TreeCast post-Arizona State - 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: TreeCast post-Arizona State (/thread-22397.html)
+- 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: TreeCast post-Arizona State (/thread-22397.html)
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - old spanish trail - 10-11-2021
(10-11-2021, 12:40 PM)gailtate Wrote:(10-11-2021, 12:16 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-11-2021, 11:20 AM)MVDan Wrote: Bryce Farrell, as evidenced against UCLA, could have been the one to stretch the ASU defense. But he was not available for the game but hopefully will be for WSU.
Yeah, I do not consider tossing jump balls to tall WRs to be a "big play" offense.
Farrell does appear to have the footspeed to make the occasional Big Play (and believe he has one this season).
Wilson is missed on this front. While he may not be a 4.4 blazer, he had some wiggle in his routes and got some separation, iirc - something that is sorely lacking now.
P.S. Watched the ASU game. Stanford was handled, but it wasn't as dominating a W by ASU as I was expecting after reading the game threads and box. The biggest difference was that Stanford seemed to struggle for everything it got (tough throws into well-covered receivers that somehow were caught versus more easy/open chunk yards for ASU). But Stanford made numerous plays at or behind the LOS. And ASU's biggest running play was the QB scramble for the first TD, which is off-script.
As for Stanford's punting in ASU territory, only one of those was on the "pretty obviously bad decision" side of the ledger. [The holding penalty was brutal (and took 3 points off the board)]. More generally, I think the offensive brain trust needs to include as a factor avoiding fourth and longs, once you get across midfield. Thus, second and 8 or third and 5 don't have to be passing downs. It's a tough balance, of course, because the #1 goal should be to move the sticks; plus, any decisions need to be informed by how the team is doing on the ground in the game (and for Stanford on Friday night, it was not well). But my main takeaway is that Stanford is an average (at best) team that lost to a better team. I'm not sure if ASU is all that (Daniels was up and down), but they certainly were enough to handle Stanford.
Your "main takeaway" is eminently reasonable. My take: barring any further depletion of the roster this team stands to "reasonably" see another 2-3 wins in a conference that's closer to the Mountain West than the "Power Four".
I'm waiting for Wilson too but agree he is more on the possession side of the ledger. What about Higgins? I'm pretty sure I read he ran a 4. something? Need some go routes for him, methinks.
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - slide - 10-11-2021
(10-11-2021, 01:01 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: I'm waiting for Wilson too but agree he is more on the possession side of the ledger. What about Higgins? I'm pretty sure I read he ran a 4. something? Need some go routes for him, methinks.
without burners at WR, our most consistent big plays are the seam routes up the hashes from Higgins and Yarosek against single high safeties.
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - old spanish trail - 10-11-2021
(10-11-2021, 01:38 PM)slide Wrote:(10-11-2021, 01:01 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: I'm waiting for Wilson too but agree he is more on the possession side of the ledger. What about Higgins? I'm pretty sure I read he ran a 4. something? Need some go routes for him, methinks.
without burners at WR, our most consistent big plays are the seam routes up the hashes from Higgins and Yarosek against single high safeties.
Agree re effectiveness of seam routes, but suggesting MAYBE Higgins is an unused burner.
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - BostonCard - 10-11-2021
(10-11-2021, 12:16 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Yeah, I do not consider tossing jump balls to tall WRs to be a "big play" offense.
Stanford is third in the conference in plays from scrimmage of 20+ yards. We are tied for second in the conference in plays from scrimmage of 50+ yards. We are also the only team in the conference to have a play of longer than 80 yards (but I don't remember what the play was; as I recall, the Peat long run was 75 yards, since it was right after a kick-off).
Considering that we run fewer plays per game than anyone else in the conference bar Colorado, big plays are a disproportionate part of our offense. I think the problem is not the lack of big plays, but the lack of plays good for 5-10 yards, that are important to sustain drives.
BC
PS... thanks to slide for reminding me that I was thinking of the wrong counter to a DB jumping the slant; it would not be a post route, but rather a Go route (what I was actually thinking) or a flag route (what slide suggested).
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - Spiny_Norman - 10-11-2021
(10-11-2021, 03:09 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-11-2021, 12:16 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Yeah, I do not consider tossing jump balls to tall WRs to be a "big play" offense.
Stanford is third in the conference in plays from scrimmage of 20+ yards. We are tied for second in the conference in plays from scrimmage of 50+ yards. We are also the only team in the conference to have a play of longer than 80 yards (but I don't remember what the play was; as I recall, the Peat long run was 75 yards, since it was right after a kick-off).
Considering that we run fewer plays per game than anyone else in the conference bar Colorado, big plays are a disproportionate part of our offense. I think the problem is not the lack of big plays, but the lack of plays good for 5-10 yards, that are important to sustain drives.
BC
PS... thanks to slide for reminding me that I was thinking of the wrong counter to a DB jumping the slant; it would not be a post route, but rather a Go route (what I was actually thinking) or a flag route (what slide suggested).
Troy made this point in his podcast. There were a lot of big plays in the game. But Stanford had trouble sustaining and finishing drives because of the lack of little plays.
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - Phogge - 10-11-2021
Peat's run was 87. ASU turned three yards into five or six. Peat and Jones go down easily.
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - BostonCard - 10-11-2021
(10-11-2021, 04:12 PM)Phogge Wrote: Peat's run was 87. ASU turned three yards into five or six. Peat and Jones go down easily.
That explains why we have 1 play from scrimmage greater than 80 yards (but also, only one greater than 70 yards).
Agree that we could benefit from them being a little more like Stepfan Taylor, let alone Toby Gerhart. Hell, even Bryce Love, was surprisingly tough to bring down for his size. Jones is supposed to be that guy, but he hasn't been.
BC
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - BostonCard - 10-11-2021
(10-11-2021, 12:16 PM)teejers1 Wrote: P.S. Watched the ASU game. Stanford was handled, but it wasn't as dominating a W by ASU as I was expecting after reading the game threads and box. The biggest difference was that Stanford seemed to struggle for everything it got (tough throws into well-covered receivers that somehow were caught versus more easy/open chunk yards for ASU). But Stanford made numerous plays at or behind the LOS. And ASU's biggest running play was the QB scramble for the first TD, which is off-script.
As for Stanford's punting in ASU territory, only one of those was on the "pretty obviously bad decision" side of the ledger. [The holding penalty was brutal (and took 3 points off the board)]. More generally, I think the offensive brain trust needs to include as a factor avoiding fourth and longs, once you get across midfield. Thus, second and 8 or third and 5 don't have to be passing downs. It's a tough balance, of course, because the #1 goal should be to move the sticks; plus, any decisions need to be informed by how the team is doing on the ground in the game (and for Stanford on Friday night, it was not well). But my main takeaway is that Stanford is an average (at best) team that lost to a better team. I'm not sure if ASU is all that (Daniels was up and down), but they certainly were enough to handle Stanford.
I think I was the one who pointed this out in an earlier thread as you were debating whether to watch the game. ASU played a better game than Stanford and deserved to win. We moved the ball some, getting into ASU territory on, I think, 10/11 drives. If you are driven mad by three-and-outs, then what we saw was not too bad. But it was maddening not to be able to go further. While I wasn’t surprised that Shaw didn’t go for it (I have come to accept that), especially after I think it was last week that he went for it on fourth and short, perhaps stung by previous criticism, and didn’t convert. We were in a particularly tough bind after our starting kicker was out of this game, and his back-up suffered maybe the most bizarre injury I’ve ever seen, leaving our punter as the guy kicking field goals. I can understand Shaw’s thinking: the defense is giving up beaucoup yards to ASU, so you want yo give them as long a field as possible to try to stop then. The unfortunate flip side is that the offense is not putting points on the board, and the chance to get something is worth more than the risk of not converting and giving ASU more of a chance.
If you are definitely going for it, it surely makes sense to try to minimize your risk on fourth down by getting some of the yards on third down instead of going for an all or nothing approach. But I don’t think that was shaw’s thinking until late, when he ran a draw on third down to make it fourth and about six, a play that drew contemporaneous criticism by some, but which didn’t bother me for the reasons you noted.
BC
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - Phogge - 10-12-2021
How about the freshman kicker who goes down untouched after an extra point. Sanborn is just fine, not the range of Karty but accurate.
This is a tough team to watch. Can’t run, can’t defend the run. The conference sucks again. If another loss play the young kids. Got to see who is tough. I’m sick of seeing a read and react defense. Time for an aggressive DC.
And I wouldn’t recruit any more QB’s who will possibly go on a mission. They come back for a third year out and must learn the Shaw Bible and regain strength. If they are talented they may go pro starting one year.
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - winflop - 10-13-2021
Great content again Troy, but I think your point about the devil being in the details misses the forest for the trees. The bigger issue is why those details were missed? I think there are some fundamental shortcomings with this team that lead to those details being missed at inopportune times. Most of it ties back to coaching - mainly recruiting and development. This has been a core issue over the last few years and Shaw doesn't seem to recognize it based on the relatively low amount of turnover on his staff. Has he ever fired a coach on his staff? Seems like those who leave do so by their choice, but maybe some of them have been told to go find something else? Curious for any insights you might have on this.
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - BostonCard - 10-13-2021
While I think some changes in the staff would probably be a good thing, I also have a hard time pinning down specifics. Who specifically should go, and why. The most common answer is Pritchard, but I think our defense has been a bigger problem than our offense. And assessing defensive lapses is harder than assessing offensive ones. Positionally, we have had problems recruiting in the defensive line (especially depth), and with our safety plan, though that has gotten better this year (and the same guy has recruited and developed our cornerbacks, who are probably above average for the conference). That change would probably be a net benefit is likely, but nailing down the specific change is harder. I have a nagging worry that this is "we have to do something; firing a coach is something; thus we have to fire a coach".
And of course, there is also the fact that I don't know that Shaw will do it or cares that we want it done.
BC
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - teejers1 - 10-13-2021
(10-13-2021, 07:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: While I think some changes in the staff would probably be a good thing, I also have a hard time pinning down specifics. Who specifically should go, and why. The most common answer is Pritchard, but I think our defense has been a bigger problem than our offense. And assessing defensive lapses is harder than assessing offensive ones. Positionally, we have had problems recruiting in the defensive line (especially depth), and with our safety plan, though that has gotten better this year (and the same guy has recruited and developed our cornerbacks, who are probably above average for the conference). That change would probably be a net benefit is likely, but nailing down the specific change is harder. I have a nagging worry that this is "we have to do something; firing a coach is something; thus we have to fire a coach".
And of course, there is also the fact that I don't know that Shaw will do it or cares that we want it done.
BC
There is no way to evaluate Tavita's abilities as OC, given how much Shaw meddles in/controls the play calling.
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - BostonCard - 10-13-2021
(10-13-2021, 10:28 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-13-2021, 07:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: While I think some changes in the staff would probably be a good thing, I also have a hard time pinning down specifics. Who specifically should go, and why. The most common answer is Pritchard, but I think our defense has been a bigger problem than our offense. And assessing defensive lapses is harder than assessing offensive ones. Positionally, we have had problems recruiting in the defensive line (especially depth), and with our safety plan, though that has gotten better this year (and the same guy has recruited and developed our cornerbacks, who are probably above average for the conference). That change would probably be a net benefit is likely, but nailing down the specific change is harder. I have a nagging worry that this is "we have to do something; firing a coach is something; thus we have to fire a coach".
And of course, there is also the fact that I don't know that Shaw will do it or cares that we want it done.
BC
There is no way to evaluate Tavita's abilities as OC, given how much Shaw meddles in/controls the play calling.
Regardless, the problem the last few years has been more acute in the defensive side of the ball, though this year we are decidedly mediocre in both.
BC
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - JohnR34231 - 10-14-2021
(10-13-2021, 07:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: While I think some changes in the staff would probably be a good thing, I also have a hard time pinning down specifics. Who specifically should go, and why. The most common answer is Pritchard, but I think our defense has been a bigger problem than our offense. And assessing defensive lapses is harder than assessing offensive ones. Positionally, we have had problems recruiting in the defensive line (especially depth), and with our safety plan, though that has gotten better this year (and the same guy has recruited and developed our cornerbacks, who are probably above average for the conference). That change would probably be a net benefit is likely, but nailing down the specific change is harder. I have a nagging worry that this is "we have to do something; firing a coach is something; thus we have to fire a coach".
And of course, there is also the fact that I don't know that Shaw will do it or cares that we want it done.
BC
When my son was at Air Force, Fisher DeBerry had presided over a team that over the years had gone from very good to barely mediocre. He was finally given the ultimatum, replace some of your assistants or retire. He chose to retire.
I wonder if Shaw would do that.
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - winflop - 10-14-2021
(10-13-2021, 07:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: While I think some changes in the staff would probably be a good thing, I also have a hard time pinning down specifics. Who specifically should go, and why. The most common answer is Pritchard, but I think our defense has been a bigger problem than our offense. And assessing defensive lapses is harder than assessing offensive ones. Positionally, we have had problems recruiting in the defensive line (especially depth), and with our safety plan, though that has gotten better this year (and the same guy has recruited and developed our cornerbacks, who are probably above average for the conference). That change would probably be a net benefit is likely, but nailing down the specific change is harder. I have a nagging worry that this is "we have to do something; firing a coach is something; thus we have to fire a coach".
And of course, there is also the fact that I don't know that Shaw will do it or cares that we want it done.
BC
Not gonna belabor Pritchard he's not going anywhere. But Reynolds would be at the top of my "not Pritchard" list. DL has been a problem for multiple years and next year looks to be possibly the worst of all. I'd also think about replacing Gould. The multi-year issues with the running game aren't all an OL problem. An awful lot of talent coming in the door and not much to show for it.
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - CTcard - 10-14-2021
(10-14-2021, 05:54 AM)winflop Wrote: The multi-year issues with the running game aren't all an OL problem. An awful lot of talent coming in the door and not much to show for it.
It looks to me to be about 90% an OL problem.
I sure hope Hefferman improves the situation.
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - BostonCard - 10-14-2021
(10-14-2021, 10:21 AM)CTcard Wrote:(10-14-2021, 05:54 AM)winflop Wrote: The multi-year issues with the running game aren't all an OL problem. An awful lot of talent coming in the door and not much to show for it.
It looks to me to be about 90% an OL problem.
I sure hope Hefferman improves the situation.
Looks to be OL to me as well, but it is hard to know for sure without a detailed film study, especially on the failed plays. Was there a hole that the RB missed, or did the OL fail to make holes. I see mostly the latter, but it is worth noting that we aren't seeing a lot of the running back making something out of nothing. As Phogge, I think, has noted, the running backs are being tackled on first contact, so even though the OL bears a lot of responsibility, the RB's aren't exactly bailing them out.
BC
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - troyc - 10-14-2021
OK, getting caught up....
(10-11-2021, 09:48 AM)Goose Wrote: Except we right now don't so much have the big play part with Wilson out. There are some young guys that maybe could fill those shoes. It is also a matter of QB protection for patterns that take a while. Any thoughts you have there also appreciated.
Seriously Troy, you are a great conduit to the team. You are also not a puppet of anybody, which gives you more credibility. I really like the way you tell it like you think it is without being accusatory in the process. Wish others would master that.
Thank you. That means a lot!
As others have noted on this thread, Wilson's probably more of a chain-mover than an explosive downfield threat like Tremayne & Higgins. Looks like Wilson's on track to be back for UW (as is Humphreys). In the meantime, having Filkins & Farrell probably gives the passing game a bit more speed, quicker pace & legitimate threats for YAC. (three things this offense has sorely missed without E.J., I think) Will we see that reflected in this week's gameplan, especially with Humpreys out?
(10-13-2021, 06:05 PM)winflop Wrote: Great content again Troy, but I think your point about the devil being in the details misses the forest for the trees. The bigger issue is why those details were missed? I think there are some fundamental shortcomings with this team that lead to those details being missed at inopportune times. Most of it ties back to coaching - mainly recruiting and development. This has been a core issue over the last few years and Shaw doesn't seem to recognize it based on the relatively low amount of turnover on his staff. Has he ever fired a coach on his staff? Seems like those who leave do so by their choice, but maybe some of them have been told to go find something else? Curious for any insights you might have on this.
Appreciate you listening as always! We're only halfway through this thing (man that went by fast!), and although this team still has yet to show it can play 60+ minutes in all three phases, the North is still well within reach. Shaw's teams tend to play better as the season goes, so I'm willing to let things play out a bit more before wondering seriously about staff turnover and coaches being shown the door.
(10-11-2021, 09:28 AM)Phogge Wrote: Those who deny history are doomed to repeat it or some such thing...
Living in history is just as non-productive and non-fulfilling as denying it. Not every perceived flaw, fault, and shortcoming of the program today can be traced with a straight line back to a ball Chris Burford dropped against Oregon State in 1959...
Troy C
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - BostonCard - 10-14-2021
(10-14-2021, 01:53 PM)troyc Wrote:(10-11-2021, 09:28 AM)Phogge Wrote: Those who deny history are doomed to repeat it or some such thing...
Living in history is just as non-productive and non-fulfilling as denying it. Not every perceived flaw, fault, and shortcoming of the program today can be traced with a straight line back to a ball Chris Burford dropped against Oregon State in 1959...
Troy C
Right, there is also a legit risk of fighting the last war, so to speak.
BC
RE: TreeCast post-Arizona State - gailtate - 10-14-2021
(10-14-2021, 01:53 PM)troyc Wrote: OK, getting caught up....
(10-11-2021, 09:48 AM)Goose Wrote: Except we right now don't so much have the big play part with Wilson out. There are some young guys that maybe could fill those shoes. It is also a matter of QB protection for patterns that take a while. Any thoughts you have there also appreciated.
Seriously Troy, you are a great conduit to the team. You are also not a puppet of anybody, which gives you more credibility. I really like the way you tell it like you think it is without being accusatory in the process. Wish others would master that.
Thank you. That means a lot!
As others have noted on this thread, Wilson's probably more of a chain-mover than an explosive downfield threat like Tremayne & Higgins. Looks like Wilson's on track to be back for UW (as is Humphreys). In the meantime, having Filkins & Farrell probably gives the passing game a bit more speed, quicker pace & legitimate threats for YAC. (three things this offense has sorely missed without E.J., I think) Will we see that reflected in this week's gameplan, especially with Humpreys out?
(10-13-2021, 06:05 PM)winflop Wrote: Great content again Troy, but I think your point about the devil being in the details misses the forest for the trees. The bigger issue is why those details were missed? I think there are some fundamental shortcomings with this team that lead to those details being missed at inopportune times. Most of it ties back to coaching - mainly recruiting and development. This has been a core issue over the last few years and Shaw doesn't seem to recognize it based on the relatively low amount of turnover on his staff. Has he ever fired a coach on his staff? Seems like those who leave do so by their choice, but maybe some of them have been told to go find something else? Curious for any insights you might have on this.
Appreciate you listening as always! We're only halfway through this thing (man that went by fast!), and although this team still has yet to show it can play 60+ minutes in all three phases, the North is still well within reach. Shaw's teams tend to play better as the season goes, so I'm willing to let things play out a bit more before wondering seriously about staff turnover and coaches being shown the door.
(10-11-2021, 09:28 AM)Phogge Wrote: Those who deny history are doomed to repeat it or some such thing...
Living in history is just as non-productive and non-fulfilling as denying it. Not every perceived flaw, fault, and shortcoming of the program today can be traced with a straight line back to a ball Chris Burford dropped against Oregon State in 1959...
Troy C
I trace it with a straight line back to Shane Turley's departure from exclusive focus on football S&C. Oh, and a blase attitude towards recruiting
for too long.