The CardBoard
Time for the KJ Costello era to start - 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: Time for the KJ Costello era to start (/thread-12916.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - Row80Critic - 10-25-2016

A broken clock is correct two times a day.  When all the stars align, Shaw's system is very good -- not yet championship good, but very good.  The problem seems to be how the team looks when all the stars don't align just right for his preferred system and players.  To be a great coach, especially in college, a coach needs to make the most of the players he has in any given year. That means staying flexible.  Shaw can and has adapted in the past, but he'd be a better coach if he were quicker at finding effective adjustments when his preferred personnel and approach just aren't working (at all).  And the predictability of the offense is just painful to watch when things aren't working.  It was fantastic when we could line up, point to a hole, and then run Gerhard right through it.  But those days are gone for now.  When Chryst comes in a "package" play, half my section groaned about the inevitable go-nowhere QB run we were about to see.  The wildcat isn't much better.  Shaw can fix this, but he has to think bigger and broader.  Occasional package plays and hail Mary's aren't going to get it done.


Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - stupac2 - 10-25-2016

I dunno man, I think a lot of people are wildly underrating injuries this year. Injuries to an OL group can kill pretty much any team. Look at San Diego the last few years, despite having Rivers they've had a pretty bad offense because the OL was decimated. This year it's mostly healthy and he's putting up good numbers despite having a bunch of nobodies to throw to. Seattle is another good demonstration, no matter how good your QB is if the OL can't function well you can't get anything done.

That's not to say that Burns is a great starter, but he did well enough in the first few games. Something changed, and it's not that our coaches suddenly turned moronic. Perhaps he's regressing, but the OL being banged up definitely plays a part.

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - washingtonismoney - 10-25-2016

It's Chryst against Arizona: https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/790986514645655552

My suspicion is that this is merely rearranging the deck chairs, but what do I know?

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - BostonCard - 10-25-2016

(10-25-2016, 09:04 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:There's a point on predictability that I want to address: is an overly predictable offense a cause or effect of a bad offense? (Or, perhaps, to crib from Orwell, is it a little bit of both: “A man may take to drink because he feels himself a failure, but then fail all the more completely because he drinks.”)

That is, if an offense only has a few plays it can competently execute it kind of has to stick with them -- doing something that won't work because it's surprising doesn't really sound like a recipe for success.

Incidentally I wonder whether execution/coaching is making plays less successful than they are. One of the features of this year's offense that bugs me is the reliance on shotgun runs. Unless they're accompanied with a read-option they simply are not great plays. And yet Burns rarely seems to pull the ball -- maybe that fumble against Kansas State spooked him. Chryst seems more eager to run, but neither of them are in Hogan's class as a runner. That makes the offense substantially more one-dimensional, and it's not as if either offer significant other virtues to offset that.

Some good thoughts (as always) in there.  On your question, I think the answer is the latter.  As David Lombardi noted in another thread (http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=15978.0), while we are running when Burns is under center 80+% of the time, that is actually less often than last year (when we ran 87% of the time from under center).  As someone noted in that thread, however, because we could effectively punish teams that loaded the box with play action passing for big gains, opponents couldn't count on the predictability.  This year, we have not been able to effectively punish teams for overplaying runs, so even though we are statistically less predictable, we are in effect more predictable because of the lack of execution.

To your other observation, that same thread noted that Lombardi's research found that we actually ran from the shotgun a larger percentage of the time last year, and my recollection was that McCaffrey was pretty effective at it.  As with everything else, the shotgun runs are not going to work well if the offensive line can't effectively create holes.  I think what we are seeing is that we are lining up in the shotgun more frequently this year.  My suspicion is that stems from a combination of Burns' lack of comfort lining up under center, as well as an effort to give him a bit more time to see the rush when passing.  But if you are going to line up from the shotgun, you are going to have to run from the shotgun, at least sometimes. I do think read options might be more successful, but again, if you aren't winning the battle up front, then nothing is going to look all that good.

One last thought on philosophy (geared more towards everyone else).  Pretty much the same offense was among the top five offenses in the country last year, and no defense has suddenly figured us out, so to speak.  Shaw has been HC for 5+ seasons now.  We've had a world class (top-5) offense twice (2011, 2015) in that span, a good offense once (2013), an average offense once (2012) that was good once Hogan replaced Nunes, a struggling offense once (2014) that figured itself out at the end, and a putrid offense once.  It is obviously frustrating to see the offense this year, no question, but you have to evaluate the system as a whole, and I think it has a) been successful more often than not, b) been a good fit for Stanford, given the types of players we recruit well.  All offenses will have their ups and downs, and obviously you can and should always adjust the offense to your personnel.  But it is not realistic or even a good thing to make wholesale changes in offensive philosophy from year to year.  In other words, you can't have a pro-style offense one year, then decide that it's not working so we should switch to a [fill in the blank] raid offense the next, and then switch to a run/pass option based offense the next year.  Sure, given that we have a QB in his first year as a starter, a run/pass option might have worked better in the short term, if the players in the system had been working on it over the last year.  But next year, when we will be returning 4/5 of the line, our starting QB, and hopefully McCaffrey, we ought to benefit from better execution in this system.

My general philosophy is that there are three broad ways to structure your offense.  First, you can rely on surprise and trick plays.  It works great if you can execute them and really keep the defense off balanced, but a disciplined defense can usually sniff trick plays out, and if you can't execute the plays effectively they are disastrous.  The second approach relies on spreading the field and winning one-on-one matchups.  This works well if you can win the one-on-one matchups, but will struggle if the defense is fundamentally solid, especially in open field tackling.  The third relies on getting numbers at the point of attack.  It relies most heavily on offensive execution, but when it works, it is very tough even for a good defense to defend.  Remember that last year, we scored 30+ points on 13 straight opponents and 16 out of 17 dating back to the end of 2014. We did it against good defenses and bad ones, in all sorts of conditions (though we lucked out a bit against WSU), and could even afford to have one phase of our game working sub-optimally and still win (see, for example, the running game against Notre Dame).  The bottom line is that when our offense is humming, it is very difficult to stop, whereas other types of offenses can be stopped by the right defense (see, for example Oregon in their heyday versus Auburn or us).

I understand people's concern about Shaw's lack of flexibility, but the converse of that is having a real offensive philosophy that is geared towards one's strengths.  You know which other team is struggling right now?  UCLA, after Mora decided to change UCLA's offensive philosophy in a bid to improve "toughness" and better fit their personnel , including a likely first pick in the draft at QB.  Now, in a year, the move may pay off and Rosen might light the Pac-12 up in his third and (likely) last season behind center.  But in the meantime, UCLA is 3-5, having lost three in a row.  You know who else is struggling?  Oregon.  Their problems are obviously not offensive, but their offense exacerbates their defensive struggles.

Good teams sometimes struggle, sometimes mightily.  But it would take me several years of futility, not several games, before I decided that there was something unfixable about the offense.

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - BostonCard - 10-25-2016

(10-25-2016, 11:11 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I dunno man, I think a lot of people are wildly underrating injuries this year. Injuries to an OL group can kill pretty much any team. Look at San Diego the last few years, despite having Rivers they've had a pretty bad offense because the OL was decimated. This year it's mostly healthy and he's putting up good numbers despite having a bunch of nobodies to throw to. Seattle is another good demonstration, no matter how good your QB is if the OL can't function well you can't get anything done.

That's not to say that Burns is a great starter, but he did well enough in the first few games. Something changed, and it's not that our coaches suddenly turned moronic. Perhaps he's regressing, but the OL being banged up definitely plays a part.

See also Indianapolis.  I don't think anyone questions Andrew Luck, but Indi's offensive line makes him look pretty mediocre at times.

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - fullmetal - 10-25-2016

Don't weight the run/pass ratio too heavily.  When the run is abysmal on first and second down, you almost guarantee a pass on third down.  If you're relatively successful running on first or second down, you can pass a lot less often.  Defenses certainly know that passes are more likely in third-and-long situations...

But yeah, there are many factors involved.  I would say the collapse of the run game is the primary issue, and that leads back to OL/FB blocking.

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - BostonCard - 10-25-2016

We've run 68.9% of the time on first down this year.  Last year, we ran 74.4% of the time on first down.  I know we've had more first and 15's, and some of those "runs" have actually been sacks.  But still, I think we've tried to pass more frequently.

BC

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - fullmetal - 10-25-2016

If true, then that's pretty bad.  Our playbook has less variety than a video game. 

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - BostonCard - 10-25-2016

(10-25-2016, 12:11 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:If true, then that's pretty bad.  Our playbook has less variety than a video game. 

And yet, last year we averaged 5.66 yards per carry on first down.  We were predictable, but effective (see my long rant above).  When we did pass, we averaged a TD every 9 times we threw on first down, and 11.4 yards per attempt.  When the running game is that effective, play action passes work VERY well.

This year, we are averaging 4.18 yards per carry on first down.  But we are only averaging 7.1 yards per pass on first down, with as many interceptions as touchdowns.  Plus, with a 56% completion rate, that leaves us at second and 10 a whole lot more than last year.

BC

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - DC 86 - 10-25-2016

(10-25-2016, 11:59 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:We've run 68.9% of the time on first down this year.  Last year, we ran 74.4% of the time on first down.  I know we've had more first and 15's, and some of those "runs" have actually been sacks.  But still, I think we've tried to pass more frequently.

BC

Perhaps, but those numbers are distorted by the fact that this year we have been passing on first down because we have been trailing during almost the entirety of the last five games, whereas last year we regularly took the first half lead and had the luxury of running the ball on almost every first down thereafter.

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - BostonCard - 10-25-2016

Indeed, that is an important caveat.

BC

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - OutsiderFan - 10-25-2016

A couple thoughts on other teams:

UCLA: They have now scrapped the pro style and gone to the spread.  It has to be frustrating for UCLA to have been struggling to score points when the defense was playing great, but then give up 52 in a game they scored 45 with their backup QB, who BTW, is way better than Burns.  The thing that makes this even more frustrating is UCLA is one of the worst teams in the country when it comes to running the ball.  So this kind of puts a stake in the argument that if you can't run you can't pass.

Michigan:  Obviously the closest thing to Stanford's offense given Harbaugh and Drevno coach there and were both at Stanford with Shaw.  I'd love to see the same breakdowns in terms of under center, first down passing, etc. for Michigan. I don't think Michigan's offensive personnel is light years ahead of Stanford's, but Michigan's offense is light years more productive.


Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - CTcard - 10-25-2016

(10-25-2016, 09:04 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:There's a point on predictability that I want to address: is an overly predictable offense a cause or effect of a bad offense?

As used by most fans, it is more a euphemism than either cause or effect.

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - HisKneeWasDown - 10-25-2016

(10-24-2016, 12:53 PM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=GK3 link=topic=15965.msg177031#msg177031 date=1477337995] I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc. 
This has been an absolute mystery to me why this is not done consistently, given both of their talents.  Swing passes to backs like Love and CMac should be deadly alternatives to running in the box.  Those are basically running plays that put the back in space.  Why not have both Love and CMac in, with one in position for an inside run and one moving out for a swing pass, and have Burns choose based on how the box is stacked.  Is Burns capable of throwing swing passes?
[/quote]

I agree! Whenever CMac or Love catch the ball in space, amazing things seem  to happen.

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - Langdude - 10-26-2016

(10-25-2016, 11:57 PM)HisKneeWasDown link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=15965.msg177033#msg177033 date=1477338830]
[quote author=GK3 link=topic=15965.msg177031#msg177031 date=1477337995] I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc. 
This has been an absolute mystery to me why this is not done consistently, given both of their talents.  Swing passes to backs like Love and CMac should be deadly alternatives to running in the box.  Those are basically running plays that put the back in space.  Why not have both Love and CMac in, with one in position for an inside run and one moving out for a swing pass, and have Burns choose based on how the box is stacked.  Is Burns capable of throwing swing passes?
[/quote]

I agree! Whenever CMac or Love catch the ball in space, amazing things seem  to happen.
[/quote]

"Milburn in the flat!"

-m.

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - winflop - 10-27-2016

(10-26-2016, 11:51 PM)Langdude link Wrote:[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=15965.msg177222#msg177222 date=1477465037]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=15965.msg177033#msg177033 date=1477338830]
[quote author=GK3 link=topic=15965.msg177031#msg177031 date=1477337995] I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc. 
This has been an absolute mystery to me why this is not done consistently, given both of their talents.  Swing passes to backs like Love and CMac should be deadly alternatives to running in the box.  Those are basically running plays that put the back in space.  Why not have both Love and CMac in, with one in position for an inside run and one moving out for a swing pass, and have Burns choose based on how the box is stacked.  Is Burns capable of throwing swing passes?
[/quote]

I agree! Whenever CMac or Love catch the ball in space, amazing things seem  to happen.
[/quote]

"Milburn in the flat!"

-m.
[/quote]

Volpe up the middle
Muster the ball carrier
TOUCHDOWN TOMMY VARDELL

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - Papa John - 10-27-2016

Swing pass to Darrin Nelson!

Re: Time for the KJ Costello era to start - fullmetal - 10-27-2016

Remember that your QB has to be spot on with those passes...miss it and you'll likely have a streaking defensive player itching for a pick-six.