight is awesome.

I will absolutely grant that the last offensive possession against Sparty was offensive.  That I will never understand.

Welcome to the land of being good all the time and nationally elite if you can just avoid those two dingbat losses in a given year.  It's tough to win; the other guys have scholarship players too.  Way better than discussions about Mandarin oranges or whatever excuse of the day stuff we used to talk about on the various sites.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - stupac2 - 12-12-2017

(12-12-2017, 06:22 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:the Absolute Defenders

There are a whole bunch of reasons why it's clear that you don't understand nuance at all, but this takes the cake. Pretty much everyone arguing against you here says Shaw gets stuff wrong. We just don't agree with you about what those things are, or their importance, so you write us off by hurling around epithets. It's pointless and inane.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - CTcard - 12-12-2017

(12-12-2017, 06:22 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:As for the "riding the wave" comment which you term a backhanded compliment, do you not think Stanford is exceptionally hot right now? 

You don't really need an explanation do you?

A backhanded compliment does not rely upon things that are false.


(12-12-2017, 07:17 PM)jacketree link Wrote:2001 was pretty good - arguably a dropped pass away from being a dropped pass away from something.  But I don't recall it being otherworldly or worth dismantling what they do now for what they did then.  Wasn't is just pretty basic pro-set offense with decent balance?  They didn't constantly run the play clock down to 0:02, which drives me a little crazy; or use stacked formations when wider gap spacing is probably better; but I'm not getting the nostalgia to party like it's 1999. I really don't remember those offenses as particularly memorable.  Defenses were a little shaky IIRC.

We shouldn't get too revisionist here. 1999 and 2001 were very good offenses by Stanford's historical standards, they just fell apart in their bowl games. Up until the breakout year of 2009 (well, the offense broke out in 2009, the defense in 2010), those two teams were first and third in Stanford history in scoring per game, second and fifth in yds/game - I don't have rankings in better rate stats.

In general, Willingham tried to have an offense built around a power run game and a downfield passing game much like Shaw teams, though most of the time was not as successful at it - particularly the run game. The 2001 team was more successful in that regard. As I noted above, it was remarkably similar in style and production to the 2013 offense. Of course there were some differences. 2001 didn't play slow down so much (76 plays per game 2001, vs 64 in 2013). 2001 didn't use the very heavy sets or extreme close splits on short yardage. But those are relatively minor.

And for 1999 you're right about defense. That currently ranks the third worst in yds/game allowed and seventh worst in points per game. 2001 defense was a lot better: about 60 yds/game better and safely off the 10 worst defenses list.


By the way, does anyone here remember the 1969 offense?
It is Stanford's all time leader in yards per game at 492, edging out the 2011 team (Luck's last year). I guess that was Plunkett the year before making the Rose Bowl, but I was too young to remember it.


(12-11-2017, 05:29 PM)Ratmandoo link Wrote:I thought the penalty was for illegal man downfield. One of the blocking linemen got too far down the field past the line of scrimmage.

It was. The box score is wrong.
The ref announced "Inelligible man downfield on the kicking team", but never specified the culprit.

None of the views shown on the TV feed ever showed an ineligible lineman past the 14 yard line (3 yards downfield), but it isn't quite definitive as there is about a second from the last full field view and when the pass was thrown. Garnett (#98) was the usual suspect, but he is last seen at the 16.
You can watch for yourself if you want.
https://youtu.be/luIXgJOwlFo?t=8145

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - lex24 - 12-13-2017

I remember 69. Plunkett. Vatsha. Bob Moore. Bubba Brown. Howie Williams Jackie Brown Hillary Shockley. Jack Lassiter. Jeff Siemon.. Don Parish. Dave Tipton. Pete Lazitich. John Sande. A great team. I still remember listening to Don Klein call Ron Ayalas FG. I burst into tears. 11.  But then in ‘70- “Plunkett Keeps His Promise.”  My all-time favorite Chron/Examiner Sports headline.

(12-12-2017, 10:32 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18293.msg218075#msg218075 date=1513128143]
As for the "riding the wave" comment which you term a backhanded compliment, do you not think Stanford is exceptionally hot right now? 

You don't really need an explanation do you?

A backhanded compliment does not rely upon things that are false.


(12-12-2017, 07:17 PM)jacketree link Wrote:2001 was pretty good - arguably a dropped pass away from being a dropped pass away from something.  But I don't recall it being otherworldly or worth dismantling what they do now for what they did then.  Wasn't is just pretty basic pro-set offense with decent balance?  They didn't constantly run the play clock down to 0:02, which drives me a little crazy; or use stacked formations when wider gap spacing is probably better; but I'm not getting the nostalgia to party like it's 1999. I really don't remember those offenses as particularly memorable.  Defenses were a little shaky IIRC.

We shouldn't get too revisionist here. 1999 and 2001 were very good offenses by Stanford's historical standards, they just fell apart in their bowl games. Up until the breakout year of 2009 (well, the offense broke out in 2009, the defense in 2010), those two teams were first and third in Stanford history in scoring per game, second and fifth in yds/game - I don't have rankings in better rate stats.

In general, Willingham tried to have an offense built around a power run game and a downfield passing game much like Shaw teams, though most of the time was not as successful at it - particularly the run game. The 2001 team was more successful in that regard. As I noted above, it was remarkably similar in style and production to the 2013 offense. Of course there were some differences. 2001 didn't play slow down so much (76 plays per game 2001, vs 64 in 2013). 2001 didn't use the very heavy sets or extreme close splits on short yardage. But those are relatively minor.

And for 1999 you're right about defense. That currently ranks the third worst in yds/game allowed and seventh worst in points per game. 2001 defense was a lot better: about 60 yds/game better and safely off the 10 worst defenses list.


By the way, does anyone here remember the 1969 offense?
It is Stanford's all time leader in yards per game at 492, edging out the 2011 team (Luck's last year). I guess that was Plunkett the year before making the Rose Bowl, but I was too young to remember it.


(12-11-2017, 05:29 PM)Ratmandoo link Wrote:I thought the penalty was for illegal man downfield. One of the blocking linemen got too far down the field past the line of scrimmage.

It was. The box score is wrong.
The ref announced "Inelligible man downfield on the kicking team", but never specified the culprit.

None of the views shown on the TV feed ever showed an ineligible lineman past the 14 yard line (3 yards downfield), but it isn't quite definitive as there is about a second from the last full field view and when the pass was thrown. Garnett (#98) was the usual suspect, but he is last seen at the 16.
You can watch for yourself if you want.
https://youtu.be/luIXgJOwlFo?t=8145
[/quote]

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - CTcard - 12-13-2017

(12-13-2017, 12:02 AM)lex24 link Wrote:I remember 69. Plunkett. Vatsha. Bob Moore. Bubba Brown. Howie Williams Jackie Brown Hillary Shockley. Jack Lassiter. Jeff Siemon.. Don Parish. Dave Tipton. Pete Lazitich. John Sande. A great team. I still remember listening to Don Klein call Ron Ayalas FG. I burst into tears. 11.  But then in ‘70- “Plunkett Keeps His Promise.”  My all-time favorite Chron/Examiner Sports headline.

So tell us a little more. To us young'uns that is basically just a list of names.

Were the Rose Bowl teams the next two years really much better, or just better at picking their spots?
With all that offense, was the defense a problem? (Maybe not - I see they got three shut outs)

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Hulk01 - 12-13-2017

1969 was my first year at Stanford, so football is a vivid memory.

1.  My first game, the players got a nice cheer when they arrived on the field, but our band got a bigger one.
2.  We crushed the Northwest teams: three shutouts out of four.
3.  The playbook was thick with swing passes and bombs downfield.  Plunkett's bombs landed in the receivers' hands like butterflies.  He was remarkable to watch
4.  Lost to top ten Purdue with AA QB Mike Phipps by three (tw0?) and to top five USC and star TB Clarence Davis on a last-minute, length of the field drive and field goal.  Tied UCLA and their star QB Gary Beban after missing a long, last second field goal.
5.  Other than Plunkett, the star that year was the Greatest Dolly of All Time, Cathleen Caballero.  Think Catherine Zeta-Jones.