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)
+- 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)
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.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - JohnR34231 - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 12:29 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18390.msg218857#msg218857 date=1513883786]
[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 offenses struggles, posts on various Stanford fan fora would decrease 50%.
I think any fair analysis of most games notes that theres plenty of blame to go around and then tries to apportion things accordingly. In the 2015 Oregon game, Im not sure how you escape fixing primary blame on the defense (while still criticizing other units as appropriate).
[/quote]
Correct, but I thought the original question wasn't who was more to blame for the Oregon loss. It was whether our defense was good enough for us to make the playoffs in 2015.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - JohnR34231 - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 12:29 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18390.msg218857#msg218857 date=1513883786]
[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 offenses struggles, posts on various Stanford fan fora would decrease 50%.
I think any fair analysis of most games notes that theres plenty of blame to go around and then tries to apportion things accordingly. In the 2015 Oregon game, Im not sure how you escape fixing primary blame on the defense (while still criticizing other units as appropriate).
[/quote]
Correct, but I thought the original question wasn't who was more to blame for the Oregon loss. It was whether our defense was good enough for us to make the playoffs in 2015.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - CardinalSagehen - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 11:49 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18390.msg218845#msg218845 date=1513878729]
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 U$C. There are of course flaws with recruiting rankings, but as a general proxy for average talent on the squad, it's not a bad approximation of reasonable expectations. I took the recruiting rankings from 2013 - 2016 and averaged them: Alabama had the top recruiting class every year. Ohio State was not far behind, it averaged the 4th best recruiting class over that period. Georgia averaged 8th and U$C 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. U$C had 7 first teamers and 4 on the second team. Washington had 5 on the first team and 6 on the second team.
We had a unique talent on the team in Bryce Love, and we have one of the best offensive lines in the Pac-12, albeit one anchored by a true freshman left tackle, and a line that dealt with an unusual instability and moving around due to injuries. Costello I suspect will be a great quarterback, but even if he had played all year, he is still a redshirt freshman and wound up the 7th highest rated QB in the Pac-12 by PER (8th by yards per attempt, and 9th by completion percentage). I like our receivers, but we do lack a guy with game-breaking speed; our best, JJ Arcega-Whiteside was merely an Honorable Mention. Tight ends, on the other hand, are probably the best in the conference as a group, if not the country as a whole. Here's how I'd assign the offensive talent (in terms of expected record):
RB 13-0
QB 7-6 (for Costello), 4-9 (for Chryst); that will rise as Costello gets more experience, but hard to put it much higher for this year
OL 10-3
WR 7-6
TE 12-1
Thus, I think the offense performed commensurate with its talent. Where I think you might have a case is on the defensive side of the ball, where I think the defense overall somewhat underperformed its talent, especially at the linebacker position and in the secondary. Some of that can be attributed to key injuries at MLB (which necessitated playing an undertalented player) and DB, and I think some of that is that if the defensive line can be beaten, it puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the defense (linebackers might cheat up to try and help on the run, making them susceptible to passes over the middle as we saw against ND and U$C; 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
[/quote]
This entertaining dialog pretty much always follows the same pattern. It boils down to...
Facts vs. Alternative Facts (e.g., "Top 25" talent vs. "11-2" talent; 7th-best record in CFB since 2011 vs. "arghh, we should have made that first down with a better play call!")
Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias
Reason vs. Passion, maybe?
Fixed Mindset (including myself here) vs. Growth Mindset, maybe?Â
Without the passion to demand better than the status quo, one would never attain it. I respect that kind of passion! It's Shaw's job to approach everything that way.Â
But to say that we've been significantly under-performing in relation to our recruited talent on either side of the ball is just plain factually incorrect.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - CardinalSagehen - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 11:49 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18390.msg218845#msg218845 date=1513878729]
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 U$C. There are of course flaws with recruiting rankings, but as a general proxy for average talent on the squad, it's not a bad approximation of reasonable expectations. I took the recruiting rankings from 2013 - 2016 and averaged them: Alabama had the top recruiting class every year. Ohio State was not far behind, it averaged the 4th best recruiting class over that period. Georgia averaged 8th and U$C 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. U$C had 7 first teamers and 4 on the second team. Washington had 5 on the first team and 6 on the second team.
We had a unique talent on the team in Bryce Love, and we have one of the best offensive lines in the Pac-12, albeit one anchored by a true freshman left tackle, and a line that dealt with an unusual instability and moving around due to injuries. Costello I suspect will be a great quarterback, but even if he had played all year, he is still a redshirt freshman and wound up the 7th highest rated QB in the Pac-12 by PER (8th by yards per attempt, and 9th by completion percentage). I like our receivers, but we do lack a guy with game-breaking speed; our best, JJ Arcega-Whiteside was merely an Honorable Mention. Tight ends, on the other hand, are probably the best in the conference as a group, if not the country as a whole. Here's how I'd assign the offensive talent (in terms of expected record):
RB 13-0
QB 7-6 (for Costello), 4-9 (for Chryst); that will rise as Costello gets more experience, but hard to put it much higher for this year
OL 10-3
WR 7-6
TE 12-1
Thus, I think the offense performed commensurate with its talent. Where I think you might have a case is on the defensive side of the ball, where I think the defense overall somewhat underperformed its talent, especially at the linebacker position and in the secondary. Some of that can be attributed to key injuries at MLB (which necessitated playing an undertalented player) and DB, and I think some of that is that if the defensive line can be beaten, it puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the defense (linebackers might cheat up to try and help on the run, making them susceptible to passes over the middle as we saw against ND and U$C; 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
[/quote]
This entertaining dialog pretty much always follows the same pattern. It boils down to...
Facts vs. Alternative Facts (e.g., "Top 25" talent vs. "11-2" talent; 7th-best record in CFB since 2011 vs. "arghh, we should have made that first down with a better play call!")
Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias
Reason vs. Passion, maybe?
Fixed Mindset (including myself here) vs. Growth Mindset, maybe?Â
Without the passion to demand better than the status quo, one would never attain it. I respect that kind of passion! It's Shaw's job to approach everything that way.Â
But to say that we've been significantly under-performing in relation to our recruited talent on either side of the ball is just plain factually incorrect.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - JohnR34231 - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 01:22 PM)Cardinal Sagehen link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18390.msg218851#msg218851 date=1513882192]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18390.msg218845#msg218845 date=1513878729]
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 U$C. There are of course flaws with recruiting rankings, but as a general proxy for average talent on the squad, it's not a bad approximation of reasonable expectations. I took the recruiting rankings from 2013 - 2016 and averaged them: Alabama had the top recruiting class every year. Ohio State was not far behind, it averaged the 4th best recruiting class over that period. Georgia averaged 8th and U$C 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. U$C had 7 first teamers and 4 on the second team. Washington had 5 on the first team and 6 on the second team.
We had a unique talent on the team in Bryce Love, and we have one of the best offensive lines in the Pac-12, albeit one anchored by a true freshman left tackle, and a line that dealt with an unusual instability and moving around due to injuries. Costello I suspect will be a great quarterback, but even if he had played all year, he is still a redshirt freshman and wound up the 7th highest rated QB in the Pac-12 by PER (8th by yards per attempt, and 9th by completion percentage). I like our receivers, but we do lack a guy with game-breaking speed; our best, JJ Arcega-Whiteside was merely an Honorable Mention. Tight ends, on the other hand, are probably the best in the conference as a group, if not the country as a whole. Here's how I'd assign the offensive talent (in terms of expected record):
RB 13-0
QB 7-6 (for Costello), 4-9 (for Chryst); that will rise as Costello gets more experience, but hard to put it much higher for this year
OL 10-3
WR 7-6
TE 12-1
Thus, I think the offense performed commensurate with its talent. Where I think you might have a case is on the defensive side of the ball, where I think the defense overall somewhat underperformed its talent, especially at the linebacker position and in the secondary. Some of that can be attributed to key injuries at MLB (which necessitated playing an undertalented player) and DB, and I think some of that is that if the defensive line can be beaten, it puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the defense (linebackers might cheat up to try and help on the run, making them susceptible to passes over the middle as we saw against ND and U$C; 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
[/quote]
This entertaining dialog pretty much always follows the same pattern. It boils down to...
Facts vs. Alternative Facts (e.g., "Top 25" talent vs. "11-2" talent; 7th-best record in CFB since 2011 vs. "arghh, we should have made that first down with a better play call!")
Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias
Reason vs. Passion, maybe?
Fixed Mindset (including myself here) vs. Growth Mindset, maybe?Â
Without the passion to demand better than the status quo, one would never attain it. I respect that kind of passion! It's Shaw's job to approach everything that way.Â
But to say that we've been significantly under-performing in relation to our recruited talent on either side of the ball is just plain factually incorrect.
[/quote]
I thought this debate was entertaining the first ten times we had it. Now, at least for me, it is starting to get a little old.
Does anyone else agree?
Re: It's official: Pritchard - JohnR34231 - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 01:22 PM)Cardinal Sagehen link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18390.msg218851#msg218851 date=1513882192]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18390.msg218845#msg218845 date=1513878729]
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 U$C. There are of course flaws with recruiting rankings, but as a general proxy for average talent on the squad, it's not a bad approximation of reasonable expectations. I took the recruiting rankings from 2013 - 2016 and averaged them: Alabama had the top recruiting class every year. Ohio State was not far behind, it averaged the 4th best recruiting class over that period. Georgia averaged 8th and U$C 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. U$C had 7 first teamers and 4 on the second team. Washington had 5 on the first team and 6 on the second team.
We had a unique talent on the team in Bryce Love, and we have one of the best offensive lines in the Pac-12, albeit one anchored by a true freshman left tackle, and a line that dealt with an unusual instability and moving around due to injuries. Costello I suspect will be a great quarterback, but even if he had played all year, he is still a redshirt freshman and wound up the 7th highest rated QB in the Pac-12 by PER (8th by yards per attempt, and 9th by completion percentage). I like our receivers, but we do lack a guy with game-breaking speed; our best, JJ Arcega-Whiteside was merely an Honorable Mention. Tight ends, on the other hand, are probably the best in the conference as a group, if not the country as a whole. Here's how I'd assign the offensive talent (in terms of expected record):
RB 13-0
QB 7-6 (for Costello), 4-9 (for Chryst); that will rise as Costello gets more experience, but hard to put it much higher for this year
OL 10-3
WR 7-6
TE 12-1
Thus, I think the offense performed commensurate with its talent. Where I think you might have a case is on the defensive side of the ball, where I think the defense overall somewhat underperformed its talent, especially at the linebacker position and in the secondary. Some of that can be attributed to key injuries at MLB (which necessitated playing an undertalented player) and DB, and I think some of that is that if the defensive line can be beaten, it puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the defense (linebackers might cheat up to try and help on the run, making them susceptible to passes over the middle as we saw against ND and U$C; 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
[/quote]
This entertaining dialog pretty much always follows the same pattern. It boils down to...
Facts vs. Alternative Facts (e.g., "Top 25" talent vs. "11-2" talent; 7th-best record in CFB since 2011 vs. "arghh, we should have made that first down with a better play call!")
Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias
Reason vs. Passion, maybe?
Fixed Mindset (including myself here) vs. Growth Mindset, maybe?Â
Without the passion to demand better than the status quo, one would never attain it. I respect that kind of passion! It's Shaw's job to approach everything that way.Â
But to say that we've been significantly under-performing in relation to our recruited talent on either side of the ball is just plain factually incorrect.
[/quote]
I thought this debate was entertaining the first ten times we had it. Now, at least for me, it is starting to get a little old.
Does anyone else agree?
Re: It's official: Pritchard - qwerty49 - 12-21-2017
Well its better than arguing about politics. ð
(12-21-2017, 02:14 PM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=Cardinal Sagehen link=topic=18390.msg218869#msg218869 date=1513887772]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18390.msg218851#msg218851 date=1513882192]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18390.msg218845#msg218845 date=1513878729]
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 U$C. There are of course flaws with recruiting rankings, but as a general proxy for average talent on the squad, it's not a bad approximation of reasonable expectations. I took the recruiting rankings from 2013 - 2016 and averaged them: Alabama had the top recruiting class every year. Ohio State was not far behind, it averaged the 4th best recruiting class over that period. Georgia averaged 8th and U$C 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. U$C had 7 first teamers and 4 on the second team. Washington had 5 on the first team and 6 on the second team.
We had a unique talent on the team in Bryce Love, and we have one of the best offensive lines in the Pac-12, albeit one anchored by a true freshman left tackle, and a line that dealt with an unusual instability and moving around due to injuries. Costello I suspect will be a great quarterback, but even if he had played all year, he is still a redshirt freshman and wound up the 7th highest rated QB in the Pac-12 by PER (8th by yards per attempt, and 9th by completion percentage). I like our receivers, but we do lack a guy with game-breaking speed; our best, JJ Arcega-Whiteside was merely an Honorable Mention. Tight ends, on the other hand, are probably the best in the conference as a group, if not the country as a whole. Here's how I'd assign the offensive talent (in terms of expected record):
RB 13-0
QB 7-6 (for Costello), 4-9 (for Chryst); that will rise as Costello gets more experience, but hard to put it much higher for this year
OL 10-3
WR 7-6
TE 12-1
Thus, I think the offense performed commensurate with its talent. Where I think you might have a case is on the defensive side of the ball, where I think the defense overall somewhat underperformed its talent, especially at the linebacker position and in the secondary. Some of that can be attributed to key injuries at MLB (which necessitated playing an undertalented player) and DB, and I think some of that is that if the defensive line can be beaten, it puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the defense (linebackers might cheat up to try and help on the run, making them susceptible to passes over the middle as we saw against ND and U$C; 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
[/quote]
This entertaining dialog pretty much always follows the same pattern. It boils down to...
Facts vs. Alternative Facts (e.g., "Top 25" talent vs. "11-2" talent; 7th-best record in CFB since 2011 vs. "arghh, we should have made that first down with a better play call!")
Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias
Reason vs. Passion, maybe?
Fixed Mindset (including myself here) vs. Growth Mindset, maybe?Â
Without the passion to demand better than the status quo, one would never attain it. I respect that kind of passion! It's Shaw's job to approach everything that way.Â
But to say that we've been significantly under-performing in relation to our recruited talent on either side of the ball is just plain factually incorrect.
[/quote]
I thought this debate was entertaining the first ten times we had it. Now, at least for me, it is starting to get a little old.
Does anyone else agree?
[/quote]
Re: It's official: Pritchard - qwerty49 - 12-21-2017
Well its better than arguing about politics. ð
(12-21-2017, 02:14 PM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=Cardinal Sagehen link=topic=18390.msg218869#msg218869 date=1513887772]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18390.msg218851#msg218851 date=1513882192]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18390.msg218845#msg218845 date=1513878729]
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 U$C. There are of course flaws with recruiting rankings, but as a general proxy for average talent on the squad, it's not a bad approximation of reasonable expectations. I took the recruiting rankings from 2013 - 2016 and averaged them: Alabama had the top recruiting class every year. Ohio State was not far behind, it averaged the 4th best recruiting class over that period. Georgia averaged 8th and U$C 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. U$C had 7 first teamers and 4 on the second team. Washington had 5 on the first team and 6 on the second team.
We had a unique talent on the team in Bryce Love, and we have one of the best offensive lines in the Pac-12, albeit one anchored by a true freshman left tackle, and a line that dealt with an unusual instability and moving around due to injuries. Costello I suspect will be a great quarterback, but even if he had played all year, he is still a redshirt freshman and wound up the 7th highest rated QB in the Pac-12 by PER (8th by yards per attempt, and 9th by completion percentage). I like our receivers, but we do lack a guy with game-breaking speed; our best, JJ Arcega-Whiteside was merely an Honorable Mention. Tight ends, on the other hand, are probably the best in the conference as a group, if not the country as a whole. Here's how I'd assign the offensive talent (in terms of expected record):
RB 13-0
QB 7-6 (for Costello), 4-9 (for Chryst); that will rise as Costello gets more experience, but hard to put it much higher for this year
OL 10-3
WR 7-6
TE 12-1
Thus, I think the offense performed commensurate with its talent. Where I think you might have a case is on the defensive side of the ball, where I think the defense overall somewhat underperformed its talent, especially at the linebacker position and in the secondary. Some of that can be attributed to key injuries at MLB (which necessitated playing an undertalented player) and DB, and I think some of that is that if the defensive line can be beaten, it puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the defense (linebackers might cheat up to try and help on the run, making them susceptible to passes over the middle as we saw against ND and U$C; 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
[/quote]
This entertaining dialog pretty much always follows the same pattern. It boils down to...
Facts vs. Alternative Facts (e.g., "Top 25" talent vs. "11-2" talent; 7th-best record in CFB since 2011 vs. "arghh, we should have made that first down with a better play call!")
Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias
Reason vs. Passion, maybe?
Fixed Mindset (including myself here) vs. Growth Mindset, maybe?Â
Without the passion to demand better than the status quo, one would never attain it. I respect that kind of passion! It's Shaw's job to approach everything that way.Â
But to say that we've been significantly under-performing in relation to our recruited talent on either side of the ball is just plain factually incorrect.
[/quote]
I thought this debate was entertaining the first ten times we had it. Now, at least for me, it is starting to get a little old.
Does anyone else agree?
[/quote]
Re: It's official: Pritchard - winflop - 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
My main criticisms of the offense are the speed with which play calls get to the QB (resulting in too many costly delay of game penalties, especially at critical times) and the lack of in-game adjustments when things aren't going as expected (e.g., OSU, WSU, SDSU this year). I consider these fundamentally different from criticizing the offensive philosophy or actual plays being called or run/pass mix which I think is more armchair QB'ing.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - winflop - 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
My main criticisms of the offense are the speed with which play calls get to the QB (resulting in too many costly delay of game penalties, especially at critical times) and the lack of in-game adjustments when things aren't going as expected (e.g., OSU, WSU, SDSU this year). I consider these fundamentally different from criticizing the offensive philosophy or actual plays being called or run/pass mix which I think is more armchair QB'ing.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - teejers1 - 12-21-2017
winflop, why isn't what you're saying exactly what I've been saying about far too many "dud" offensive games under this regime? And then when you consider the talent on O (just as compared to historical Stanford teams), the ? gets magnified.
Stated differently, we have had WAY too many sub-350 total yards and/or sub 21 points per game in the last several years. Again, the "U" word.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - teejers1 - 12-21-2017
winflop, why isn't what you're saying exactly what I've been saying about far too many "dud" offensive games under this regime? And then when you consider the talent on O (just as compared to historical Stanford teams), the ? gets magnified.
Stated differently, we have had WAY too many sub-350 total yards and/or sub 21 points per game in the last several years. Again, the "U" word.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - CompSci87 - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 11:25 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Last eight complete recruiting classes
U$C:Â 21 five stars, 98 four stars: 119 total
Votre Dame: 9 five stars, 83 hour stars: 92 total
UCLA: 8 five stars, 80 fouir stars: 88 total
Oregon: 4 five stars, 63 four stars: 68 total
Stanford: 8 five stars, 54 four stars: 62 total
Over that same period, our W-L record
vs, U$C: 6-4
vs, Votre Dame: 6-2
vs. UCLA: 9-0
vs. Oregon, 5-3
26 wins, ten losses.Â
If we've had 11-2 talent, we need to stop scheduling all these 13-0 teams.
This is great: some facts to help evaluate whether the team is really underperforming its talent, as has been claimed.
Obviously we hope the team will overperform relative to star ratings, with the staff finding guys who are underrated, coaching them up well, taking advantage of the low attrition rate among students who pass Stanford admissions, etc. And because we're fans.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - CompSci87 - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 11:25 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Last eight complete recruiting classes
U$C:Â 21 five stars, 98 four stars: 119 total
Votre Dame: 9 five stars, 83 hour stars: 92 total
UCLA: 8 five stars, 80 fouir stars: 88 total
Oregon: 4 five stars, 63 four stars: 68 total
Stanford: 8 five stars, 54 four stars: 62 total
Over that same period, our W-L record
vs, U$C: 6-4
vs, Votre Dame: 6-2
vs. UCLA: 9-0
vs. Oregon, 5-3
26 wins, ten losses.Â
If we've had 11-2 talent, we need to stop scheduling all these 13-0 teams.
This is great: some facts to help evaluate whether the team is really underperforming its talent, as has been claimed.
Obviously we hope the team will overperform relative to star ratings, with the staff finding guys who are underrated, coaching them up well, taking advantage of the low attrition rate among students who pass Stanford admissions, etc. And because we're fans.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - BostonCard - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 11:25 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Last eight complete recruiting classes
U$C:Â 21 five stars, 98 four stars: 119 total
Votre Dame: 9 five stars, 83 hour stars: 92 total
UCLA: 8 five stars, 80 fouir stars: 88 total
Oregon: 4 five stars, 63 four stars: 68 total
Stanford: 8 five stars, 54 four stars: 62 total
Over that same period, our W-L record
vs, U$C: 6-4
vs, Votre Dame: 6-2
vs. UCLA: 9-0
vs. Oregon, 5-3
26 wins, ten losses.Â
If we've had 11-2 talent, we need to stop scheduling all these 13-0 teams.
Well put. But to be fair to the nattering nabobs of negativism, over the last 8 years, USC has fired two of its coaches, UCLA has fired 2, Oregon has fired 1, and although I don't think Brian Kelly has been the coach for Notre Dame the entire time, I don't think anyone aspires to have David Shaw emulate him.
BC
Re: It's official: Pritchard - BostonCard - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 11:25 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Last eight complete recruiting classes
U$C:Â 21 five stars, 98 four stars: 119 total
Votre Dame: 9 five stars, 83 hour stars: 92 total
UCLA: 8 five stars, 80 fouir stars: 88 total
Oregon: 4 five stars, 63 four stars: 68 total
Stanford: 8 five stars, 54 four stars: 62 total
Over that same period, our W-L record
vs, U$C: 6-4
vs, Votre Dame: 6-2
vs. UCLA: 9-0
vs. Oregon, 5-3
26 wins, ten losses.Â
If we've had 11-2 talent, we need to stop scheduling all these 13-0 teams.
Well put. But to be fair to the nattering nabobs of negativism, over the last 8 years, USC has fired two of its coaches, UCLA has fired 2, Oregon has fired 1, and although I don't think Brian Kelly has been the coach for Notre Dame the entire time, I don't think anyone aspires to have David Shaw emulate him.
BC
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Bruce Wang - 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$C (62), and Florida State (62) trail just behind.
Stanford has signed 33.Â
We're playing a different game from the big four.
Every team that has won a national championship in the BCS / playoff era has featured a roster of more than half 4/5 star players. I think we are the only program that has a shot at breaking that rule.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Bruce Wang - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 09:14 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:In their last four full recruiting classes (2014-17), Alabama has signed 69 four or five star players. Ohio State (64), U$C (62), and Florida State (62) trail just behind.
Stanford has signed 33.Â
We're playing a different game from the big four.
Every team that has won a national championship in the BCS / playoff era has featured a roster of more than half 4/5 star players. I think we are the only program that has a shot at breaking that rule.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - winflop - 12-21-2017
(12-21-2017, 04:17 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:winflop, why isn't what you're saying exactly what I've been saying about far too many "dud" offensive games under this regime? And then when you consider the talent on O (just as compared to historical Stanford teams), the ? gets magnified.
Stated differently, we have had WAY too many sub-350 total yards and/or sub 21 points per game in the last several years. Again, the "U" word.
There are different kinds of dud games. Sometimes you try different things and nothing works. The other team is just playing better. I think the first U$C game falls into that bucket
The dud games I'm specifically referring to our the kind that cost us the Rose Bowl against Michigan State and what Shaw admitted happened at WSU. Keep trying the same thing over and over and over, hoping that it eventually works. In other words, not adjusting the gameplan based on what the other team is doing to you that is preventing you from succeeding with the gameplan you had coming out of the locker room.
There may be other kinds of dud games as well. I guess I'm identifying a subset of dud games. Does that make sense?