The CardBoard
How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - 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: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? (/thread-12844.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - jhftb - 10-11-2016

(10-10-2016, 08:18 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:If you believe the chatter out of summer practice -- which, given the last two weeks, seems overly optimistic* -- Devery Hamilton is potentially excellent.

I hope this means he can recognize and react properly to the same simple stunts high school d-lines are running all over the country. 

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - SamAtoms1980 - 10-11-2016

(10-11-2016, 08:30 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Plus we've likely played 5 of our hardest 6 games already.

We've played a Sagarin top 30 opponent in all five of our games so far.  No other team in Division I can make that claim.  In fact Colorado coming up next week is going to be another one.  If you told me before the season that we would be playing Sagarin top 30 opponents in ALL EXCEPT ONE of our first seven games, but not which one would be outside, ND would be the last guess I would make.  Indeed, all of our games except two will be against opponents in the top 60.  The Marines in Iwo Jima would blanch at that schedule.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - SamAtoms1980 - 10-11-2016

(10-11-2016, 09:28 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:The combination of a weaker-than-average OL (which could be a coaching issue, could be a recruiting issue, or could just be bad luck) and injuries (definitely just bad luck) have lowered our ceiling considerably.

Perhaps just bad luck, or perhaps because UCLA willfully embarked on a kamikaze game plan, in an attempt to beat us via attrition.  The fact that zero targeting penalties were assessed on the Bruins by the Pac-12 office, let alone the refs on the field and officials in the replay booth, is mind-boggling.  For all the money he has brought into the conference, Larry Scott has run the Pac-12 like a banana republic, and the national reputation of the conference reflects that.  He is a better commissioner than Tom Hansen was, but that's like saying that somebody has better personal hygiene than a Berkeley hobo.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - CTcard - 10-11-2016

(10-11-2016, 08:50 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:To piggyback off of your point, stupac, it strikes me that this is a new situation to which people are proposing old explanations -- primarily focused on the offense and/or punting-on-fourth-down whatever. But we've been arguing about these flaws, real or exaggerated, for ages; it's never gotten as bad as it is now. The most likely explanation for an unprecedented situation is an unprecedented factor -- which is to say, injuries.

(Injuries are also the most parsimonious explanation for why a seemingly-good team through the first three games of the season descended into sheer awfulness the next two.)

Been away for awhile, so not sure I have the tenor of things around here down pat, but agree with the sentiment here.

The focus on the QB and particular play calls seems a little off when everything is a mess. The team can't block anyone, can't pass protect, can't run, can't pitch and catch, can't tackle, can't cover, can't rush the passer, can't hold back the opposing OL. At least vs WSU they weren't racking up quite so many penalties (though a couple of doozies).

Injuries are certainly suspect #1.
General youth/inexperience is another.
I guess I'd add a general round of letting adversity get to you - which may be a subset of inexperience.
I think the first three games were enough to demonstrate that simply not being inherently able isn't the issue, but perhaps that's true with the team we can put on the field right now.

I do still worry that our offense is too complicated for inexperienced OL and QB to run effectively. But that might be a difference in a ten point game - not this kind of blowout. It also doesn't explain why our defense suddenly cannot stop anything.

[parsimonious? Does that word really mean what you think it means? ]



Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - washingtonismoney - 10-11-2016

(10-11-2016, 07:52 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[parsimonious? Does that word really mean what you think it means? ]

Maybe a bit off but not by much -- I mean that injuries are the simplest explanation that fits the facts.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - Langdude - 10-11-2016

But even when our OL was healthy, they were not blowing guys off the ball like we have in the past. I realize we have breakdowns in other areas. But I think that we can withstand some of those with a good OL. The question is what has happened there; to be honest, I am not sure. I don't think the answer is only recruiting because we've had less- or evenly-touted lines do better. Maybe it is inexperience, but I remember when we had four new starters (the year Fleming was a freshman) and we did fine. I realize we are down a Tucker and Marx; seems Harrell did well last year, and I wonder if Reagan Williams is not as good as we thought?

It's probably a lot of things - not enough talent, not enough experience, not enough moxy... I dunno.

-m.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - washingtonismoney - 10-12-2016

(10-11-2016, 09:46 PM)Langdude link Wrote:But even when our OL was healthy, they were not blowing guys off the ball like we have in the past. I realize we have breakdowns in other areas. But I think that we can withstand some of those with a good OL. The question is what has happened there; to be honest, I am not sure. I don't think the answer is only recruiting because we've had less- or evenly-touted lines do better. Maybe it is inexperience, but I remember when we had four new starters (the year Fleming was a freshman) and we did fine.

Well, the offensive line was actually opening up holes for the running game the first three games of the season -- at that point we were more concerned about the passing game. (Specifically the lack of attempts.) Again, things fell off, though I'm not sure it's attributable to injuries -- Tucker was injured in the first half of the UW game, but things weren't exactly strong before then.

The year Fleming was a freshmen was 2011; in that year, Stanford had three new starters, not four. And the returning starters were David DeCastro and Jonathan Martin,  a slightly different situation than Johnny Caspers and Casey Tucker.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - Langdude - 10-12-2016

(10-12-2016, 07:04 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The year Fleming was a freshmen was 2011; in that year, Stanford had three new starters, not four. And the returning starters were David DeCastro and Jonathan Martin,  a slightly different situation than Johnny Caspers and Casey Tucker.

Really? Dang, I really misremembered that one! Thanks for correcting me.

Perhaps this is the greatest turnover we've had, then, on the OL in the Shawbaugh era?

-m.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - CTcard - 10-12-2016

(10-11-2016, 08:21 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15888.msg175483#msg175483 date=1476240731]
[parsimonious? Does that word really mean what you think it means? ]

Maybe a bit off but not by much -- I mean that injuries are the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
[/quote]

Ah.

I was thinking that injuries might be the most generous explanation - in the sense that it leaves the easiest path for improvement (get healthy) and possibly the least culpability for the principals. Curiously that slight difference in intent leads to a word listed in my dictionary as the primary antonym, i.e. generous is listed as the antonym of parsimonious.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - washingtonismoney - 10-12-2016

(10-12-2016, 08:15 AM)Langdude link Wrote:Perhaps this is the greatest turnover we've had, then, on the OL in the Shawbaugh era?

Believe the greatest was 2014, in which the only returning starter was Peat. Kind of incredible: that line had two first-rounders (Peat, Garnett) plus another NFL pick (Murphy) plus two competent starters (Caspers, Shuler) and was awful. 2014 was surely the greatest coaching-related underachievement of Shaw's tenure.

I find 2016 so far to be too confusing to make much sense of. (I suppose this sentence has more than football-related meanings.)

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - SamuelMcF - 10-12-2016

(10-11-2016, 09:46 PM)Langdude link Wrote:I realize we are down a Tucker and Marx; seems Harrell did well last year, and I wonder if Reagan Williams is not as good as we thought?

Harrell is still on the team, which means Williams beat him head-to-head for the second string spot. Can't help but wonder the same, though...

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - CTcard - 10-12-2016

(10-12-2016, 07:04 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Well, the offensive line was actually opening up holes for the running game the first three games of the season -- at that point we were more concerned about the passing game. (Specifically the lack of attempts.)

I think that is mostly true. Some numbers to back up the idea.

Non-sack rushing attempts and averages
vs KSU  28 att    3.9 yds/att  57% run plays
vs U$C  48 att    6.3 yds/att  77% run plays
vs UCLA 35 att    6.2 yds/att  54% run plays
vs UW    22 att    3.5 yds/att  39% run plays
vs WSU  23 att    3.2 yds/att  38% run plays

The run game wasn't exactly on all cylinders vs KSU, but they seem to have a decent front (KSU defense is averaging 81 yds/game rushing allowed, 2.75 yds/att).

We were about tied for most yds/att that KSU has allowed.
We were easily the most yds/att that U$C allowed, more than Bama.
We were easily the most yds/att that UCLA allowed.
We were just about tied with Portland St for fewest yds/att UW allowed, well behind everyone else.
We were by far the fewest yds/att WSU allowed, worse than Idaho.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - fullmetal - 10-12-2016

Is our OL working through some issues as well?? :(

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - CTcard - 10-12-2016

(10-12-2016, 09:51 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Believe the greatest was 2014, in which the only returning starter was Peat. Kind of incredible: that line had two first-rounders (Peat, Garnett) plus another NFL pick (Murphy) plus two competent starters (Caspers, Shuler) and was awful. 2014 was surely the greatest coaching-related underachievement of Shaw's tenure.

I think that the OL was about what one might expect considering there was fundamentally pretty good talent but little experience and no experience playing together. They were okay and improving at run blocking, and struggled a bit in pass blocking - didn't actually give up all that many sacks but allowed pressure.

Overall, the running game was more underused than it was awful, with a dramatic uptick over the final quarter of the season. On a per play basis, the base running game was a little better than 2012, and about the same as 2013.

Here are the numbers for the RBs by year.*
2015 = 5.61 yds/att, 35.6 att/gm
2014 = 4.94 yds/att, 25.0 att/gm**
2013 = 5.03 yds/att, 32.8 att/gm  (Rose Bowl vs MSU)
2012 = 4.85 yds/att, 30.4 att/gm  (Hogan emerged)
2011 = 5.46 yds/att, 34.2 att/gm  (Last Luck year)
2010 = 4.78 yds/att, 33.9 att/gm  (Last Harbaugh year)
2009 = 5.34 yds/att, 34.3 att/gm  (Gerhart)


* These are much harder to put together now that most all stats before this year have disappeared from the official site.

** In 2014 the number of carries, but not the average per carry, changed drastically over the final few games. Over the final three games we averaged about 12+ more carries by the running backs. The yearly average is, of course, a mixture of the two parts of the season.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - stupac2 - 10-12-2016

Pretty interesting that 2010 was the worst year out of all of those. I would absolutely not have guessed that, I suppose having Luck as the QB can bail out a mediocre run game.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - CTcard - 10-12-2016

(10-12-2016, 01:59 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:Pretty interesting that 2010 was the worst year out of all of those. I would absolutely not have guessed that, I suppose having Luck as the QB can bail out a mediocre run game.

Correct.

It was also Luck's best year rushing, and the best rushing year by a Stanford QB in at least a long time. Luck averaged 8.2 yards per attempt and 453 total yards. Those numbers include 6 sacks for 48 yards. [That's 6 sacks on the season, as opposed to the 8 we gave up in the game vs UW.]

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - Langdude - 10-12-2016

Thanks for that work, CT.

What would be interesting - and this is not an invitation for anyone to do it, seeing as I am not going to - would be to cross-reference these data with two other things: 1) strength of opposition, and 2) years of previous tenure on our OL (lack of inexperience). It would also be interesting, though somewhat less relevant, to see how highly touted the OL has been (how highly recruited).

But however you slice it, this year will go down as being the worst OL in the Shawbaugh era unless we have a somewhat dramatic turn of events.

I'd really like to beat ןɐɔ.

-m.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - CTcard - 10-12-2016

(10-12-2016, 02:51 PM)Langdude link Wrote:2) years of previous tenure on our OL (lack of inexperience).

Well, I remember the OL for the more recent years.

2011 - Martin Yankey Schwartzstein DeCastro Fleming
I think 4 of these guys got into the NFL. Three were new starters (Martin and DeCastro holdovers).

2012 - Yankey Wilkes Schwartzstein Danser Fleming
Two new starters. Yankey switched to tackle.

2013 - Peat Yankey Wilkes Danser Fleming
One new starter. Yankey back to guard, Wilkes to center.

2014 - Peat Garnett Shuler Caspers Murphy
Four new starters. Three made it to NFL. One still around.

2015 - Murphy Garnett Shuler Caspers Tucker
One new starter.

2016 - Tucker Bright Burkett Caspers Hall
Three new starters.
Plus Hall/Tucker switched sides for UCLA game. Tucker injured vs UW. For WSU  - replaced by Bright, Fanaika to guard.

Re: How did Washington's DL beat Stanford's OL so badly? - washingtonismoney - 10-12-2016

The other aspect is -- I believe this is the first year with shuffling. I think Yankey missed a game in 2013 due to family issues. I can't recall too many other absences: basically once the team decides on a line it goes wire-to-wire.