The CardBoard
It's official: Pritchard - 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: It's official: Pritchard (/thread-15262.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Re: It's official: Pritchard - washingtonismoney - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 07:52 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Well, in 2015 you certainly can't blame the defense for the NW loss.
Also, although the defense definitely had some problems with the Ducks, the offense had chances to win the game for us in the 4th quarter and couldn't get it done.
A win in either of those might have put us in the playoffs.

"Some" problems is understating it...some. The defense gave up 9.08 yards per play against the Ducks that day, the worst performance by that metric between 2008 and the present.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - washingtonismoney - 12-21-2017

It's a bit weird for me to assert Shaw's "DNA" precludes him from going to the playoffs. Had the playoffs been around since the beginning of his tenure, his 2011, '12, and '13 teams all would've had credible arguments to get in. And an additional clean QB/center exchange puts him in position to gain a '15 bid to the playoffs. So he's had four playoff-caliber teams during his tenure. Eventually, if you keep on knocking on the door, someone opens it. Once upon a time Tom Osborne and Bobby Bowden couldn't win the big one.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - lex24 - 12-21-2017

I didn’t see you assert that. I deleted my prior comment.


(12-21-2017, 09:05 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:It's a bit weird for me to assert Shaw's "DNA" precludes him from going to the playoffs. Had the playoffs been around since the beginning of his tenure, his 2011, '12, and '13 teams all would've had credible arguments to get in. And an additional clean QB/center exchange puts him in position to gain a '15 bid to the playoffs. So he's had four playoff-caliber teams during his tenure. Eventually, if you keep on knocking on the door, someone opens it. Once upon a time Tom Osborne and Bobby Bowden couldn't win the big one.
:)

Re: It's official: Pritchard - Hulk01 - 12-21-2017

In their last four full recruiting classes (2014-17), Alabama has signed 69 four or five star players.  Ohio State (64), USC (62), and Florida State (62) trail just behind.

Stanford has signed 33. 

We're playing a different game from the big four.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - washingtonismoney - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 09:12 AM)lex24 link Wrote:I didn’t see you assert that. I deleted my prior comment.

I wasn't directing my comment at you, was directing it at phxfan! Should've quoted. No need to delete.

Speaking generally, and trying not to be overly mean, one thing I notice about the Shaw pessimists is... a curious lack of desire to adjust their predictions in light of new evidence. I think teejers has been predicting doom for Stanford from a fan attendance and on-the-field perspective continuously since 2012, which has...yet to occur. Not to single him out, as there are a lot of people who take this tack, and I never see any acknowledgement that Shaw continues to better their low expectations for him.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - lex24 - 12-21-2017

Yep. Always have always will. Which is why I am such a fan of the power running oriented game and philosophy that they have. It works very well given the limitations in recruiting Stanford has







(12-21-2017, 09:14 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:In their last four full recruiting classes (2014-17), Alabama has signed 69 four or five star players.  Ohio State (64), U$C (62), and Florida State (62) trail just behind.

Stanford has signed 33. 

We're playing a different game from the big four.


Re: It's official: Pritchard - Mick - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 09:14 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:In their last four full recruiting classes (2014-17), Alabama has signed 69 four or five star players.  Ohio State (64), U$C (62), and Florida State (62) trail just behind.

Stanford has signed 33. 

We're playing a different game from the big four.

One of my employees is frustrated with the head of a major practice group.  He wants to win an award that is driven solely by popularity, by voting.  Here was his instructions to her:  "We'd better win this award.  I want to finish in the top three.  And no one is allowed to contact any of our clients to ask them for voting help.  Don't screw it up."

That's what we're asking Shaw to do.  Get tons and tons of 4* and 5* talent -- but only talent that can get into Stanford.  And he does a ridiculously good job of it.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - teejers1 - 12-21-2017

When you have 11-2 talent and go 9-4, then you can have "good" or even "very good" years . . . and still underperform.  THAT is what I've been consistently arguing over the years.

I think a fair criticism of my critique is that it overemphasizes offensive performance on game day, when so many other things go into being a great head coach.  I try to include this point in various posts - as Shaw does a GREAT job in 90% of head coaching duties.  And that has resulted in a very good tenure to date.

It's just . . . well, no need to repeat it for the hundredth time.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - Langdude - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 10:52 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:When you have 11-2 talent and go 9-4, then you can have "good" or even "very good" years . . . and still underperform.  THAT is what I've been consistently arguing over the years.

I think a fair criticism of my critique is that it overemphasizes offensive performance on game day, when so many other things go into being a great head coach.  I try to include this point in various posts - as Shaw does a GREAT job in 90% of head coaching duties.  And that has resulted in a very good tenure to date.

It's just . . . well, no need to repeat it for the hundredth time.

Fair enough. Makes sense.

-m.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - Hulk01 - 12-21-2017


Last eight complete recruiting classes
USC:  21 five stars, 98 four stars: 119 total
Notre Dame: 9 five stars, 83 hour stars: 92 total
UCLA: 8 five stars, 80 fouir stars: 88 total
Oregon: 4 five stars, 63 four stars: 68 total
Stanford: 8 five stars, 54 four stars: 62 total

Over that same period, our W-L record
vs, USC: 6-4
vs, Notre Dame: 6-2
vs. UCLA: 9-0
vs. Oregon, 5-3
26 wins, ten losses. 

If we've had 11-2 talent, we need to stop scheduling all these 13-0 teams.


Re: It's official: Pritchard - PAsportsfan - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 09:14 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:In their last four full recruiting classes (2014-17), Alabama has signed 69 four or five star players.  Ohio State (64), U$C (62), and Florida State (62) trail just behind.

Stanford has signed 33. 

We're playing a different game from the big four.

That is good research.

What would Harbaugh say about that? 

He'd say "sounds like an excuse, Fcuk that nonsense!"

I would like to see advancement in Stanford football
, not the same status quo. It's within reach, just need to get out of the comfort zone.



Re: It's official: Pritchard - BostonCard - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 10:52 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:When you have 11-2 talent and go 9-4, then you can have "good" or even "very good" years . . . and still underperform.  THAT is what I've been consistently arguing over the years.

I think a fair criticism of my critique is that it overemphasizes offensive performance on game day, when so many other things go into being a great head coach.  I try to include this point in various posts - as Shaw does a GREAT job in 90% of head coaching duties.  And that has resulted in a very good tenure to date.

It's just . . . well, no need to repeat it for the hundredth time.

I like our talent as much as the next guy, but there are only 7 Power 5 teams that went 11-2 or better (plus a number that went 10-2): Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and USC.  There are of course flaws with recruiting rankings, but as a general proxy for average talent on the squad, it's not a bad approximation of reasonable expectations.  I took the recruiting rankings from 2013 - 2016 and averaged them: Alabama had the top recruiting class every year. Ohio State was not far behind, it averaged the 4th best recruiting class over that period.  Georgia averaged 8th and USC averaged 9th.  Clemson averaged a 12; Oklahoma averaged 16.  Stanford averaged 26.  Of the 7 teams that went 11-2 or better, only Wisconsin averaged a lower recruiting ranking (37), and their record was substantially aided by their division in the B1G; I doubt they go 12-1 against the teams we played.

Nor is their evidence of talent on the team disproportionate to its ranking.  We had 5 first team all-conference players, and 2 second teamers.  USC had 7 first teamers and 4 on the second team.  Washington had 5 on the first team and 6 on the second team.

We had a unique talent on the team in Bryce Love, and we have one of the best offensive lines in the Pac-12, albeit one anchored by a true freshman left tackle, and a line that dealt with an unusual instability and moving around due to injuries.  Costello I suspect will be a great quarterback, but even if he had played all year, he is still a redshirt freshman and wound up the 7th highest rated QB in the Pac-12 by PER (8th by yards per attempt, and 9th by completion percentage).  I like our receivers, but we do lack a guy with game-breaking speed; our best, JJ Arcega-Whiteside was merely an Honorable Mention.  Tight ends, on the other hand, are probably the best in the conference as a group, if not the country as a whole.  Here's how I'd assign the offensive talent (in terms of expected record):
RB 13-0
QB 7-6 (for Costello), 4-9 (for Chryst); that will rise as Costello gets more experience, but hard to put it much higher for this year
OL 10-3
WR 7-6
TE 12-1

Thus, I think the offense performed commensurate with its talent.  Where I think you might have a case is on the defensive side of the ball, where I think the defense overall somewhat underperformed its talent, especially at the linebacker position and in the secondary.  Some of that can be attributed to key injuries at MLB (which necessitated playing an undertalented player) and DB, and I think some of that is that if the defensive line can be beaten, it puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the defense (linebackers might cheat up to try and help on the run, making them susceptible to passes over the middle as we saw against ND and USC; defensive backs can only cover someone for so long before eventually someone, somewhere gets open) but I think some of it was just underperformance.  But you've usually focused your ire on the offense.

BC

Re: It's official: Pritchard - BostonCard - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 10:52 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:When you have 11-2 talent and go 9-4, then you can have "good" or even "very good" years . . . and still underperform.  THAT is what I've been consistently arguing over the years.

I think a fair criticism of my critique is that it overemphasizes offensive performance on game day, when so many other things go into being a great head coach.  I try to include this point in various posts - as Shaw does a GREAT job in 90% of head coaching duties.  And that has resulted in a very good tenure to date.

It's just . . . well, no need to repeat it for the hundredth time.

I like our talent as much as the next guy, but there are only 7 Power 5 teams that went 11-2 or better (plus a number that went 10-2): Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and USC.  There are of course flaws with recruiting rankings, but as a general proxy for average talent on the squad, it's not a bad approximation of reasonable expectations.  I took the recruiting rankings from 2013 - 2016 and averaged them: Alabama had the top recruiting class every year. Ohio State was not far behind, it averaged the 4th best recruiting class over that period.  Georgia averaged 8th and USC averaged 9th.  Clemson averaged a 12; Oklahoma averaged 16.  Stanford averaged 26.  Of the 7 teams that went 11-2 or better, only Wisconsin averaged a lower recruiting ranking (37), and their record was substantially aided by their division in the B1G; I doubt they go 12-1 against the teams we played.

Nor is their evidence of talent on the team disproportionate to its ranking.  We had 5 first team all-conference players, and 2 second teamers.  USC had 7 first teamers and 4 on the second team.  Washington had 5 on the first team and 6 on the second team.

We had a unique talent on the team in Bryce Love, and we have one of the best offensive lines in the Pac-12, albeit one anchored by a true freshman left tackle, and a line that dealt with an unusual instability and moving around due to injuries.  Costello I suspect will be a great quarterback, but even if he had played all year, he is still a redshirt freshman and wound up the 7th highest rated QB in the Pac-12 by PER (8th by yards per attempt, and 9th by completion percentage).  I like our receivers, but we do lack a guy with game-breaking speed; our best, JJ Arcega-Whiteside was merely an Honorable Mention.  Tight ends, on the other hand, are probably the best in the conference as a group, if not the country as a whole.  Here's how I'd assign the offensive talent (in terms of expected record):
RB 13-0
QB 7-6 (for Costello), 4-9 (for Chryst); that will rise as Costello gets more experience, but hard to put it much higher for this year
OL 10-3
WR 7-6
TE 12-1

Thus, I think the offense performed commensurate with its talent.  Where I think you might have a case is on the defensive side of the ball, where I think the defense overall somewhat underperformed its talent, especially at the linebacker position and in the secondary.  Some of that can be attributed to key injuries at MLB (which necessitated playing an undertalented player) and DB, and I think some of that is that if the defensive line can be beaten, it puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the defense (linebackers might cheat up to try and help on the run, making them susceptible to passes over the middle as we saw against ND and USC; defensive backs can only cover someone for so long before eventually someone, somewhere gets open) but I think some of it was just underperformance.  But you've usually focused your ire on the offense.

BC

Re: It's official: Pritchard - JohnR34231 - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 08:52 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18390.msg218818#msg218818 date=1513867946]Well, in 2015 you certainly can't blame the defense for the NW loss.
Also, although the defense definitely had some problems with the Ducks, the offense had chances to win the game for us in the 4th quarter and couldn't get it done.
A win in either of those might have put us in the playoffs.

"Some" problems is understating it...some. The defense gave up 9.08 yards per play against the Ducks that day, the worst performance by that metric between 2008 and the present.
[/quote]

True, but they did stiffen in the fourth quarter and gave the offense a chance to win the game.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - JohnR34231 - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 08:52 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18390.msg218818#msg218818 date=1513867946]Well, in 2015 you certainly can't blame the defense for the NW loss.
Also, although the defense definitely had some problems with the Ducks, the offense had chances to win the game for us in the 4th quarter and couldn't get it done.
A win in either of those might have put us in the playoffs.

"Some" problems is understating it...some. The defense gave up 9.08 yards per play against the Ducks that day, the worst performance by that metric between 2008 and the present.
[/quote]

True, but they did stiffen in the fourth quarter and gave the offense a chance to win the game.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - washingtonismoney - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 12:16 PM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=18390.msg218829#msg218829 date=1513871578]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18390.msg218818#msg218818 date=1513867946]Well, in 2015 you certainly can't blame the defense for the NW loss.
Also, although the defense definitely had some problems with the Ducks, the offense had chances to win the game for us in the 4th quarter and couldn't get it done.
A win in either of those might have put us in the playoffs.

"Some" problems is understating it...some. The defense gave up 9.08 yards per play against the Ducks that day, the worst performance by that metric between 2008 and the present.
[/quote]

True, but they did stiffen in the fourth quarter and gave the offense a chance to win the game.
[/quote]

Sure, though if people were this understanding of the offense’s struggles, posts on various Stanford fan fora would decrease 50%.

I think any fair analysis of most games notes that there’s plenty of blame to go around and then tries to apportion things accordingly. In the 2015 Oregon game, I’m not sure how you escape fixing primary blame on the defense (while still criticizing other units as appropriate).

Re: It's official: Pritchard - washingtonismoney - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 12:16 PM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=18390.msg218829#msg218829 date=1513871578]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18390.msg218818#msg218818 date=1513867946]Well, in 2015 you certainly can't blame the defense for the NW loss.
Also, although the defense definitely had some problems with the Ducks, the offense had chances to win the game for us in the 4th quarter and couldn't get it done.
A win in either of those might have put us in the playoffs.

"Some" problems is understating it...some. The defense gave up 9.08 yards per play against the Ducks that day, the worst performance by that metric between 2008 and the present.
[/quote]

True, but they did stiffen in the fourth quarter and gave the offense a chance to win the game.
[/quote]

Sure, though if people were this understanding of the offense’s struggles, posts on various Stanford fan fora would decrease 50%.

I think any fair analysis of most games notes that there’s plenty of blame to go around and then tries to apportion things accordingly. In the 2015 Oregon game, I’m not sure how you escape fixing primary blame on the defense (while still criticizing other units as appropriate).

Re: It's official: Pritchard - BostonCard - 12-21-2017

I think offensive criticism is just easier for armchair QB's.  There's intrinsically a better understanding of offensive playcalling (e.g. run versus pass, some of the different routes, etc.).  Assessments of the defensive playcalling tend to fall along the lines of "should have blitzed" and "I hate when we only rush three", but rarely even some big things like whether we should be in the base defense or the nickel and whether we are in zone or man-to-man.

BC

Re: It's official: Pritchard - BostonCard - 12-21-2017

I think offensive criticism is just easier for armchair QB's.  There's intrinsically a better understanding of offensive playcalling (e.g. run versus pass, some of the different routes, etc.).  Assessments of the defensive playcalling tend to fall along the lines of "should have blitzed" and "I hate when we only rush three", but rarely even some big things like whether we should be in the base defense or the nickel and whether we are in zone or man-to-man.

BC

Re: It's official: Pritchard - washingtonismoney - 12-21-2017

(12-21-2017, 12:38 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I think offensive criticism is just easier for armchair QB's.  There's intrinsically a better understanding of offensive playcalling (e.g. run versus pass, some of the different routes, etc.).  Assessments of the defensive playcalling tend to fall along the lines of "should have blitzed" and "I hate when we only rush three", but rarely even some big things like whether we should be in the base defense or the nickel and whether we are in zone or man-to-man.

BC

Right, though I think there are some factors peculiar to Stanford that predispose fans to focus on the offense:
1) historically, Stanford has been a better offensive team than defensive one. Therefore fans have higher expectations of the offense.
2) Shaw's selection came over Greg Roman, who many people thought at the time was the superior offensive mind. Combine that with rumors that Jim Harbaugh didn't think much of Shaw's offensive acumen, and you train a lot of people to fixate on the offense.