The CardBoard
A nod from the New York Times - 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: A nod from the New York Times (/thread-10099.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: A nod from the New York Times - teejers1 - 10-07-2015

Good post, Cornfed.  People watching the game intuitively "get that," even if they claim not to (that's my story, anyway, and I'm sticking with it).

I've never been a "Fade is a horrible call" guy (and in fact, it was a reasonably good call with Teyo catching them).  And in the UA game, I only had one reaction as the play was developing:  was thrilled that Chryst was allowed to pass the dang ball!

Re: A nod from the New York Times - BostonCard - 10-07-2015

(10-06-2015, 11:20 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:But don't kid yourself on a few things.  First, it is always better to be unpredictable than predictable, as you know.  Yes, being unpredictable isn't much help if the WR drops an easy ball when he is wide open, but it's always better to have an open WR than a covered one.  Second, we are seeing some nice plays being called.  The play where Chryst pitched behind him left and then became lead blocker right was brand new; and the screen play to Wright was a TD as soon as it left Hogan's hand, given how out of position/fooled AZ was to defend it.  (BTW, the beauty of that play reminded me of one of Walsh's most memorable calls:  the delayed screen pass to JJ Lasley at ND - god that was beautiful!).  Third, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Hogan is playing exceptional ball lately.  He is buying time in the pocket, moving well, and making plays on his own - often by late decision dump offs.  And the toss to Cajuste in the 1H after stepping up in the pocket was an NFL-caliber play.  So, I think we all need to be a little careful projecting that level of play for Hogan going forward - it really has been remarkable (and would be hard to sustain for anyone).

The problem is that for a "unpredictable" plays to work your regular "predictable" plays have to work too.  For example, against a disciplined defense that is not pressing, the defensive linemen will "blow up" a screen easily. I can't recall if the screen to Sanders was against a blitz, but that's when screens are most effective, and DC's are prone to calling blitzes when they are unable to generate pressure with a four-man rush. A play action pass won't work if  the safeties don't bite, which happens when a conventional front stops the running game.  Defenses will keep to their assignments and won't try to do "too much" so you won't get an uncovered wide receiver.  Yes, I loved nothing more than the Virginia Tech linebacker throwing his mouthguard in disgust after getting burned on the fourth or fifth play fake to a tight end going one-on-one with an overmatched defender, but that doesn't happen if our running game isn't firing on all cylinders.

In summary, unpredictable plays are great fun, and they are helpful in keeping the defense honest.  But unpredictable plays don't usually work if the defense is already honest and able to contain the offense's base plays.

BC

Re: A nod from the New York Times - yvonne - 10-07-2015

(10-06-2015, 12:31 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Isn't anyone going to complain about throwing the fade in the end zone? 
I thought that play had been banned by several playcalllers on this board.

Ditto, the wildcat. 
I thought it had been banned, too.  No?

And the really tight Jumbo formations, also widely assailed here in the past, partly because it's obvious we are going to run.
Can't believe we still use that.

Shaw is stubbornly sticking with all that stuff. 
Unbelievable!! 
But he is, as I recall, too arrogant to change.

+10

Re: A nod from the New York Times - MustardtheBallCarrier - 10-07-2015

When the offensive line can consistently, including on expected run downs/distances and out of expected run formations, open holes for our running backs to get 3-5 yards down field before any contact, there are no bad play calls.  The 2nd and 15 against NW has become a 2nd and 5.  That in turn opens up the playbook and we become unpredictable run vs. pass.

Aside from the dominance of the offensive line in recent weeks, we have an offense with an unprecedented (for us) number of talented playmakers and Hogan is playing lights out.  With that recipe, we can score points if the playbook was as limited as Tecmo Bowl.

To me, the test is going to be whether we can score enough points against a very good defense when everyone in the stadium knows we are running power on 1st down and we can't consistently get 2nd and 6.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 10-07-2015

(10-07-2015, 06:53 PM)MustardtheBallCarrier link Wrote:When the offensive line can consistently, including on expected run downs/distances and out of expected run formations, open holes for our running backs to get 3-5 yards down field before any contact, there are no bad play calls.  The 2nd and 15 against NW has become a 2nd and 5.  That in turn opens up the playbook and we become unpredictable run vs. pass.

Aside from the dominance of the offensive line in recent weeks, we have an offense with an unprecedented (for us) number of talented playmakers and Hogan is playing lights out.  With that recipe, we can score points if the playbook was as limited as Tecmo Bowl.

To me, the test is going to be whether we can score enough points against a very good defense when everyone in the stadium knows we are running power on 1st down and we can't consistently get 2nd and 6.

Good post.  The offense has certainly been masterful after the first game (maybe punting just once more from the opposing ~35 would have helped score some points?) but the opposing defenses so far have been quite soft.  The only really great defense on the schedule so far has been Northwestern.  Hanging 41 on SC looks to have been an accomplishment though (not including the Stanford game, they haven't given up more than 14 to an opponent).

Stanford's offense has been lighting teams up, which is very exciting.  I will be even more excited to see them do it against Washington and ND.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - 81alum - 10-07-2015

(10-07-2015, 07:07 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=MustardtheBallCarrier link=topic=13045.msg133298#msg133298 date=1444269196]
When the offensive line can consistently, including on expected run downs/distances and out of expected run formations, open holes for our running backs to get 3-5 yards down field before any contact, there are no bad play calls.  The 2nd and 15 against NW has become a 2nd and 5.  That in turn opens up the playbook and we become unpredictable run vs. pass.

Aside from the dominance of the offensive line in recent weeks, we have an offense with an unprecedented (for us) number of talented playmakers and Hogan is playing lights out.  With that recipe, we can score points if the playbook was as limited as Tecmo Bowl.

To me, the test is going to be whether we can score enough points against a very good defense when everyone in the stadium knows we are running power on 1st down and we can't consistently get 2nd and 6.

Good post.  The offense has certainly been masterful after the first game (maybe punting just once more from the opposing ~35 would have helped score some points?) but the opposing defenses so far have been quite soft.  The only really great defense on the schedule so far has been Northwestern.  Hanging 41 on SC looks to have been an accomplishment though (not including the Stanford game, they haven't given up more than 14 to an opponent).

Stanford's offense has been lighting teams up, which is very exciting.  I will be even more excited to see them do it against Washington and ND.
[/quote]

Other than Utah, who in the Pac 12 has an elite defense this year?  Or will Notre Dame be our best test?

Re: A nod from the New York Times - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 10-07-2015

(10-07-2015, 08:20 PM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=13045.msg133300#msg133300 date=1444270040]
[quote author=MustardtheBallCarrier link=topic=13045.msg133298#msg133298 date=1444269196]
When the offensive line can consistently, including on expected run downs/distances and out of expected run formations, open holes for our running backs to get 3-5 yards down field before any contact, there are no bad play calls.  The 2nd and 15 against NW has become a 2nd and 5.  That in turn opens up the playbook and we become unpredictable run vs. pass.

Aside from the dominance of the offensive line in recent weeks, we have an offense with an unprecedented (for us) number of talented playmakers and Hogan is playing lights out.  With that recipe, we can score points if the playbook was as limited as Tecmo Bowl.

To me, the test is going to be whether we can score enough points against a very good defense when everyone in the stadium knows we are running power on 1st down and we can't consistently get 2nd and 6.

Good post.  The offense has certainly been masterful after the first game (maybe punting just once more from the opposing ~35 would have helped score some points?) but the opposing defenses so far have been quite soft.  The only really great defense on the schedule so far has been Northwestern.  Hanging 41 on SC looks to have been an accomplishment though (not including the Stanford game, they haven't given up more than 14 to an opponent).

Stanford's offense has been lighting teams up, which is very exciting.  I will be even more excited to see them do it against Washington and ND.
[/quote]

Other than Utah, who in the Pac 12 has an elite defense this year?  Or will the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends be our best test?
[/quote]

SC, Washington, and ND all appear to be relatively solid defensively.  Here they are by points allowed:

SC vs Ark St -- 6
SC vs Idaho -- 9
SC vs Stan -- 41
SC @ ASU -- 14

Wash @ Boise -- 16
Wash vs Sac St -- 0
Wash vs Utah St -- 17
Wash vs C.al -- 30

ND vs Texas -- 3
ND @ UVa -- 27
ND vs GT -- 22
ND vs Umass -- 27
ND @ Clem -- 24

The best defense Stanford has played so far, and will probably play all year, has been Northwestern:

NW vs Stan -- 6
NW vs EIU -- 0
NW @ Duke -- 10
NW vs Ball -- 19
NW vs Minn -- 0

Re: A nod from the New York Times - teejers1 - 10-08-2015

Just curious if Hulk or Yvonne think there has been any change implemented by coaching staff in play calling after the NW game?  Or do you think the staff was just getting over its first-game jitters?

I really don't care what has changed, though I think it's a reasonably safe assumption for last 2 games, given that we have not had to burn TOs like wildfire in recent games.  But again, I don't know.  I'm just a happy camper right now.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - SUBuddha - 10-08-2015

(10-08-2015, 12:29 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Just curious if Hulk or Yvonne think there has been any change implemented by coaching staff in play calling after the NW game?  Or do you think the staff was just getting over its first-game jitters?

I really don't care what has changed, though I think it's a reasonably safe assumption for last 2 games, given that we have not had to burn TOs like wildfire in recent games.  But again, I don't know.  I'm just a happy camper right now.

It could be as simple as there is more tape on recent opponents which makes game planning a bit easier.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - BostonCard - 10-08-2015

(10-08-2015, 12:29 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Just curious if Hulk or Yvonne think there has been any change implemented by coaching staff in play calling after the NW game?  Or do you think the staff was just getting over its first-game jitters?

I really don't care what has changed, though I think it's a reasonably safe assumption for last 2 games, given that we have not had to burn TOs like wildfire in recent games.  But again, I don't know.  I'm just a happy camper right now.

It certainly looks like we have been better about not using up our time outs (or times out?) unnecessarily in the last couple games.

We burnt through two of our time outs in the second half of the game against USC, not that it mattered.  Thankfully, when it did matter (the first half), we had them all.  But in the second half, we burned a time out at the with 7:39 left in the third quarter, again with 2:32 left in the third.  We also had a delay of game penalty on a critical third and four from the USC 11 with 13:30 left in the game.  Fortunately, Hogan connected to Hooper for 15 yards and a first and goal, and two plays later, Wright scored a TD.

Against OSU we burnt a time out with 2:08 left in the second quarter facing second and goal.  Not sure if we were running out of time or if the coaches saw something in the OSU defense (Wright scored on the play after the time out. 

In the Arizona game, we burned one time out with 8:04 left in the game, annoyingly, after we got hit with a holding penalty on the previous play.  Not that it mattered; we were up 48-17 by then.

That being said, I don't think the coaching staff has thinned out the playbook at all to make getting the plays into Hogan any easier, nor is Hogan's pre-snap progression any faster.  I think it is just easier when the offense is humming to get the next play called because almost no matter what, you are comfortable it's going to work.  It is possible that the staff came up with some fallback (telling Hogan that if the play doesn't get in time, default to plays A, B, or C depending on what the defense shows).

Ultimately, though, I don't think there have been major changes to the offense since NW.  We run more than we did against NW, but mostly that seems more like returning to our roots rather than some new revelation by the coaching staff.  Mostly, the big thing I've seen is that the offensive line is pushing defenders back when we run and opening holes that they didn't against NW, and giving Hogan time to pass.  Northwestern had 5 QB hurries and 3 sacks against us.  Since then, we've given up 4 QB hurries and 5 sacks, total, in four games.

Mostly, I'm inclined to agree with Shaw.  We just had a bad game against a pretty good oponent.  Maybe that's the coaches fault, maybe it's the 9 am start time, or maybe Northwestern's defense is exceptional, or maybe it's just that every once in a while a good team plays bad, or a combination of the above factors.

BC

Re: A nod from the New York Times - washingtonismoney - 10-08-2015

I think it was Ben Muth who was arguing there's more zone blocking, or more shotgun running (e.g. increased usage of buck sweeps) than before, and less of the Power O bread-and-butter. But this is not what I suspect teejers means by better playcalling.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - BostonCard - 10-08-2015

(10-08-2015, 01:12 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I think it was Ben Muth who was arguing there's more zone blocking, or more shotgun running (e.g. increased usage of buck sweeps) than before, and less of the Power O bread-and-butter. But this is not what I suspect teejers means by better playcalling.

I would love to see the detailed analysis that broke down our runs by whether it went between the tackles or outside the tackles.  We had that for the USC game (because some Trojan went through each play on video and did the breakdown), but unfortunately that sort of stat isn't widely available.

Generally, we have run less Power (with a pulling guard) this year than in the past, but my recollection is that I've seen our offensive line pull a lot more of late than earlier in the game (both in Power and in sweeps).  Again, I suspect this boils down to getting the OL to jell; when we were having trouble in the first couple games getting everyone on the same page, running a play where the OL has to pull, would seem a mistake.  On the other hand, as they've gotten better, I think we've seen them pull more often.

Or maybe there is some recency bias going on.

BC

Re: A nod from the New York Times - Mick - 10-08-2015

(10-08-2015, 12:29 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Just curious if Hulk or Yvonne think there has been any change implemented by coaching staff in play calling after the NW game?  Or do you think the staff was just getting over its first-game jitters?

I really don't care what has changed, though I think it's a reasonably safe assumption for last 2 games, given that we have not had to burn TOs like wildfire in recent games.  But again, I don't know.  I'm just a happy camper right now.

Or the fact that the team didn't get up at 4:45 a.m.. body clock time for any of these other games, and therefore it was more execution than anything else in the NW game.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - CTcard - 10-08-2015

(10-08-2015, 12:29 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Just curious if Hulk or Yvonne think there has been any change implemented by coaching staff in play calling after the NW game? 

I am neither Hulk nor Yvonne, but I think it is pretty clear that since the Northwestern game, Stanford has decided to rely on its run game to set up everything else. My impression is that among other things, the coaching staff panicked when the run game wasn't immediately producing big gains and Northwestern was doing well on the line of scrimmage. So they junked the run game and started the dink and dunk stuff (presumably thought that between safety help and a collapsing pocket that they couldn't rely on a deeper pass game).

The run game wasn't immediately wonderful after Northwestern, particularly against UCF. However, they stuck to it and there was enough success that it opened up other options.

BC has a thread titled something like "Correlation is not causation" that goes through much of the numbers. I'll list just two. Is there any one game that sticks out here?

Opponent    % Run Plays*    Hogan's PER
c.a.l.                  69                  155
UCLA                  70                  222
Maryland            62                  182
NU                    39                    89
UCF                    58                  192
U$c                    63                  209
OSU                  77                  195
Arizona              64                  220

* Sacks counted as pass plays.


(10-08-2015, 01:17 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13045.msg133387#msg133387 date=1444335149]
I think it was Ben Muth who was arguing there's more zone blocking, or more shotgun running (e.g. increased usage of buck sweeps) than before, and less of the Power O bread-and-butter. But this is not what I suspect teejers means by better playcalling.

I would love to see the detailed analysis that broke down our runs by whether it went between the tackles or outside the tackles.  We had that for the Under Stanford Control game (because some Trojan went through each play on video and did the breakdown), but unfortunately that sort of stat isn't widely available.
[/quote]

Do you still have a link for that analysis (i.e. the Trojan going through each play)?

There is definitely more shot gun running and seems to be more zone blocking schemes. I don't think there is necessarily any more running wide (at least since last year where we did quite a bit of that - not generally effectively). There's also quite a bit of pulling, though not necessarily classic Power. This OL has some issues, but they seem to be pretty athletic and can move - occasionally with issues finding someone to hit after moving but that seems to be getting much better.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - BostonCard - 10-08-2015

Speaking of correlation is not causation and other dangerous uses of stats... here's what happens when you extrapolate out of sample:

https://twitter.com/dohyoungpark/status/652221224500752384

Still, would be fun to hang 80 on the Rosen ones.

BC

Re: A nod from the New York Times - washingtonismoney - 10-08-2015

(10-08-2015, 01:41 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13045.msg133390#msg133390 date=1444335425]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13045.msg133387#msg133387 date=1444335149]
I think it was Ben Muth who was arguing there's more zone blocking, or more shotgun running (e.g. increased usage of buck sweeps) than before, and less of the Power O bread-and-butter. But this is not what I suspect teejers means by better playcalling.

I would love to see the detailed analysis that broke down our runs by whether it went between the tackles or outside the tackles.  We had that for the Under Stanford Control game (because some Trojan went through each play on video and did the breakdown), but unfortunately that sort of stat isn't widely available.
[/quote]

Do you still have a link for that analysis (i.e. the Trojan going through each play)?

There is definitely more shot gun running and seems to be more zone blocking schemes. I don't think there is necessarily any more running wide (at least since last year where we did quite a bit of that - not generally effectively). There's also quite a bit of pulling, though not necessarily classic Power. This OL has some issues, but they seem to be pretty athletic and can move - occasionally with issues finding someone to hit after moving but that seems to be getting much better.
[/quote]

Here's some of the super-long-box scores for Stanford:

@NW: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/9/9/9282551/northwestern-stanford-football-score-stats-recap
vs. Arizona: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/10/8/9473643/stanford-arizona-football-score-stats-recap
@ SC: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/9/24/9372673/stanford-usc-football-score-stats-recap

Sadly it appears those are the only three games available with such in-depth analysis; I'm sure it's a ton of effort so it's hard to pout too deeply.

EDIT: found northwestern

Re: A nod from the New York Times - CTcard - 10-08-2015

(10-08-2015, 02:03 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Here's some of the super-long-box scores for Stanford:

@NW: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/9/9/9282551/northwestern-stanford-football-score-stats-recap
vs. Arizona: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/10/8/9473643/stanford-arizona-football-score-stats-recap
@ SC: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/9/24/9372673/stanford-Under Stanford Control-football-score-stats-recap

Sadly it appears those are the only three games available with such in-depth analysis; I'm sure it's a ton of effort so it's hard to pout too deeply.

Thanks.

To look a gift horse in the mouth, I wonder about numbers like the following in the Arizona game analysis. For Stanford they list runs as:
to the edge: 5 for 39
to the tackle: 4 for 78
up the middle: 6 for 10

That would be 15 carries total. Given that Stanford had officially 46 carries, I wonder what happened to the rest. (Two were sacks and can be taken out). That also covers 127 yards, while Stanford had 314 yards rushing (328 without sacks).

EDIT - There seem to be similar (though smaller) questions re the $C game. The record the direction for 25 $C runs, while $C had 28 official run plays, one was a sack, so 26 I would think they might record.  For Stanford they record 38 run plays though we had 49 officially - 3 sacks for 46. Hmmmm.
Presumably there is a category of run play they don't count (that we ran a ton vs UA), but I don't know what that is.