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 - 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?
Re: It's official: Pritchard - lex24 - 12-21-2017
Oregon was to blame for the 2015 Oregon loss. With Adams at QB that was a damn good team. One thing that never seems to be addressed - sometimes the other team is simply bettervthat day.
(12-21-2017, 01:18 PM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=18390.msg218860#msg218860 date=1513884548]
[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.
[/quote]
Re: It's official: Pritchard - lex24 - 12-21-2017
Oregon was to blame for the 2015 Oregon loss. With Adams at QB that was a damn good team. One thing that never seems to be addressed - sometimes the other team is simply bettervthat day.
(12-21-2017, 01:18 PM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=18390.msg218860#msg218860 date=1513884548]
[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.
[/quote]
Re: It's official: Pritchard - BostonCard - 12-22-2017
Yes, and Michigan State had perhaps the best defense in the country. I suppose we could have thrown on fourth down; the result is unknowable. But given that they had a pair of all-American corners, the likely outcome was not much better than trying to gain a yard on fOur third and short by running it between the tackles.
BC
Re: It's official: Pritchard - BostonCard - 12-22-2017
Yes, and Michigan State had perhaps the best defense in the country. I suppose we could have thrown on fourth down; the result is unknowable. But given that they had a pair of all-American corners, the likely outcome was not much better than trying to gain a yard on fOur third and short by running it between the tackles.
BC
Re: It's official: Pritchard - winflop - 12-22-2017
(12-22-2017, 12:04 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Yes, and Michigan State had perhaps the best defense in the country. I suppose we could have thrown on fourth down; the result is unknowable. But given that they had a pair of all-American corners, the likely outcome was not much better than trying to gain a yard on fOur third and short by running it between the tackles.
BC
Could be. But they never even tried. If they had tried and not succeeded then that's the type of loss where you just tip your cap to the better team. Also, it's not about one play or even one series. There was no change the entire second half despite MSU putting 8/9 in the box and playing one-on-one the entire game.
Also, MSU was one of several examples over Bloomgren's tenure as OC - not all of which were losses, and not all losses were because of this problem.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - winflop - 12-22-2017
(12-22-2017, 12:04 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Yes, and Michigan State had perhaps the best defense in the country. I suppose we could have thrown on fourth down; the result is unknowable. But given that they had a pair of all-American corners, the likely outcome was not much better than trying to gain a yard on fOur third and short by running it between the tackles.
BC
Could be. But they never even tried. If they had tried and not succeeded then that's the type of loss where you just tip your cap to the better team. Also, it's not about one play or even one series. There was no change the entire second half despite MSU putting 8/9 in the box and playing one-on-one the entire game.
Also, MSU was one of several examples over Bloomgren's tenure as OC - not all of which were losses, and not all losses were because of this problem.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - CTcard - 12-22-2017
(12-21-2017, 12:41 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18390.msg218862#msg218862 date=1513885080]
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.
[/quote]
These are all good points, but one is missing. It appears to me as if pace of play has a large effect on perception. No matter what people may understand intellectually, it's hard to get over thinking a higher scoring game has bad defense/good offense and a lower scoring game has good defense/bad offense.
Even more for football than other sports (notably basketball), people just aren't used to thinking in terms of efficiency.
Even harder is to get a proper discussion of degree when the most basic statement of common wisdom is true: the defense has on average been better than the offense under Shaw. The issue, as far as I am concerned, is that the defense hasn't been better than the offense each year and the defense hasn't been as much better as the offense as the commentary often indicates.
As an example, here are Stanford's offense and defense FEI numbers and rankings under Shaw.
The defense on average has been better - but only by 23rd vs 33rd.
The defense has been higher ranked than the offense in only 4 of 7 years.
The defense has been more consistent - with a big worrying drop off this year.
| year |  O-FEI |  O-rank |  D-FEI |  D-rank |
| 2011 | Â 1.16 | Â 6 | Â 0.68 | 13 |
| 2012 | Â 0.15 | Â 54 | Â 0.87 | 10 |
| 2013 | Â 0.60 | Â 27 | Â 0.71 | 11 |
| 2014 | Â 0.20 | Â 50 | Â 0.81 | 6 |
| 2015 | Â 1.45 | Â 2 | Â 0.22 | 45 |
| 2016 | Â -0.21 | Â 79 | Â 0.61 | 11 |
| 2017* | Â 3.01 | Â 16 | Â 2.17 | 62 |
| AVG | Â Â Â Â -Â Â Â Â | Â 33 | Â Â Â Â Â -Â Â Â Â | 23 |
* In 2017 Fremeau clearly changed the detailed formula for FEI offense and FEI defense, though I didn't see any specific discussion of this on the bcf web site. So, I cannot do an average of the FEI number itself, only the ranking.
Data from bcftoys.com
Re: It's official: Pritchard - CTcard - 12-22-2017
(12-21-2017, 12:41 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18390.msg218862#msg218862 date=1513885080]
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.
[/quote]
These are all good points, but one is missing. It appears to me as if pace of play has a large effect on perception. No matter what people may understand intellectually, it's hard to get over thinking a higher scoring game has bad defense/good offense and a lower scoring game has good defense/bad offense.
Even more for football than other sports (notably basketball), people just aren't used to thinking in terms of efficiency.
Even harder is to get a proper discussion of degree when the most basic statement of common wisdom is true: the defense has on average been better than the offense under Shaw. The issue, as far as I am concerned, is that the defense hasn't been better than the offense each year and the defense hasn't been as much better as the offense as the commentary often indicates.
As an example, here are Stanford's offense and defense FEI numbers and rankings under Shaw.
The defense on average has been better - but only by 23rd vs 33rd.
The defense has been higher ranked than the offense in only 4 of 7 years.
The defense has been more consistent - with a big worrying drop off this year.
| year |  O-FEI |  O-rank |  D-FEI |  D-rank |
| 2011 | Â 1.16 | Â 6 | Â 0.68 | 13 |
| 2012 | Â 0.15 | Â 54 | Â 0.87 | 10 |
| 2013 | Â 0.60 | Â 27 | Â 0.71 | 11 |
| 2014 | Â 0.20 | Â 50 | Â 0.81 | 6 |
| 2015 | Â 1.45 | Â 2 | Â 0.22 | 45 |
| 2016 | Â -0.21 | Â 79 | Â 0.61 | 11 |
| 2017* | Â 3.01 | Â 16 | Â 2.17 | 62 |
| AVG | Â Â Â Â -Â Â Â Â | Â 33 | Â Â Â Â Â -Â Â Â Â | 23 |
* In 2017 Fremeau clearly changed the detailed formula for FEI offense and FEI defense, though I didn't see any specific discussion of this on the bcf web site. So, I cannot do an average of the FEI number itself, only the ranking.
Data from bcftoys.com
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-22-2017
(12-22-2017, 06:44 AM)winflop link Wrote:Could be. But they never even tried. If they had tried and not succeeded then that's the type of loss where you just tip your cap to the better team. Also, it's not about one play or even one series. There was no change the entire second half despite MSU putting 8/9 in the box and playing one-on-one the entire game.The problem with you analysis here is that there is an opportunity cost. You only get to try one thing. If you pass and it is incomplete, the corresponding argument would be "Why go away from your strength and instead run a play that you don't execute as well against two all-american corners?" Making a change is great if it works, but bad if it doesen't. Not making a change has the same attributes. Shaw tends to go with what we do well, even when we are having trouble. I think that is rational. Doing something different can also be rational. Which is correct can only be inferred over time. So far, I think Shaw's decision process has been correct more times than not. He apparently didn't think we could get open against that one-on-one coverage before we got sacked. Based on how that game went in the second half, I would tend to agree with him. No way to know for sure, naturally.Â
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-22-2017
(12-22-2017, 06:44 AM)winflop link Wrote:Could be. But they never even tried. If they had tried and not succeeded then that's the type of loss where you just tip your cap to the better team. Also, it's not about one play or even one series. There was no change the entire second half despite MSU putting 8/9 in the box and playing one-on-one the entire game.The problem with you analysis here is that there is an opportunity cost. You only get to try one thing. If you pass and it is incomplete, the corresponding argument would be "Why go away from your strength and instead run a play that you don't execute as well against two all-american corners?" Making a change is great if it works, but bad if it doesen't. Not making a change has the same attributes. Shaw tends to go with what we do well, even when we are having trouble. I think that is rational. Doing something different can also be rational. Which is correct can only be inferred over time. So far, I think Shaw's decision process has been correct more times than not. He apparently didn't think we could get open against that one-on-one coverage before we got sacked. Based on how that game went in the second half, I would tend to agree with him. No way to know for sure, naturally.Â
Re: It's official: Pritchard - winflop - 12-22-2017
I think you look at this as a black & white thing as if I'm suggesting they totally abandon what they were doing and do something completely different. That's not at all what I'm suggesting and I apologize if I've not inferred correctly.
There's a spectrum and I think that too often there is no or near-zero adjustment when things aren't working. I think an OC from outside the program could change that and I have little if any faith that promoting Pritchard is going to do that.
Ultimately it is Shaw's call - it's clear that he makes these decisions. I think he needs to be hearing a new voice. Maybe Pritchard will do that, but I'm not optimistic that he will.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - winflop - 12-22-2017
I think you look at this as a black & white thing as if I'm suggesting they totally abandon what they were doing and do something completely different. That's not at all what I'm suggesting and I apologize if I've not inferred correctly.
There's a spectrum and I think that too often there is no or near-zero adjustment when things aren't working. I think an OC from outside the program could change that and I have little if any faith that promoting Pritchard is going to do that.
Ultimately it is Shaw's call - it's clear that he makes these decisions. I think he needs to be hearing a new voice. Maybe Pritchard will do that, but I'm not optimistic that he will.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - stupac2 - 12-22-2017
(12-22-2017, 10:03 AM)winflop link Wrote:I think you look at this as a black & white thing as if I'm suggesting they totally abandon what they were doing and do something completely different. That's not at all what I'm suggesting and I apologize if I've not inferred correctly.
There's a spectrum and I think that too often there is no or near-zero adjustment when things aren't working. I think an OC from outside the program could change that and I have little if any faith that promoting Pritchard is going to do that.
Ultimately it is Shaw's call - it's clear that he makes these decisions. I think he needs to be hearing a new voice. Maybe Pritchard will do that, but I'm not optimistic that he will.
There's a few different counterarguments here.
The first and most important is confirmation bias. The times that fit the narrative (Shaw "stubbornly" doing whatever and it failing) are more salient than the ones that don't (in either direction, breaking the pattern or being stubborn and it working), and no one ever brings those ones up. So we hear about that MSU 4th down ad nauseam, but people rarely bring up the times we go into that look and then throw a surprise pass, or do something unexpected out of it. But we do those things! Off the top of my head I can think of a couple. Maybe you'd prefer they were in higher-leverage situations, but we still break trend sometimes.
The second is that when things aren't going it's not clear what you'd actually want to do. It depends on why things aren't working. Is the other team doing something specific to counter what we want? Are they just really good? Are our players failing to execute in some specific way? Are we just failing to get the bounces to go our way?
I'm sure you can come up with more, but the important thing is that each of those is going to have separate remedies. Changing the gameplan might work, but it also might make things worse. It also pays to keep in mind that the players aren't professionals and there's pretty limited practice/film time during the season, and some guys might not be practicing at all due to injury but still playing. We talk about our enormous playsheet, but there's only so many of those plays that are actually going to be heavily practiced, and when things are tough you probably don't want to be wandering into areas where guys might not really know what they're doing.
Now, maybe you argue that that is a separate problem with coaching, not really having a plan B available, but I'm not sure it's something that can be avoided.
Also, one thing that I keep thinking whenever this is discussed is that every team has those days. What do you think Clemson fans were saying after they lost to Syracuse? Or OSU fans when they got boatraced by Iowa? Oaklahoma derped away a game against ISU. It happens to basically every team every year, the best team in the country is rarely undefeated. Do we derp away games more or less than other programs with our talent level? (Meaning, not Alabama/OSU but whatever the next tier down is.) It's not clear to me that we do.
Should we strive for a higher standard? Sure, but at some point you have to face reality and admit that shit happens and it's not necessarily anyone's fault in particular.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - stupac2 - 12-22-2017
(12-22-2017, 10:03 AM)winflop link Wrote:I think you look at this as a black & white thing as if I'm suggesting they totally abandon what they were doing and do something completely different. That's not at all what I'm suggesting and I apologize if I've not inferred correctly.
There's a spectrum and I think that too often there is no or near-zero adjustment when things aren't working. I think an OC from outside the program could change that and I have little if any faith that promoting Pritchard is going to do that.
Ultimately it is Shaw's call - it's clear that he makes these decisions. I think he needs to be hearing a new voice. Maybe Pritchard will do that, but I'm not optimistic that he will.
There's a few different counterarguments here.
The first and most important is confirmation bias. The times that fit the narrative (Shaw "stubbornly" doing whatever and it failing) are more salient than the ones that don't (in either direction, breaking the pattern or being stubborn and it working), and no one ever brings those ones up. So we hear about that MSU 4th down ad nauseam, but people rarely bring up the times we go into that look and then throw a surprise pass, or do something unexpected out of it. But we do those things! Off the top of my head I can think of a couple. Maybe you'd prefer they were in higher-leverage situations, but we still break trend sometimes.
The second is that when things aren't going it's not clear what you'd actually want to do. It depends on why things aren't working. Is the other team doing something specific to counter what we want? Are they just really good? Are our players failing to execute in some specific way? Are we just failing to get the bounces to go our way?
I'm sure you can come up with more, but the important thing is that each of those is going to have separate remedies. Changing the gameplan might work, but it also might make things worse. It also pays to keep in mind that the players aren't professionals and there's pretty limited practice/film time during the season, and some guys might not be practicing at all due to injury but still playing. We talk about our enormous playsheet, but there's only so many of those plays that are actually going to be heavily practiced, and when things are tough you probably don't want to be wandering into areas where guys might not really know what they're doing.
Now, maybe you argue that that is a separate problem with coaching, not really having a plan B available, but I'm not sure it's something that can be avoided.
Also, one thing that I keep thinking whenever this is discussed is that every team has those days. What do you think Clemson fans were saying after they lost to Syracuse? Or OSU fans when they got boatraced by Iowa? Oaklahoma derped away a game against ISU. It happens to basically every team every year, the best team in the country is rarely undefeated. Do we derp away games more or less than other programs with our talent level? (Meaning, not Alabama/OSU but whatever the next tier down is.) It's not clear to me that we do.
Should we strive for a higher standard? Sure, but at some point you have to face reality and admit that shit happens and it's not necessarily anyone's fault in particular.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-22-2017
Winflop, I understood that you weren't advocating changing everything. What it comes down to, I think, is "what play does Shaw think is most likely to work?". I think Shaw is quite aware he has options, that there isn't a single way to proceed. The reason you don't see "adjustments" is not because they aren't considered, but rather that they are considered and usually rejected. I can understand that you don't agree with this decision in some cases. Shaw does what he thinks will work. You may think something else may work better. You may be right. However, it is a little hard to argue this point because we can't do the experiment. OTOH, it isn't immediately obvious to me that you are right and Shaw is wrong. I too become frustrated when we run the same running play three times in a row and it doesn't work. However, I do remember a more aggressive brand of Stanford football that was offensively more exciting but considerably less effective in terms of wins and losses. For that reason, I basically am willing to say Shaw is probably right, at least much of the time. To his credit, when he becomes convinced he was not right (the WSU game), he says so.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-22-2017
Winflop, I understood that you weren't advocating changing everything. What it comes down to, I think, is "what play does Shaw think is most likely to work?". I think Shaw is quite aware he has options, that there isn't a single way to proceed. The reason you don't see "adjustments" is not because they aren't considered, but rather that they are considered and usually rejected. I can understand that you don't agree with this decision in some cases. Shaw does what he thinks will work. You may think something else may work better. You may be right. However, it is a little hard to argue this point because we can't do the experiment. OTOH, it isn't immediately obvious to me that you are right and Shaw is wrong. I too become frustrated when we run the same running play three times in a row and it doesn't work. However, I do remember a more aggressive brand of Stanford football that was offensively more exciting but considerably less effective in terms of wins and losses. For that reason, I basically am willing to say Shaw is probably right, at least much of the time. To his credit, when he becomes convinced he was not right (the WSU game), he says so.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Card Fan in OR - 12-22-2017
With so many insightful comments, I'm not sure what I can add, but I'll try.
Taking David Shaw's highly successful offense as a base, I can unequivocally state that I prefer a somewhat higher risk/reward offense. Presumably it would cost us some games we might otherwise win, and we would win some games we would otherwise lose. I don't know enough about football strategy to have cogent suggestions, but what I would like to see, off the top of my head, are:
1. More "creative" short-intermediate passes. Don't know what they should be: rollouts, options ? Don't know, but would like to see.
2. More longer go-for-the-big-gain passes, assuming we have someone who can get the ball downfield and someone who can get open with a chance to catch the pass. Not saying every 10 plays. Maybe a couple times (more) a game.
3. Fewer runs between the tackles (Maybe unless we have another Toby and no one else).
Closer to my area of expertise, I prefer a higher risk portfolio, with a greater expected return, to a lower risk one. That's just me, so no one can disagree. ;)
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Card Fan in OR - 12-22-2017
With so many insightful comments, I'm not sure what I can add, but I'll try.
Taking David Shaw's highly successful offense as a base, I can unequivocally state that I prefer a somewhat higher risk/reward offense. Presumably it would cost us some games we might otherwise win, and we would win some games we would otherwise lose. I don't know enough about football strategy to have cogent suggestions, but what I would like to see, off the top of my head, are:
1. More "creative" short-intermediate passes. Don't know what they should be: rollouts, options ? Don't know, but would like to see.
2. More longer go-for-the-big-gain passes, assuming we have someone who can get the ball downfield and someone who can get open with a chance to catch the pass. Not saying every 10 plays. Maybe a couple times (more) a game.
3. Fewer runs between the tackles (Maybe unless we have another Toby and no one else).
Closer to my area of expertise, I prefer a higher risk portfolio, with a greater expected return, to a lower risk one. That's just me, so no one can disagree. ;)
Re: It's official: Pritchard - lex24 - 12-22-2017
What is the best way for Stanford to win football games? That is the primary point. Start with recruiting. Is Stanford in a position to recruit a ton of speed? Or are they in a better position to recruit strength. I think the latter. OL. Te. FB. Power.
Next is depth. Always an issue. Particularly on the defensive side of the ball. How do you philosophically counter that? You play ball control. Reduce the number of plays. Keep your defense off the field. The downside is occasionally a team hangs in that has no business doing so. A la OSU this year. The upside is significantly greater - look at the record.
One thing that gets lost - this offense makes the defense better. By limiting the work it has to do. And when the defense clicks, they grind teams into ash. Synergy. That is how they won the Pac 12 in 12, 13 and to a lesser extent 15.
Play calling is secondary. Although I agree with those that suggest it can be, at times, too predictable. The goal line series vs SC is an example of that. But you can pick nits with almost any play caller.
The philosophy JH started and Shaw extended has been remarkably successful. Why change it? Tweak it, yes. But in all the talk about going outside the program for an OC I have yet to hear any names that make sense. Teejers says Husak. But hes never coached. If he was brought in as the 10th coach Id be happy. But OC? No. Walters presided over an uptempo spread. Bringing him in never made any sense. In fact it would have been a disaster. Who is an OC out there that runs this style of offense and is available?Â
Pritchard knows THIS offense. And it is varied and has at times been quite successful. So refine it. Improve the passing game. Reduce the War and Peace size playbook. Be a tad less predictable.
But dont make a major change. You simply dont do that when youve been as successful as Shaw.
So perhaps focus more on the 10 plus wins darn near every year and a tad less on the 2-4 losses a year.Â
Beat TCU.