Pep to Indy? - 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: Pep to Indy? (/thread-4746.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: Pep to Indy? (/thread-4746.html)
Re: Pep to Indy? - washingtonismoney - 01-19-2013
(01-19-2013, 03:24 PM)Big Brother link Wrote:Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. I see conservative, you see smart. I see effective, you see risky.
No, I don't see anything at all. I'm just saying that people are remarkably results-biased when evaluating playcalling.
Like, here's an example. During the Rose Bowl, I was seated next to a chatty guy. When we pulled off that reverse ending with Drew Terrell passing to Rashad-Patterson, he was like "What a playcall!!!!!" But it wasn't a great playcall. The defensive backs weren't fooled; Rashad-Patterson made an incredible play. (EDIT: people praised the playcalling a lot in those first two drives, by the way, and criticized the playcalling thereafter, mostly. But ask yourself this: was the playcalling really different, or were the players just executing better? Put another way: if Hogan's accuracy doesn't fall apart after he got rocked, how much better is the offense and by extension how much better does the playcalling look? I can remember several throws where the playcall resulted in a pretty open receiver that Hogan flat-out missed.)
Basically, when people say, "great playcall/creative playcalling," they basically mean, "I enjoy this offense!" Which may or may not have anything to do with how good the playcalling is.
Re: Pep to Indy? - fullmetal - 01-19-2013
That WR pass from Terrell was almost disastrous--if JRP doesn't pull out his Superman impression, that's likely an INT. But JRP redeemed the whole thing, thankfully.
Re: Pep to Indy? - DC - 01-19-2013
The plays from our first two drives were scripted. Jamal clearly wasn't open - Terrell sort of threw it up for grabs. Jamal knew the ball was coming his way and that he was supposed to catch it, so he made the best catch of his career, and then didn't catch another pass for the rest of the game.
As far as Hogan's accuracy for the rest of the game, I wonder whether he was hurt after taking that big hit, or at least dazed enough to not be himself. He seemed to stagger a little after he got up. Maybe only he knows.
Even though the first two drives were a little gimmicky, I do applaud Shaw and Hamilton for being less predictable for a couple dozen scripted plays. So uncharacteristic of what they normally do. If they didn't take those chances, we may not have won.
Re: Pep to Indy? - akCard - 01-20-2013
(01-19-2013, 03:33 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:No, I don't see anything at all. I'm just saying that people are remarkably results-biased when evaluating playcalling.
I'm not sure I get your point because how else is an observer supposed to evaluate playcalling except by the results?? By design, a play can be either super creatitve or extremely mundane but if it doesn't achieve the desired result, that play can be considered a failure.
I don't judge playcalling by whether it's creative or conservative, I judge it by results. I would argue that the game plan for the Oregon game in Eugene was genius but not exactly creative; what it was, however, was extremely effective and the bewildered look on Chip Kelly's face in the 4th quarter as the inevitability set in was priceless.
Re: Pep to Indy? - washingtonismoney - 01-20-2013
(01-20-2013, 04:28 PM)akCard link Wrote:I'm not sure I get your point because how else is an observer supposed to evaluate playcalling except by the results?? By design, a play can be either super creatitve or extremely mundane but if it doesn't achieve the desired result, that play can be considered a failure.
The play might be considered a failure, but that's not what we're asking. We're talking about the playcall, i.e. the call from the offensive coordinator/head coach. And, just like poker, you can make the right call but get an unfavorable result.
So, for instance, to totally make up a play: Hogan fakes, for a play action. The defense is totally sucked in, and Ty Montgomery streaks down the sideline. He has two whole steps on the corner. Hogan rears back and heaves the ball deep. It's maybe the slightest bit overthrown, but basically on target -- but Montgomery stumbles a bit and the ball grazes his outstretched hands; incomplete
Now, in breaking down "what went wrong" with this play, where do you assign blame: the play caller? the QB? the wideout?
EDIT: or consider something simpler. QB and RB botch the handoff; it's a fumble and recovery by the defense. Is your position here that since the result of the play is bad, that therefore the playcaller is at fault?
Re: Pep to Indy? - terry - 01-20-2013
Two of the best play-calls of the year resulted in incompletions because Hogan messed up the throw -- the 4th down pass to Hewitt against Oregon, and the post pattern to Cajuste against Oregon State.
Re: Pep to Indy? - estephan500 - 01-21-2013
Perhaps this is known, but during this chatter, it has become a done deal, it seems.
http://espn.go.com/blog/stanford-football/post/_/id/7495/hamilton-paired-with-luck-again
Hoping this is a seamless switch with good feelings all around, and a dynamic & tough offense next year.
the pistol offense - ChicagoCard - 01-21-2013
Looking ahead at the offense in '13, here are three things we can be fairly sure of. 1) a new offensive coach will be brought in to join Shaw, Bloomgren and Sanford 2) Hogan will be more experienced and well-developed, and 3) the offensive line should be really good. It also occured to me that with Hewitt, Kelsey Young and Barry (J.) Sanders who is apparently a good receiver, there is some potential to develop the short-yardage passing. I'm not sure where to go with this specifically except I wanted to ask if anybody gave much thought to this recent RuleOfTree article: http://www.ruleoftree.com/2013/1/17/3888624/the-case-for-more-pistol-and-less-shotgun-in-the-stanford-offense. Seems SJSU had a pro-style / pistol offense that worked pretty well for them.
Re: Pep to Indy? - stupac2 - 01-21-2013
I'd like to see more Pistol, but won't pretend to be good enough at football scheme to have good rationales for it. I found the case in the RoT article persuasive.
Re: the pistol offense - Spiny_Norman - 01-21-2013
(01-21-2013, 12:37 PM)ChicagoOutsider link Wrote:Looking ahead at the offense in '13, here are three things we can be fairly sure of. 1) a new offensive coach will be brought in to join Shaw, Bloomgren and Sanford
CO, why do you think that Stanford will hire a new offensive coach rather than promote from within? Since Shaw has an open coaching slot, perhaps he would give playcalling duties to Bloomgren or Sanford and move a volunteer assistant to a salaried position. I am not saying that is my preference, but it is a possibility.
Re: Pep to Indy? - ChicagoCard - 01-21-2013
I think you're right that they might promote Bloomgren. Apparently he was assistant OC for the NY Jets for 2-3 years. They also lost their offensive (graduate?) assistant for wide receivers, Aaron Moorehead who was just hired as Virginia Tech WR's coach. So that seems to leave them at least one coach or grad assist down on offense. If they promote Bloomgren, seems he would also continue as offensive line coach. They don't want to break up continuity there. So even though they might not hire OC from outside, still will be interested to see what Shaw decides.