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 - 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.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-22-2017
(12-22-2017, 07:00 PM)Card Fan in OR link Wrote: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.I think Shaw agrees with you. That is the offense he wants to run, given his druthers. With Luck and Hogan, he did that. Sometimes the targets were tight ends, but they were still down the field plays. In 2016, we didn't have an offensive line that could protect the passer long enough to do this, and we also didn't have a QB who could reliably throw these patterns. If you look at the K state game and the USC game, we did throw the ball down the field quite a bit. After that, not so much, but for good reason. In 2017, when Chryst was the QB, he would throw the ball into the ground far to often to make these plays go. When Shaw switched to KJ, he didn't trust him to throw against WSU as much as he should have, by Shaws's own statements. Subsequently, he has progressively opened things up. Next year, you will see a lot more of what you want I think.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-22-2017
(12-22-2017, 07:00 PM)Card Fan in OR link Wrote: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.I think Shaw agrees with you. That is the offense he wants to run, given his druthers. With Luck and Hogan, he did that. Sometimes the targets were tight ends, but they were still down the field plays. In 2016, we didn't have an offensive line that could protect the passer long enough to do this, and we also didn't have a QB who could reliably throw these patterns. If you look at the K state game and the USC game, we did throw the ball down the field quite a bit. After that, not so much, but for good reason. In 2017, when Chryst was the QB, he would throw the ball into the ground far to often to make these plays go. When Shaw switched to KJ, he didn't trust him to throw against WSU as much as he should have, by Shaws's own statements. Subsequently, he has progressively opened things up. Next year, you will see a lot more of what you want I think.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - winflop - 12-23-2017
(12-22-2017, 10:56 AM)stupac2 link Wrote: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 stuff happens and it's not necessarily anyone's fault in particular.
I get much of what you're saying. When it comes to what fans of other schools think, I don't see Clemson pulling a Syracuse twice a year every year. It's about frequency and repetition. I think Stanford makes this kind of mistake at least once and most often twice a season, year in and year out. That's too often IMnsHO.
Not having a Plan B (or Plan C) is inexcusable at this level of competition. When my older son was planning his Eagle Scout project, I asked him what his Plan B was at every major step of the project. He didn't get what I meant until he went to do the project and needed to go to that Plan B twice. Gameplanning includes game theory and contingency planning. I have no doubt that there is a Plan B and probably a Plan C. My concern is that they don't go to it often enough.
I'm sure there are times where sticking with Plan A has worked. I have no empirical data but I doubt it's substantially over 50% of the time and might be less. Getting this half-right was good enough in the 80s when a .500 record was acceptable. Not any more.
Back to the original premise of my argument - I think that bringing in an OC from outside the program would have been a good thing because I think a different voice in Shaw's ear about making adjustments in the gameplan when it isn't working. I think it's one of two things that need to improve on offense.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - winflop - 12-23-2017
(12-22-2017, 10:56 AM)stupac2 link Wrote: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 stuff happens and it's not necessarily anyone's fault in particular.
I get much of what you're saying. When it comes to what fans of other schools think, I don't see Clemson pulling a Syracuse twice a year every year. It's about frequency and repetition. I think Stanford makes this kind of mistake at least once and most often twice a season, year in and year out. That's too often IMnsHO.
Not having a Plan B (or Plan C) is inexcusable at this level of competition. When my older son was planning his Eagle Scout project, I asked him what his Plan B was at every major step of the project. He didn't get what I meant until he went to do the project and needed to go to that Plan B twice. Gameplanning includes game theory and contingency planning. I have no doubt that there is a Plan B and probably a Plan C. My concern is that they don't go to it often enough.
I'm sure there are times where sticking with Plan A has worked. I have no empirical data but I doubt it's substantially over 50% of the time and might be less. Getting this half-right was good enough in the 80s when a .500 record was acceptable. Not any more.
Back to the original premise of my argument - I think that bringing in an OC from outside the program would have been a good thing because I think a different voice in Shaw's ear about making adjustments in the gameplan when it isn't working. I think it's one of two things that need to improve on offense.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - jacketree - 12-23-2017
Clemson is an interesting example. A few years ago Clemsoning was a verb. Suddenly they stopped losing those two games a year they shouldnt, and became kings of the world. Wonder what Dabo started doing differently, if anything.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - jacketree - 12-23-2017
Clemson is an interesting example. A few years ago Clemsoning was a verb. Suddenly they stopped losing those two games a year they shouldnt, and became kings of the world. Wonder what Dabo started doing differently, if anything.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-23-2017
(12-23-2017, 10:44 AM)jacketree link Wrote:Wonder what Dabo started doing differently, if anything.Not much. He just got better players. :) If you win most of the one-on-one matchups, the rest usually doesn't matter.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-23-2017
(12-23-2017, 10:44 AM)jacketree link Wrote:Wonder what Dabo started doing differently, if anything.Not much. He just got better players. :) If you win most of the one-on-one matchups, the rest usually doesn't matter.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - stupac2 - 12-23-2017
(12-23-2017, 10:44 AM)jacketree link Wrote:Clemson is an interesting example. A few years ago Clemsoning was a verb. Suddenly they stopped losing those two games a year they shouldnt, and became kings of the world. Wonder what Dabo started doing differently, if anything.
Exactly. We're looking at a chaotic, small-sample-size system and trying to impose meaning onto it. There's not enough data and too many variables, everything is overfit and people tend to overreact to things.
Does Stanford really derp away games at a high frequency under Shaw? In 2011 Oregon just destroyed us, that wasn't a derp. Maybe the Fiesta was a derp, but it's also a pretty irrelevant one in the grand scheme of things. In 2012 I don't think either loss was a derp, our offense just wasn't very good and low-scoring games are high variance. In 2013 I suppose you can argue that the two regular-season losses were derps, I happen to think that MSU was just a really good team. In 2014 we had problems but I think USC was really the only derp. 2015 is tough because while we definitely performed worse than we should have against Northwestern, that was a good team, we were on the road in an early game, and early-season games are weird. Maybe you count it, but Oregon certainly wasn't. In 2016 you can count Colorado, I guess, the rest we just got rolled. This season we should've beat SDSU, but WSU and USC both times beat us fair and square.
So my count is:
2011: 0
2012: 0
2013: 2
2014: 1
2015: 1
2016: 1
2017: 1
That's an average of less than one "defeat from the jaws of victory" loss per year. Is that too many? I dunno, certainly it would be nice if it were zero, but given the realities of the game I'm not sure it's feasible. I could probably do this exercise with the Patriots over the same timeframe and find just as many games, perhaps more (I know fans rue the 2015 regular season for how many games were pissed away, there's always some). The only teams you won't find this with are the ones that regularly have a massive talent advantage, and even they do it too (see: OSU vs VT in 2015).
Re: It's official: Pritchard - stupac2 - 12-23-2017
(12-23-2017, 10:44 AM)jacketree link Wrote:Clemson is an interesting example. A few years ago Clemsoning was a verb. Suddenly they stopped losing those two games a year they shouldnt, and became kings of the world. Wonder what Dabo started doing differently, if anything.
Exactly. We're looking at a chaotic, small-sample-size system and trying to impose meaning onto it. There's not enough data and too many variables, everything is overfit and people tend to overreact to things.
Does Stanford really derp away games at a high frequency under Shaw? In 2011 Oregon just destroyed us, that wasn't a derp. Maybe the Fiesta was a derp, but it's also a pretty irrelevant one in the grand scheme of things. In 2012 I don't think either loss was a derp, our offense just wasn't very good and low-scoring games are high variance. In 2013 I suppose you can argue that the two regular-season losses were derps, I happen to think that MSU was just a really good team. In 2014 we had problems but I think USC was really the only derp. 2015 is tough because while we definitely performed worse than we should have against Northwestern, that was a good team, we were on the road in an early game, and early-season games are weird. Maybe you count it, but Oregon certainly wasn't. In 2016 you can count Colorado, I guess, the rest we just got rolled. This season we should've beat SDSU, but WSU and USC both times beat us fair and square.
So my count is:
2011: 0
2012: 0
2013: 2
2014: 1
2015: 1
2016: 1
2017: 1
That's an average of less than one "defeat from the jaws of victory" loss per year. Is that too many? I dunno, certainly it would be nice if it were zero, but given the realities of the game I'm not sure it's feasible. I could probably do this exercise with the Patriots over the same timeframe and find just as many games, perhaps more (I know fans rue the 2015 regular season for how many games were pissed away, there's always some). The only teams you won't find this with are the ones that regularly have a massive talent advantage, and even they do it too (see: OSU vs VT in 2015).
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Beeg_Dawg - 12-23-2017
(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
My recollection is there were two timeouts called prior to that play. Stanford called one, MS called one. The best we could was hand off between the tackles when 8 defenders were within 5 yards of the center? Hogan could have faked the handoff and walked for the TD.Â
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Beeg_Dawg - 12-23-2017
(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
My recollection is there were two timeouts called prior to that play. Stanford called one, MS called one. The best we could was hand off between the tackles when 8 defenders were within 5 yards of the center? Hogan could have faked the handoff and walked for the TD.Â
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-23-2017
(12-23-2017, 07:34 PM)BeegDawg link Wrote:My recollection is there were two timeouts called prior to that play. Stanford called one, MS called one. The best we could was hand off between the tackles when 8 defenders were within 5 yards of the center? Hogan could have faked the handoff and walked for the TD.My recollection is that we were on our own 33 yard line. It would have been a pretty long walk for a touchdown. ;) I would have settled for a first down. As it turns out, both corners played the run and crossed the LOS as soon as they saw it was a run, not that it actually mattered. The safety was on the LOS but didn't crash down. Hogan wasn't going anywhere. Had we decided to pass, it probably would have worked if the corners bought the fake. If they didn't, who knows? However, at that point in the game. MSU seemed to have the upper hand. We weren't blocking anybody. Here is a link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ5BqT4YfHg Go to 2:33 and you will see this. Note also that we scored a grand total of 3 points in the second half.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-23-2017
(12-23-2017, 07:34 PM)BeegDawg link Wrote:My recollection is there were two timeouts called prior to that play. Stanford called one, MS called one. The best we could was hand off between the tackles when 8 defenders were within 5 yards of the center? Hogan could have faked the handoff and walked for the TD.My recollection is that we were on our own 33 yard line. It would have been a pretty long walk for a touchdown. ;) I would have settled for a first down. As it turns out, both corners played the run and crossed the LOS as soon as they saw it was a run, not that it actually mattered. The safety was on the LOS but didn't crash down. Hogan wasn't going anywhere. Had we decided to pass, it probably would have worked if the corners bought the fake. If they didn't, who knows? However, at that point in the game. MSU seemed to have the upper hand. We weren't blocking anybody. Here is a link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ5BqT4YfHg Go to 2:33 and you will see this. Note also that we scored a grand total of 3 points in the second half.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - teejers1 - 12-26-2017
Goose, if you can't allow yourself to criticize the fourth down call against MSU in the Rose Bowl . . . Hell, I was sitting right next to Terry, the biggest of Shaw supporters, and turned to him and asked "That's the best we can do after calling a timeout? What game has Shaw been watching?" And Terry replied "I don't know." The point is: even he was in disbelief.
There are FAR TOO MANY of these moments/dud games. And the derp counter doesn't include games Stanford won (see OSU this past season). Many of you say "we won the game, so who cares?" A few of us say "it matters because it reveals that the O is not playing up to snuff."
And the problem isn't a bad play call here and there at critical times, or too many DOGs, or too many timeouts called to avoid DOGs (though they are all manifestations of a non-optimal offense). The problems are (i) a recurring inability to recognize game situation/tenor and adjust plays accordingly (at Utah, MSU, back-to-back SC end games, etc.), and (ii) a game plan that never has the D on its heels. Does anyone think the 'Niners have great separators at the skill positions? Yet they run an offense where receivers (WRs, TEs, and RBs) are on occasion WIDE open. That is a result of a game plan that has the D guessing, and missing assignments, often as a result of misdirection plays. Against Tennessee - a great defense - there were at least 3 such instances of wide open receivers (and on one of them Jimmy GQ missed him). We NEVER see that at Stanford. And the only reason for that is because the coach chooses to run a straightforward (literally and figuratively) run-based offense, where misdirection just isn't in the "really complex playbook" [insert eye-rolling emoji here].
P.S. To whomever posted that the Fiesta Bowl result pretty much didn't matter . . . please. Andrew Luck & Co. deserved to go out a winner, and I'd bet good money it "mattered" to them. Hell, it mattered to me, and all I did was spend thousands of dollars so my family could support the team and enjoy the bowl game.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - teejers1 - 12-26-2017
Goose, if you can't allow yourself to criticize the fourth down call against MSU in the Rose Bowl . . . Hell, I was sitting right next to Terry, the biggest of Shaw supporters, and turned to him and asked "That's the best we can do after calling a timeout? What game has Shaw been watching?" And Terry replied "I don't know." The point is: even he was in disbelief.
There are FAR TOO MANY of these moments/dud games. And the derp counter doesn't include games Stanford won (see OSU this past season). Many of you say "we won the game, so who cares?" A few of us say "it matters because it reveals that the O is not playing up to snuff."
And the problem isn't a bad play call here and there at critical times, or too many DOGs, or too many timeouts called to avoid DOGs (though they are all manifestations of a non-optimal offense). The problems are (i) a recurring inability to recognize game situation/tenor and adjust plays accordingly (at Utah, MSU, back-to-back SC end games, etc.), and (ii) a game plan that never has the D on its heels. Does anyone think the 'Niners have great separators at the skill positions? Yet they run an offense where receivers (WRs, TEs, and RBs) are on occasion WIDE open. That is a result of a game plan that has the D guessing, and missing assignments, often as a result of misdirection plays. Against Tennessee - a great defense - there were at least 3 such instances of wide open receivers (and on one of them Jimmy GQ missed him). We NEVER see that at Stanford. And the only reason for that is because the coach chooses to run a straightforward (literally and figuratively) run-based offense, where misdirection just isn't in the "really complex playbook" [insert eye-rolling emoji here].
P.S. To whomever posted that the Fiesta Bowl result pretty much didn't matter . . . please. Andrew Luck & Co. deserved to go out a winner, and I'd bet good money it "mattered" to them. Hell, it mattered to me, and all I did was spend thousands of dollars so my family could support the team and enjoy the bowl game.
Re: It's official: Pritchard - TreesAndBirds - 12-26-2017
So in addition to the games that people felt we lost (or were way too close) because of uncreative coaching, do people feel we won games because of good (in game) coaching?
Re: It's official: Pritchard - TreesAndBirds - 12-26-2017
So in addition to the games that people felt we lost (or were way too close) because of uncreative coaching, do people feel we won games because of good (in game) coaching?
Re: It's official: Pritchard - teejers1 - 12-26-2017
The Oregon home game where Stanford just ground Oregon down - including several fourth and short conversions, IIRC - for 3.7 quarters (when Oregon made a mini-run and was a second onside kick recovery away from having the chance to steal it). That game was a good one for Coach Shaw (where sticking with the grind) was the best call. There probably are others - maybe at ASU in CCG - but not a lot stand out (to this fan, anyway).