The CardBoard
Shaw's Mood - 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: Shaw's Mood (/thread-14286.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Re: Shaw's Mood - Goose - 09-17-2017

(09-17-2017, 03:42 PM)Sea Loon link Wrote:I think poor decision making, even more than poor execution, is the quickest path to Shaw's doghouse.
The quickest way to Shaw's doghouse for QBs is for sure turnovers, particularly fumbles. As Mr. Burns about that.

Re: Shaw's Mood - OutsiderFan - 09-17-2017

Since I was fortunate enough to have not seen any of the game, can someone explain what this OL overhaul was?  Who played what positions?

Re: Shaw's Mood - BostonCard - 09-17-2017

(09-17-2017, 04:06 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Since I was fortunate enough to have not seen any of the game, can someone explain what this OL overhaul was?  Who played what positions?

Little started at left tackle and Bright moved to left guard.  It was not a panacea.

BC

Re: Shaw's Mood - OutsiderFan - 09-17-2017

AYFKM? 

I thought Sarell was the second option at LT and Little was the 2nd or 3rd option at RT?  Herbig was moved to RG?
This just confirms what my belief was all along, that Little should have been the starting LT for Rice from the jump.

Did Sarell get moved to RT?  Who started at RT?

There are so many issues with Stanford's offense, but let's stick to the OL here, and try to play devil's advocate for why this OL shakeup isn't necessarily all bad or ill conceived...

The objective is to play the five best OL you have.  It seems clear we know who 4/5 of them are:

- Herbig
- Bright
- Burkett
- Little

It seems the real issue is finding #5 among Tucker, Fanaika, Wilson, Hamilton, Sarell.  That's a ridiculous number from which to choose.  You're basically trying to figure out who your best RT or RG is, and they honestly can't figure out either. 

I think they went into the USC game thinking to go with veterans and see if that would work.  After watching the tape they determined they needed to get better.  So what better time to experiment than with a non conference opponent?  I'm going to guess that if they went with the same OL as USC Stanford probably wins, but does that group give them the best chance to beat UCLA?

Shaw and everyone else is shocked at how bad Chryst was.  Stanford had gone 6 games without turning the ball overs and if they even had just one, they still win despite's the Chyst struggles. So it's a little bit of an accident kind of situation. 

I'd keep on starting Little at LT.  He's the best option Stanford has.  I just don't know why the coaches couldn't roll the dice on him in game 1 if they could in game 3.

Re: Shaw's Mood - BostonCard - 09-17-2017

(09-17-2017, 04:43 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:AYFKM? 

I thought Sarell was the second option at LT and Little was the 2nd or 3rd option at RT?  Herbig was moved to RG?
This just confirms what my belief was all along, that Little should have been the starting LT for Rice from the jump.

Did Sarell get moved to RT?  Who started at RT?

There are so many issues with Stanford's offense, but let's stick to the OL here, and try to play devil's advocate for why this OL shakeup isn't necessarily all bad or ill conceived...

The objective is to play the five best OL you have.  It seems clear we know who 4/5 of them are:

- Herbig
- Bright
- Burkett
- Little

It seems the real issue is finding #5 among Tucker, Fanaika, Wilson, Hamilton, Sarell.  That's a ridiculous number from which to choose.  You're basically trying to figure out who your best RT or RG is, and they honestly can't figure out either. 

I think they went into the U$C game thinking to go with veterans and see if that would work.  After watching the tape they determined they needed to get better.  So what better time to experiment than with a non conference opponent?  I'm going to guess that if they went with the same OL as U$C Stanford probably wins, but does that group give them the best chance to 59er UCLA?

Shaw and everyone else is shocked at how bad Chryst was.  Stanford had gone 6 games without turning the ball overs and if they even had just one, they still win despite's the Chyst struggles. So it's a little bit of an accident kind of situation. 

I'd keep on starting Little at LT.  He's the best option Stanford has.  I just don't know why the coaches couldn't roll the dice on him in game 1 if they could in game 3.

I saw nothing yesterday that convinced me that Little was the answer at left tackle.  Maybe he is, and with a bit of experience he will surpass our other tackles.  But the offensive line struggled yesterday along with the rest of the offense, and unlike week 2 where you say that USC has a very talented defensive line, we should have overmatched San Diego State's defensive line, and didn't.

I should clarify that I am not against the move... I just don't see him as clearly better at this time.

BC

Re: Shaw's Mood - qwerty49 - 09-17-2017

(09-17-2017, 04:08 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17393.msg201245#msg201245 date=1505689566]
Since I was fortunate enough to have not seen any of the game, can someone explain what this OL overhaul was?  Who played what positions?

Little started at left tackle and Bright moved to left guard.  It was not a panacea.

BC
[/quote]

AND Herbig moved from LG to RG.  That was significant because it meant 3 guys were at new positions.  Little was last seen at RT, Bright at LT and Herbig at LG.  Herbig gave up a sack very early at the new position and rolled his ankle in the process.  Hamilton played a while at LT later in the game and I seem to remember Bright had a false start....so the "gelling" is certainly a work in progress.

Shaw indicated on his live Facebook interview today that he would stick with this starting combination for the time being.



Re: Shaw's Mood - OutsiderFan - 09-18-2017

The whole offense has major issues, as is obvious to all who have eyes and see the games.  But someone needs to pay the price and be held accountable for this OL disaster.

If I read this correctly, here are all the guys who have played with the first team offense through three games:

RT: Hamilton, Little, Hall
RG: Fanaika, Wilson, Herbig (and Tucker well could have been here or RT too)
C: Burkett (I think Chaffin has had some reps with first unit, but not certain)
LG: Herbig, Bright
LT: Bright, Sarell, Little, Hamilton

This is coaching malpractice.  Bright has played three positions, and not because of injury!  They had all of Spring and what, 22 practices in August, plus the Rice game if you want to be real, to figure out this OL.  There's been at least half a dozen first unit combinations through 3 games.  Never seen anything like this in all of my years watching football.  No wonder the offense was terrible against SDSU.  Hell, Chryst might have been so bad in part because he didn't trust his OL or know what to expect from it.

The indecisiveness and impatience about who should play where is clearly evident.  Make some decisions and stick to them.  Is Casey Tucker a Guard or a Tackle?  Is Dave Bright a Guard or a Tackle.  Is Sarell a LT or a RT.  Is Little a RT or LT.  Is Hamilton a Tackle or a Guard?  Who are the seven best OL you have?  Identify them, give them positions and coach them up to play those positions.  This is what every other program does.  Why is figuring out who should play where on Stanford's OL coming off like trying to invent cold fusion?


Re: Shaw's Mood - Hulk01 - 09-18-2017

With two uniquely gifted freshman offensive linemen, "choosing your best five OLs and sticking with them" isn't a good strategy.  In August, Little was our best pass blocker, on a team where pass blocking had been a fatal weakness.  He had to be worked into the starting offensive line.  But Bright was the only fairly reliable alternative at left tackle, so he had to play there until Little was ready. 

Tucker is not an alternative this season, at any position, at last notice.  Hall isn't either. We've seen that.

Sarell is Walker Little without the same preparation.  Little spent over a year going against the nation's number of DL recruit, Marvin Wilson, in practice every day; they played on the same Texas hs team.  Sarell never faced a real match up playing in Washington state.  But he's going to be truly special. 





Re: Shaw's Mood - OutsiderFan - 09-18-2017

Every player has some deficiencies.  It's up to coaching staffs to design schemes that allow the most talented players to play as fast as possible, and to put all players in position to succeed, based on what they do well, not force them to do things they can't do.

If Little is the best pass blocker on the team, he should have started at LT form day one.  And, if he wasn't quite as good in the run game, they should have A) been passing more and B) running more out of passing sets.  If Little isn't going to be great in Power schemes that put 7 OL on the field, don't run those schemes. 

Hulk, there are so many problems with the Stanford offense that this OL situation is the tip of the ice berg.  At what point do you look to the coaching staff and say they really need to be criticized?  Stanford is turning into Florida and LSU.  It's turning into Cal under Tedford.  The patterns are the same:

1. Drop-off in QB play
2. Good WRs having little impact
3. OL no longer dominating with run game on consistent basis; it's all or nothing
4. Offense no longer scoring points against good or even not that good defenses

There are serious problems with the offense and David Shaw is in charge of it.  The OL is a disaster and the coaches are grasping at straws, as indicated by their own actions to shuffle the OL constantly.  The QB play is awful.  The WRs and TEs are having little impact on the game, and runs are big or nothing.  The route concepts lack imagination and are relatively easy to defend.

IOW, this isn't an OL issue as much as a who is in charge of the offense issue.  You can look at any defensive shortcomings and attribute them to the difficulty of recruiting difference-making DL.  But there is no such excuse for the offense, littered with 4 and 5 star talent across the board.


Re: Shaw's Mood - washingtonismoney - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 06:40 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:If Little is the best pass blocker on the team, he should have started at LT form day one.  ...

This is an excellent point. If there's a MAJOR decision you're making on game three, then you really should've been making it game one of the season.

Re: Shaw's Mood - Goose - 09-18-2017

Outsider Fan, you need to take a breath. Consider what you are saying. We should re-organize the entire offense so that Little can play, and put him in a position to succeed. And we should pass more! But wait, if we do that, we aren't maximizing Loves potential. How about the effect on the third string tailback? That argument is quite flawed on it's face, I think. The coaches are trying to field the best TEAM. The team is composed of many guys with both strengths and weaknesses. It is not obvious which (non-linear) combination of these strengths is optimal over one game. let alone the entire season. That is one reason (of many) that coaching is hard.
I agree that the coaches should be "held accountable". They are held accountable much more than most professions, both for things they could have fixed and for things that are totally outside their control. I think they would be the first to agree that they don't know why this OL isn't performing as it appears, on paper, it should. First, we blame the coaches for being too rigid. Then, we blame them for making too many changes. I think there is lots of concern in the program right now. I don't know the answers, but I would expect it isn't so simple as making life easier for one member of the OL.

Re: Shaw's Mood - Goose - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 07:02 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17393.msg201309#msg201309 date=1505742025]
If Little is the best pass blocker on the team, he should have started at LT form day one.  ...

This is an excellent point. If there's a MAJOR decision you're making on game three, then you really should've been making it game one of the season.
[/quote]
And, more importantly, we should have attacked Japan before Perl Harbor. It would appear you are saying we should make all important decisions (correctly, naturally) before the season starts and ignore what happens during the season. I doubt you meant that. It would be nice if that were possible, but maybe it isn't?

Re: Shaw's Mood - OutsiderFan - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 07:06 AM)Goose link Wrote:Outsider Fan, you need to take a breath. Consider what you are saying. We should re-organize the entire offense so that Little can play, and put him in a position to succeed. And we should pass more! But wait, if we do that, we aren't maximizing Loves potential. How about the effect on the third string tailback? That argument is quite flawed on it's face, I think. The coaches are trying to field the best TEAM. The team is composed of many guys with both strengths and weaknesses. It is not obvious which (non-linear) combination of these strengths is optimal over one game. let alone the entire season. That is one reason (of many) that coaching is hard.
I agree that the coaches should be "held accountable". They are held accountable much more than most professions, both for things they could have fixed and for things that are totally outside their control. I think they would be the first to agree that they don't know why this OL isn't performing as it appears, on paper, it should. First, we blame the coaches for being too rigid. Then, we blame them for making too many changes. I think there is lots of concern in the program right now. I don't know the answers, but I would expect it isn't so simple as making life easier for one member of the OL.

No.  The coaches should employ schemes that allow the best players to succeed, based on what they can do well, not force the players to fit preferred schemes.  I used Little as an example, but the same should apply to everyone.

Re: Shaw's Mood - washingtonismoney - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 07:13 AM)Goose link Wrote:And, more importantly, we should have attacked Japan before Perl Harbor. It would appear you are saying we should make all important decisions (correctly, naturally) before the season starts and ignore what happens during the season. I doubt you meant that. It would be nice if that were possible, but maybe it isn't?

No, I'm making a much different point. Before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, there was no casus belli to make war with Japan for the United States. Hence the actual event of Pearl Harbor changed everything about the U.S.'s position in the world.

Player performance -- and what level of performance justifies a change -- is much subtler. As we know there are issues of assessment (do we have a sufficient sample size to judge whether a given player is good? will a player improve? what do we know about his replacement, etc.).

So the question is: "what level of information is sufficient to know it's worth switching?" What my comment is suggesting is that it takes a great deal of valuable information to justify a switch. Since that's the case, if it's worth making the switch in game 3, it was probably also worth making the switch before the season began.

That's not always the case. For example, a serious injury would automatically justify a switch. A truly horrendous performance might also justify the switch. But that wasn't the case; we'd seen one game with reasonably effective performance, albeit against weak opposition, and one game in which the offensive line seemingly performed poorly. But even then there was a great deal of uncertainty: was it just an SC thing? (SC really got after Texas, so ... maybe?)  was it something distinctive about the scheme or matchup that made the offensive line (seemingly) ineffective? (SC seemed devoted to crowding the line and blitzing relentlessly. If you bring tons of rushers the line won't inherently look good. But theoretically you can bust that defense with big plays -- which is more-or-less what Stanford was able to do against SC.) And so on.

So it wasn't, at least for outside observers, conclusive at all. Of course coaches have access to information we don't. That means, often, we should give the benefit of the doubt, particularly if coaches have strong track records. But we shouldn't always give that benefit of the doubt. Sometimes coaches with strong track records do stuff like, "bring in a QB specifically to serve as a backside blocker of a play." Then you question them. That's what makes a remark like mine sensible. Which I think it is, even if it isn't strictly speaking right.

Re: Shaw's Mood - Stymie - 09-18-2017

I thought the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-xgd_eETE

Re: Shaw's Mood - needle - 09-18-2017

Does anyone know if A.T. Hall was injured, or if he was under some sort of suspension?

I want to know if my hopes for improved tackle play include seeing what a healthier Hall can do.

As for Tucker, is the issue basically he's transferring and the coaches have some sort of agreement with him that he's not going to play?



Re: Shaw's Mood - Goose - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 07:48 AM)Stymie link Wrote:I thought the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-xgd_eETE
They were going to, but the Luftwaffe labor costs were too high. The decided to offshore the job.

Re: Shaw's Mood - Goose - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 07:33 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:So the question is: "what level of information is sufficient to know it's worth switching?" What my comment is suggesting is that it takes a great deal of valuable information to justify a switch. Since that's the case, if it's worth making the switch in game 3, it was probably also worth making the switch before the season began.
I don't agree with this conclusion. Performance in a game and performance on the practice field often differ substantially. Some guys play perfectly in practice and then make lots of mistakes in real games. Both we and the coaches see the game mistakes, but the coaches may know that represents unexpected failure and we do not. It may be a "substantial" change to them. Also, there are error bars, often big ones, associated with decisions about who plays where and when. It is partially "gut feel" in many close competitions. Little things can change the balance.
Quote:So it wasn't, at least for outside observers, conclusive at all. Of course coaches have access to information we don't. That means, often, we should give the benefit of the doubt, particularly if coaches have strong track records. But we shouldn't always give that benefit of the doubt. Sometimes coaches with strong track records do stuff like, "bring in a QB specifically to serve as a backside blocker of a play." Then you question them. That's what makes a remark like mine sensible. Which I think it is, even if it isn't strictly speaking right.
I think it is sensible to ask "Why did you make the change?". You may not get an answer that satisfies your desire to know, but it is for sure fine to raise the question. I don't think it is sensible to ask "Why didn't you do this earlier?", because the only possible answer is "I previously thought differently, but now I think  this is what should be done."

Re: Shaw's Mood - washingtonismoney - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 10:41 AM)Goose link Wrote:I think it is sensible to ask "Why did you make the change?". You may not get an answer that satisfies your desire to know, but it is for sure fine to raise the question. I don't think it is sensible to ask "Why didn't you do this earlier?", because the only possible answer is "I previously thought differently, but now I think  this is what should be done."

Right. But what I'm saying is that in a brobdingnagian percentage of scenarios, the level of evidence is insufficient to convince you of the switch. If the level of evidence was sufficient, chances are more likely that you screwed up the initial decision rather than becoming better informed. Now, better to correct an error than persist in it -- but it's still an error. If Little was the right guy for game 3 he was, in all probability, the right guy in game 1.

Re: Shaw's Mood - BostonCard - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 10:54 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=17393.msg201344#msg201344 date=1505756485]
I think it is sensible to ask "Why did you make the change?". You may not get an answer that satisfies your desire to know, but it is for sure fine to raise the question. I don't think it is sensible to ask "Why didn't you do this earlier?", because the only possible answer is "I previously thought differently, but now I think  this is what should be done."

Right. But what I'm saying is that in a of exceedingly large proportions percentage of scenarios, the level of evidence is insufficient to convince you of the switch. If the level of evidence was sufficient, chances are more likely that you screwed up the initial decision rather than becoming better informed. Now, better to correct an error than persist in it -- but it's still an error. If Little was the right guy for game 3 he was, in all probability, the right guy in game 1.
[/quote]

I generally do agree with you, but I would say that the one situation where you might not have a ton of evidence early in the season is with a true freshman.  Maybe you know that the true freshman is a talented player, but you are not convinced he will immediately adapt to the college game, so you watch him closely a couple of series in your first two games, reach the conclusion that he is as good as advertised, and start him the next game.

That being said, I didn't see anything Saturday that would lead me to believe that the offensive line with Little at LT, Bright at LG, and Hebrig at RG is better than the one with Bright at LT, Hebrig at LG, and Fanaika at RG.  They looked, as a unit, arguably worse than the line did against USC, against what is probably a weaker defensive line than USC's.  I also am not sure that moving three guys around was the answer (Hebrig seemed to be doing well enough  at LG), and Little could have been brought in as the right tackle, where we have had the most trouble, and where Little was already playing a fair bit.  I would be curious as to what led to changing 3 linemen.  Last but not least, San Diego State might not be the most talented defensive line we play, but they blitz and stunt a lot.  It would seem that you would want experience rather than raw talent to deal with that.

Overall, one game in, the move has turned out to be a bust.  But if Shaw and Bloomgren believe that is the long term solution, we will have to revisit the decision a few games down the line.

Last thought, I think it is clear that Tucker will not be playing this year unless he has a previously undisclosed injury.  He went from starting at RT as a sophomore (and doing a decent enough job of it) to an unsuccessful position move in the span of two years.  I know he was injured for much of last year, but I sure as hell wouldn't have anticipated that career trajectory.

BC