Bloomgren interviewing - 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: Bloomgren interviewing (/thread-8610.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: Bloomgren interviewing (/thread-8610.html)
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - BostonCard - 01-07-2015
I'm not suggesting that there are no reasons that Bloomgren would go to Georgia from Stanford, but it is less of a step up to go from ALDOO at Stanford to OC at Georgia than to go from ALDOO to OC in the NFL or to be a college head coach.
BC
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - BostonCard - 01-07-2015
(01-07-2015, 02:10 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:2. I know people here really DON'T want to believe that offensive woes could be attributable to Shaw's insistence on meddling in the offense/controlling the play calling, but I still think that is Occam speaking. I also think Shaw's comment about improvement in O last 3 games being attributable to "the players just playing better" strikes me as something somebody would say if they didn't want to admit that coaches were screwing the pooch for most of the season (which was a common lament among Stanford fans).
Hulk has shown quite convincingly that the biggest factor in our offensive resurgence in the last three games was we stopped shooting ourselves in the foot. The number of bad plays: turnovers, penalties, sacks, and tackles for losses went down dramatically. You can make a case that this is very much about coaching: teaching the players ball security, discipline, situational awareness, etc, but it does not suggest that that the gameday playcalling is to blame.
BC
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - washingtonismoney - 01-07-2015
(01-07-2015, 09:49 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:it does not suggest that that the gameday playcalling is to blame.
BC, playcalling is always to blame. Shaw should've called the touchdown play more frequently.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - martyup - 01-07-2015
More touches for CMac = Offensive Success
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - yvonne - 01-07-2015
The touche goes to washingtonismoney.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - CTcard - 01-07-2015
(01-07-2015, 10:09 AM)martyup link Wrote:More touche's for CMac = Offensive Success
The official site has a nice new feature where they have game by game statistics for individual players.
For CMac:
http://gostanford.com/fls/30600/football/2014/plyr_27.htm?DB_OEM_ID=30600
A quick run down of his non-return touchés.
Game   Touchés   Yards
Davis     2        62
S.-C.     0         0
Army     5        41
UWÂ Â Â Â Â Â 1Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 12
und      1        18
WSUÂ Â Â Â Â 5Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 53
ASUÂ Â Â Â Â 2Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 2
OSUÂ Â Â Â Â 5Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 71
UOÂ Â Â Â Â Â 2Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 10
Utah    11        87
c.a.l.    5        53
UCLAÂ Â Â 14Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 85
MDÂ Â Â Â Â 8Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 57
McCaffrey's role in the offense really picked up starting with the Utah game. In that game, we actually ran the ball very well, perhaps the best of the season considering the opposition; but we didn't run often and we passed a lot very terribly.
(01-07-2015, 09:49 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Hulk has shown quite convincingly that the biggest factor in our offensive resurgence in the last three games was we stopped shooting ourselves in the foot. ... it does not suggest that that the gameday playcalling is to blame.
Well, there was a big change in play calling starting with the c.a.l. game. We started to run the ball on a much higher percentage of our plays - even in the first halves. And while there was plenty of off-tackle (many of McCaffrey's runs on a power sweep) there was also lots of Power, but there wasn't much jet sweep - end around - run parallel to the line of scrimmage stuff.
I have thought it plausible that the coaches looked at the Utah disaster, realized that we were actually running a power(ish) run game well, and decided to emphasize that along with play action passing and scrap the half-spread efforts. But I do not know their thinking, only the result.
The number of mistakes is of course a coaching issue, as is really everything. But, the coaches didn't just decide to start emphasizing not making mistakes starting with the c.a.l. game. Some of it was key players starting to figure things out. Some of it may be calling plays that the team is good at running - thereby leading to fewer mistakes. Maybe a little bit is choice of personnel which is related to the plays we run (McCaffrey and Wright took over the RB duties, Montgomery went out).
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - washingtonismoney - 01-07-2015
I want to quantify this at some point, but I think an underrated change was the tempo. To my eye, Stanford was much more consistent in getting to the line quickly in the final three games of the season.
Bit of a diversion but... - Redrum - 01-07-2015
...the most pleasing thing-- aside from the whole team remembering how to win-- was the emergence of the Round Mound of Remound. It finally looked like at least one of our RBs got it. I don't think Barry or Kelsey ever will. And, yes, it also seems true that our OL finally got it...and maybe the coaching staff too. But Wright seems to prove the rule that players need reps to develop and by constantly shifting personnel RBs our search for one guy to "emerge" actually might have hindered and delayed Wright's emergence.
And, it was also good to see the human side of football emerge with the coach and team sticking with it in the FFB to use 4 plays to give Seal a running TD for four years of commitment to the Cardinal program. It is important to have (and important for outsiders to see )that usually invisible bond the players (and coaches) have expressed on a big stage.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - Bruce Wang - 01-07-2015
My other former $C OC for new Stanford OC suggestion is Norm Chow, but it appears that they are giving him another year. Might be fun to do a poll. Any other suggestions out there?
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - StanfordMatt - 01-07-2015
Bloomgren isn't going anywhere. At least not now. Georgia hired Brian Schottenheimer to be their OC.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - washingtonismoney - 01-07-2015
Those poor Georgia fans.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - BostonCard - 01-07-2015
What's odd about Wright's "emergence" is not that he became any more effective touching the ball late in the year (his ypc against Cal and UCLA were 4.0 and 4.27, both below his yearlong average of 4.45), but that he got more touches, especially near the end zone. The 23 touches against Cal and 15 touches against UCLA were the two most rushes he had all season (he dipped down to 8 touches against Maryland, but got 49 yards out of them for an above average ypc performance). But putting the last three games together, he averaged 15.3 touches per game, compared to 11.25 touches per game overall (so he got about 4 more touches per game). His ypc of 4.46 over the last three games almost perfectly matched his overall ypc (4.45). His yards went up (68.3 ypg, compared to 50.1 ypg), but that came from the extra 4 carries he got per game.
The number that really stands out, though, is touchdowns. In games 1-9 (Davis through Utah), he had two touchdowns, total. In games 10-12 (Cal, UCLA, and Maryland), he had 9 touchdowns, and average of 3 a game. Just to give you an idea, that was as many rushing touchdowns as Paul Perkins, the Pac-12 rushing leader, had all season. His touchdown total was good for a tie for fourth among running backs in the conference, and he basically amassed that in only three games.
BC
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - dabigv13 - 01-07-2015
Wright is who we thought he was. He got more red zone touches and was able to convert some of them. I attribute this more to improved OL play and overmatched DLs in those later games.
Still hopeful that the light goes on for Barry J or C Mac gets a little bit thicker.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - StanFan88 - 01-07-2015
(01-07-2015, 09:37 AM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=rudruff link=topic=11492.msg110221#msg110221 date=1420645879]He's an easy target for Bama fans. Low hanging fruit. However, I seem to recall ESPN commentators falling all over themselves to point out what a great hire he was, and that he was a genius OC at Bama.
Amazed they are blaming him and not the DC
[/quote]
Bama's offense put up 35 points
Bama's defense gave up 42
You tell me where the problem - I guarantee you Saban knows where it is.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - StanFan88 - 01-07-2015
(01-07-2015, 12:04 PM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:Bloomgren isn't going anywhere. At least not now. Georgia hired Brian Schottenheimer to be their OC.
Just because he's not going to UGA doesn't mean he's sticking around. There continue to be a flurry of new coaching hires for at least a couple more weeks.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - jacketree - 01-07-2015
(01-07-2015, 12:05 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Those poor Georgia fans.
My nomination for the most redundant post ever. :P
![[Image: mullet.jpg]](http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3599/969/400/mullet.jpg)
Wherefore art thou Bloomgren? <sigh>
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - Hulk01 - 01-07-2015
I don't think our messiness on offense reflected a coaching issue. It reflected the OLs missing assignments (Wright's two chop blocks were the result of them), false starts by OLs, TEs and even WRs, and Hogan's plague of fumbles. We had very few delay of game calls. The first thing an offensive linemen does at the line is repeat "alignment, assignment, technique, along with a check on the snap count. " Ours were well-coached in all four and still failed too often. They didn't get better coaching in our last five games. They got better at doing what they were supposed to.
No idea re Hogan's issues. (Andrew has suffered from the same thing the last half of this season. It's up to those guys to hold the ball, and both have struggled this season.
If our OL was badly-coached, we would have noticed it before this season and throughout this season.Â
I also think we will find that the greater percentage of runs was partly a function of cleaning up the messes. We faced way too many 2d and 15s and 3rd and longs because of penalties and fumbles (and bad snaps and exchanges, an average of one a game for the first half). With more 2ds and 6s and fewer 2d and 15s, we were able to run and threaten defenses with two dimensions.
Offensive "bad plays" stats - Hulk01 - 01-07-2015
In our first two games, we suffered 10 offensive penalties, four sacks allowed, and eight fumbles: 11 "bad plays" per game. A clean game against Army--one penalty and two sacks allowed, meant we averaged 8.3 bad plays per game for our first three.
Here's how that stat improved over our season:
First three games: 8.3 BPs per game
Games 4-6: 7.7
Games 7-9: 6.3
Games 10-13: 4.25
Games 11, 12, and 13 only: 2.0 per game
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - washingtonismoney - 01-07-2015
Dabigv, sorry to single you out but the Barry Sanders love is a bit perplexing and persistent (among not just you, but a few people). Here's the problem: Sanders doesn't lack in a lightbulb category. He's got good vision. His pass blocking hasn't been noticeably bad.
Sanders's problem is that he has no speed. Short of Turley been more of a miracle worker than we think he is, I think Sanders is who he is at this point.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - OutsiderFan - 01-07-2015
Though the evidence does suggest Sanders lacks an initial burst, and doesn't break tackles between the A gaps, it also suggests he's good in space because he does make guys miss with with elusiveness. Sanders is reminding me of former Florida State RB, Amp Lee, who played for the Niners in the early 1990s. He never had great acceleration but he was very good at finding holes and making guys miss. I think most people who see this video will agree Sanders is faster and quicker than Lee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1ykfkF4QXM