The CardBoard
Spring practice thread - 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: Spring practice thread (/thread-13544.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Re: Spring practice thread - SamuelMcF - 03-09-2017

Remember our secondary is quite good :)  Edwards is the biggest unknown to me as far as presumed starters in the secondary (Reid and Meeks were honorable mention all-PAC 12 last year, Holder would've been up there too were he not injured, and we have at least 3 other corners/nickels with considerable game time experience in Alexander, Murphy, and Buncom), so hearing that Edwards got a pick (unclear if this was the one that "wasn't Costello's fault" or not) is quite encouraging to me.

Re: Spring practice thread - kuz - 03-09-2017

(03-09-2017, 11:25 AM)SamuelMcF link Wrote:Remember our secondary is quite good :)  Edwards is the biggest unknown to me as far as presumed starters in the secondary (Reid and Meeks were honorable mention all-PAC 12 last year, Holder would've been up there too were he not injured, and we have at least 3 other corners/nickels with considerable game time experience in Alexander, Murphy, and Buncom), so hearing that Edwards got a pick (unclear if this was the one that "wasn't Costello's fault" or not) is quite encouraging to me.
Reid's pick was on a tipped ball. The other was Edwards baiting Costello.

Re: Spring practice thread - fullmetal - 03-09-2017

Bryce Love played hurt?  ???  Give him the CMac offseason treatment and make sure he comes back 100%...

Re: Spring practice thread - BostonCard - 03-10-2017

Behind the paywall, but Jacob Rayburn offers some insight...

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/spring-notes-offensive-line-changes-rise-of-the-tight-ends



Re: Spring practice thread - OutsiderFan - 03-11-2017

Well, it seems one of my predictions is turning out to be correct.  Casey Tucker is being moved to Guard, along with Clark Yarbrough.  The RG spot is going to have someone really good playing there, because four guys are competing for the job, in Fanaika, Wilson, Tucker and Yarbrough.  Garnett and Peat spoke to the OL on Wednesday and Peat said told the guys the more positions they can play, the more valuable they are in the NFL, so this certainly made Tucker feel better about Guard.

It seems clearly obvious the coaching staff was disgusted with the pass protection last year because Bloomgren said the priority is to get the five best guys who can protect the passer, then they'll worry about run blocking. 

Most impressive young guys Shaw has seen on video are TEs Scooter Harrington and Kaden Smith.  Shaw believes - for good reason - 2017 is going to feature many 3 TE sets like they had in 2011, and reading between the lines, I think they expect Parkinson to play as a true Frosh.

Back to the OL.  Though Bloomgren talked about having more Tackles than Guards now (a very good thing, IMO), and moving some guys from Tackle to Guard, he didn't say anything about the Tackles in the latest Rivals story.  No word about Hall, Bright, Hamilton, or Danser, nor Little and Sarell.  My read on things here is that if pass pro is a priority, Yarbrough and Tucker are being moved to Guard, Hall and Fanaika were two poor pass pro culprits in 2016, neither of the latter two will be starting in 2017. 

Re: Spring practice thread - washingtonismoney - 03-11-2017

Another lengthy clip of spring practice; https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/840641867016355840

Re: Spring practice thread - fullmetal - 03-13-2017

(03-11-2017, 09:07 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:It seems clearly obvious the coaching staff was disgusted with the pass protection last year because Bloomgren said the priority is to get the five best guys who can protect the passer, then they'll worry about run blocking.

Innnnteresting.  Either run blocking is easier to coach to these guys, or the braintrust thinks we aren't getting anyone who can make hot reads under pressure at QB? ;)  I would have thought Shaw would be run-first til the cows came home.

As for Hall/Fanaika, yeah, Hall had a lot of bad plays out at LT.  I don't remember Fanaika being great, but he didn't seem egregiously bad either.  We'll see if they can step up this year, else they'll be replaced by the talent in the wings.

Re: Spring practice thread - Goose - 03-13-2017

(03-13-2017, 05:40 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Innnnteresting.  Either run blocking is easier to coach to these guys, or the braintrust thinks we aren't getting anyone who can make hot reads under pressure at QB? ;)  I would have thought Shaw would be run-first til the cows came home.
Hot reads are one thing Wearing your center is another. At times last year, pass blocking was non-existant. I don't expect Shaw will really be changing much. He will have either a first time starter or Burns as the QB. I expect that, if it is Burns, he will be better that he showed in the Sun Bowl. However, he will not be confused with Andrew Luck. Stanford will still be a run-first team. But Shaw knows that it can't be a run-only team. We need to force the other team to dare us to pass, and then burn them when we do. Last year, we basically couldn't do that for most, if not all of the year. The teams that we played in the second half of the year were mostly bad enough that we could run on them no matter what they tried. So I think the realization is that we must have some at least basically effective pass blocking or else all the run blocking in the world will not beat U$C or Washington.
On a similar note, how do people feel about the spring practice so far? Last spring, I think that the defense, particularly Thomas, was so disruptive that the offense pretty much always looked ineffective. I think we all thought, "Well, CMac isn't playing, and we have a very good defense, so it isn't so bad that we don't look good offensively". Then it turned out that the offense was actually to some significant degree less effective than we hoped. So what do people see this year? (Yes, I know it is hard to tell, but (somewhat) informed speculation is why we are here).

Re: Spring practice thread - washingtonismoney - 03-22-2017

If you think spring stats are in any way informative, this Stanford social media is for you: https://www.facebook.com/stanfordfootball/videos/1385688698119197/

Re: Spring practice thread - qwerty49 - 03-22-2017

(03-22-2017, 11:00 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:If you think spring stats are in any way informative, this Stanford social media is for you: https://www.facebook.com/stanfordfootball/videos/1385688698119197/
 

The stats are informative to the extent that spring scrimmage reflects the general anxiety about OL pass pro, and OL performance in general; i.e. the defense is getting sacks and TFLs.  A lot of that is to be expected, and just maybe the blocking by the RBs hasn't been there yet, but there's also no Solomon Thomas on that DL. 

It will be interesting to see what happens when Little and Sarell get here.  I'm in the camp that was pretty underwhelmed by our OL last year.





Re: Spring practice thread - CTcard - 03-22-2017

[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=16635.msg190420#msg190420 date=1490227390]
I'm in the camp that was pretty underwhelmed by our OL last year.
[/quote

I don't think that's really a camp, it's more a nation - basically anyone who watched.


BUT ... the problems were mostly in pass blocking.
Stanford came in at #11 in conference, tied for #103 in the country in sacks allowed, despite rarely trying to pass. Apparently, that translates to Stanford being #121 in sack percentage allowed at 10.26%. Stanford hadn't allowed over 6% since 2007 - Harbaugh's first year (and mostly not over 5%). 
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/qb-sacked-pct


The run blocking was okay.
McCaffrey averaged 6.3 yds/carry which is the most by our lead back since ... forever.
Our RBs averaged 6.2 yds/carry which is also the team best in many years.
The overall run game numbers were only okay, but what took that down was mostly sacks and a little that outside of one play our surprise-end around run game was fairly dismal.
The run game certainly had some individual tough games, but that occured in games with injured RBs.


I guess at least sort of that gives me hope. Needing to improve/revamp half your game is better than needing to rebuild everything. And it certainly helps to have four returning starters ... and a couple of reputed stars coming in.


Re: Spring practice thread - Goose - 03-22-2017

(03-22-2017, 07:46 PM)CTcard link Wrote:The run blocking was okay.
McCaffrey averaged 6.3 yds/carry which is the most by our lead back since ... forever.
Our RBs averaged 6.2 yds/carry which is also the team best in many years.
The overall run game numbers were only okay, but what took that down was mostly sacks and a little that outside of one play our surprise-end around run game was fairly dismal.
The run game certainly had some individual tough games, but that occured in games with injured RBs.
Sorry, but I can't really agree. McCaffrey averaged 6.3 yds/carry because the teams we played from Arizona on were horrible at stopping the run, and because he is a great back. Time and again against Colorado I saw the Stanford left tackle try to block the linebacker on the stretch play and get stonewalled. And that was a linebacker, not a DL. We for sure had run blocking problems too. Against Washington and WSU, we just couldn't move them, period. I would agree that a lot of that was that they were selling out to stop the run because they didn't fear the passing game, but we were unable to get any push. Certainly the injuries to McCaffrey and (as we now know) Love didn't help, but it is not like there were brobdingnagian holes that we just couldn't hit quick enough. Against WSU, you could literally see their defense realize we couldn't block them, and getting more and more confident. To defeat these teams, we must improve our pass protection a whole lot, AND our run blocking as well. CMac only needed a crease, but last year, against good teams, we didn't generate many.
      Even if one looks at the games we won early in the season, against KSU, USC, and UCLA, we didn't exactly dominate the point of attack. If USC covers CMAC on that one pass play, we quite possibly lose. Against UCLA, we won because the much-maligned Burns pulled off an amazing comeback, not because we ran them into the ground. Now, I am not saying the line can't get better. But I do think the run blocking was an issue that can't be ignored. And I don't think it will be. 


Re: Spring practice thread - fullmetal - 03-22-2017

I think the 6.3 yds/carry might include passes caught in the backfield...maybe as well as passes caught after running out of the backfield?  Unclear.  My memory is unreliable, but I think 6.3 yds/carry feels like a lot for the futility that I saw last season.

Re: Spring practice thread - Phogge - 03-23-2017

Why do I think that 10-3 wasn't so bad? Perhaps because I lived through 0-10 in 1960 and one win in '83 and '06. I understand fans' thirst for an NC but I also know that the '59 and '62 National League pennant races were much more exciting than any World Series I covered (25) or watched on TV. What I loved about the past season was the comeback after being blown out in successive weeks, regardless of the opposition in the second half of the season. Remember the song? "Love the one you're with." That said I'm expecting an NC this year.

Re: Spring practice thread - BostonCard - 03-23-2017

The 6.3 ypc includes any laterals (I don't remember many), but any forward catches out of the backfield (even screens and shovel passes) are receptions.  And lest we give all the credit to McCaffrey, Bryce Love actually recorded 7 ypc.

Goose: Every year we play some teams that are good against the run, and others that have weak run defenses.  The reason we look at full season stats is that over the course of the year it averages out. Plus, it's not like McCaffrey sucked running the ball before the "easy" part of the schedule. Yes, McCaffrey averaged 7.5 ypc in November,  his average in August/September (5.3 ypc) and October (5.7 ypc) was better than Tyler Gaffney in 2013 (5.2 ypc), Stepfan Taylor in 2012 (4.75 ypc) and 2010 (5.1 ypc), and is comparable to Toby Gerhart in 2008 (5.4 ypc) and 2009 (5.5 ypc) and Taylor in 2011 (5.5 ypc).  And again, although McCaffrey is a unique talent, Bryce Love actually had a better yards per carry year.

BC

Re: Spring practice thread - fullmetal - 03-23-2017

BC, you know we like to cherry pick our stats here.  Only the stats against good teams (ranked?) teams count in our selective memories  ;D

Actually, that's an interesting idea.  What would the stats landscape look like if we only counted stats against ranked teams?  Oof.

Re: Spring practice thread - Goose - 03-23-2017

(03-23-2017, 09:12 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Goose: Every year we play some teams that are good against the run, and others that have weak run defenses.  The reason we look at full season stats is that over the course of the year it averages out.
Yes, the average over an entire season averages out  ;D. However, we aren't dealing with independent measurements of a "signal" corrupted by noise.  The "signal" against Washington had a much different value than against Rice. The average of quantities that are differently distributed is not real meaningful.
Quote:Plus, it's not like McCaffrey sucked running the ball before the "easy" part of the schedule. Yes, McCaffrey averaged 7.5 ypc in November,  his average in August/September (5.3 ypc) and October (5.7 ypc) was better than Tyler Gaffney in 2013 (5.2 ypc), Stepfan Taylor in 2012 (4.75 ypc) and 2010 (5.1 ypc), and is comparable to Toby Gerhart in 2008 (5.4 ypc) and 2009 (5.5 ypc) and Taylor in 2011 (5.5 ypc).
True. McCaffrey averaged 4.0 ypc in the game against Washington. And we got killed. I guess I must be arguing that ypc may not be a really great indicator of actual performance. I am also not saying it was CMAC's "fault" we got beat. What I am saying is that against Washington, Washington State, and Colorado, our OL was basically unable to control the point of attack. As a result, any rush yards we got were the result of the back's somehow beating a defender, not the play operating as designed.  In the period from 2008 to the present, I don't think I have seen that before, with the possible exception of Michigan State in the Rose Bowl. During this period, we have lost some games, but it never seemed that we were always losing the battle on the OL. Sometimes we did, sometimes we didn't, but it wasn't an exercise in futility. When we lost, it usually "felt like" we beat ourselves.  We may have got a lot of holding penalties, or some lineman would block the wrong guy, but it didn't seem we were just unable to ever dictate the action on the LOS. This year, in these three games, it seemed like we were getting beat on the line basically every time. Now, this is a subjective argument in some sense. We have had "bad" rushing games before. However, these "bad" games seemed to be more mental errors and lack of execution as opposed to physically unable.
In previous years, particularly against teams that were "good", our strategy was to run the ball, wear down the opposing defense, shorten the game, and win a "boring" contest. We can't do that if we can't reliably run the ball, and in 2016, we couldn't reliably run the ball against the teams that beat us. We have lost games against "good" teams who could overcome our strategy by just scoring more than our conservative game plan could, but at least we could execute the game plan. In 2016, we couldn't.
I could also point out that against Washington, our combined "ypc" was 1.0, but that includes sacks, of which there were many. I am also quite aware, as the coaches have stated, that our pass blocking also was very unsatisfactory in 2016. I do however think that there was a big problem with our run blocking, especially given our conservative strategy. I am pretty sure the coaching staff is very aware of that fact, and will not neglect this issue. At least, I hope they don't!
Quote:although McCaffrey is a unique talent, Bryce Love actually had a better yards per carry year.

BC
True, but CMAC averaged 7.1 his Freshman year. Not sure that means much though, as it isn't a big number of touches. BL did have quite a few last year however. He is a talented guy for sure.

Re: Spring practice thread - BostonCard - 03-23-2017

Maybe UW beat us by getting 8 sacks against Burns in 30 dropbacks, a ridiculous sack rate of 27%, and burying us in such a big hole that we only ran McCaffrey 12 times.

But it goes to the main point, which is that the offensive line was dreadful in pass protection, but was ok in run blocking.

Re: Spring practice thread - Goose - 03-23-2017

(03-23-2017, 01:04 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Maybe UW beat us by getting 8 sacks against Burns in 30 dropbacks, a ridiculous sack rate of 27%, and burying us in such a big hole that we only ran McCaffrey 12 times.

But it goes to the main point, which is that the offensive line was dreadful in pass protection, but was ok in run blocking.
Actually, I think this game demonstrated that they were NOT OK in run blocking. We got down big early, which did influence the play calling. But a "normal" Stanford approach to having two important defensive backs hurt would be to keep the ball away from Washington, dominate the time of possession, run, run, and run some more. We wouldn't even attempt to get into a shoot-out with them, because we aren't built for it. We would try and keep it close so we could win it in the end. I have seen us do that against Oregon for years. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In the Washington game, we couldn't get first downs, so we couldn't keep the ball. Burns was passing in the first quarter not because we were so far behind (yet), but because it was third and 8. If CMAC was making 4 yards per carry reliably, we wouldn't have been passing. We would have also scored more than 6 points in the game. No way was that an acceptable OL performance on either pass blocking OR run blocking. Washington controlled the tempo, not us.
Perhaps it is a relative thing, that the run blocking was better than the pass blocking. However, even that would be damning with faint praise. I hate to quote a now-departed Cal coach, but sometimes you do need to be able to run the ball when everyone in the building knows you are going to run the ball. For Stanford, that has been on most downs. Normally, we can, at least most of the time, and even against "good" teams. This year, we couldn't. I don't think anybody would suggest we didn't have talented backs. What does that leave?

Re: Spring practice thread - CTcard - 03-23-2017

(03-23-2017, 03:02 PM)Goose link Wrote:Actually, I think this game demonstrated that they were NOT OK in run blocking. We got down big early, which did influence the play calling. But a "normal" Stanford approach to having two important defensive backs hurt would be to keep the ball away from Washington, dominate the time of possession, run, run, and run some more. 
...
I hate to quote a now-departed ןɐɔ coach, but sometimes you do need to be able to run the ball when everyone in the building knows you are going to run the ball. For Stanford, that has been on most downs. Normally, we can, at least most of the time, and even against "good" teams. This year, we couldn't. I don't think anybody would suggest we didn't have talented backs. What does that leave?

While that has been the standard theme in describing Stanford's offense in recent years, using that idea in such a blanket fashion obscures how Stanford has controlled the ball. What Stanford actually has usually done is run on first and second downs to where we have a manageable third down, and then convert by some kind of play from the quarterback. [Though that is somewhat simplified. In fact Stanford has run very heavily on first down, but has a reasonably strong tendency to pass on second down and run if possible on third down. That sequence is similar, and also collapses with a sack on second down.]

The problem vs many teams last year was that the formula was more like run on first and second downs to create a manageable third down and then get sacked.

So, McCaffrey (while injured) averaged 4.08 yds/carry vs UW and 4.38 vs WSU. But in neither game did he have nearly enough carries (12 and 8). That was partly because we fell behind and started passing, partly because McCaffrey was injured and wasn't the guy we really know, and partly because we couldn't convert on third downs to keep drives alive so we simply didn't run many plays - especially while the game was still undecided.

In 2015, McCaffrey averaged 3.48 yds/carry vs und, 2.9 yds/carry vs UCF, 4.42 yds/carry vs $C. Those range from worse to about the same as his bad games in 2016. However, we won the three games listed because that was good enough running to complement that pass game - and in fact those were some of our better passing games as those teams were selling out to stop the run.

It is also worth remembering that we basically did not have a healthy running back in our three worst running games in 2016: vs UW, WSU, and Colorado. The run game struggled those games. That was important and contributed to the losses and was indeed partially due to the OL's substandard performance. But, that happens over the course of a season - and against good defenses; and given the health situation was not completely due to the OL.

Another interesting data point is the $C game. That was probably the last time over the first half of the season that the team was reasonably healthy. $C was the third best run defense in the Pac 12, second best we faced (in the Pac 12 - KSU was a better run defense overall). We rolled over those guys. 302 yards rushing, 6.29 yds/carry. That was awfully good; almost certainly the team's best performance of the year. No complaints about the run game there.

Where I think you are correct is that it is rather artificial to talk about the run game and the pass game as two completely different things. Each support the other. You cannot really be competent if you fail completely on one.Â