The Loss to TCU - Printable Version

The Loss to TCU - 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: The Loss to TCU (/thread-15324.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Re: The Loss to TCU - Mick - 12-31-2017

I think Shaw is Stanford's best-ever coach because he has six of the top nine per-game average scoring margins by season (through this year).Â Harbaugh has one of the remaining three when Shaw was his OC.

That's not to say that I don't think the defense could be stiffer, the recruiting couldn't improve and the playcalling could be both quicker and strategically better.Â I think all of those things.Â At the same time, I think Shaw is the best football coach Stanford has ever had, by a margin.

Re: The Loss to TCU - pefloresjr - 12-31-2017

(12-31-2017, 03:44 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=oman link=topic=18454.msg219990#msg219990 date=1514754972]
[quote author=dabigv link=topic=18454.msg219966#msg219966 date=1514745083]

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.

Shawarma?

[Image: chicken-souvlaki-wrap-171579564-58248960...f71003.jpg]

[/quote]

Looks Shawlicious.
[/quote]

I think y'all are Shawnomenal!

Cheers,
Pete F.

Re: The Loss to TCU - CowboyIndian - 12-31-2017

(12-31-2017, 12:08 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:CI, I'll refrain from another rant...

I wasnt responding to your oft-published thoughts on our offense but rather the tone of your post, which seemed to wander perilously close to self pity and included a bizarre mischaracterization of folks responses to the aforementioned thoughts.

Re: The Loss to TCU - Goose - 12-31-2017

(12-31-2017, 03:13 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:I don't have a theory for this.Â He/coaches tend to call shorter passes on first down (seems likely from the stats) but KJ struggles completing them.

Re: The Loss to TCU - JJJ - 12-31-2017

(12-31-2017, 05:55 PM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg220001#msg220001 date=1514758402]
I don't have a theory for this.Â He/coaches tend to call shorter passes on first down (seems likely from the stats) but KJ struggles completing them.

It could be that Costello has trouble with shorter passes, more the ones that require touchÂ with accuracy, rather than "a Nolan Ryan fastball". That also may be why we don't throw swing passes to Love very often. Against TCU, the passes to Scarlett were pretty far down field, not swing passes or bubble screens. I don't know that this is true, but it could be. Maybe spring ball will see some emphasis on this, if it is the reason. Thoughts?
[/quote]
I, too, seem to recall KJ had more zip on his shorter passes than was probably necessary (and some commentary about the "Elway cross" by other posters when it was mentioned). You may be on to something here.

Re: The Loss to TCU - qwerty49 - 01-03-2018

(12-31-2017, 03:13 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Here you go:

Costello passing, by down:

1st: 53.7%, 4.99 ypa, 3 touchdowns, 1 interception, 18% first downs
2nd: 65%, 9.01 ypa, 6 touchdowns, 0 interceptions, 36% first downs
3rd: 55.7%, 8.24 ypa, 5 touchdowns, 2 interceptions, 44% first downs

This isn't common, as you can easily guess.Â

I don't have a theory for this.Â He/coaches tend to call shorter passes on first down (seems likely from the stats) but KJ struggles completing them.

I guess my takeaway from this is that just the avg ypa or yp(rush) isn't enough -- that we need a sense of the distribution because the big plays and stuffed plays skew the averages.

Someone can correct my math on this but I'm tempted to look at the 2nd down numbers and conclude that with 9+ ypa and only 36% 1st downs that our first down play is either incomplete or getting stuffed about 64% of the time.Â And I'm not surprised if that indeed is true.

Re: The Loss to TCU - CTcard - 01-03-2018

I go away for awhile and this board starts turning into the Bootleg (at least parts of this thread). Not good.

But, there are themes here that interest me.

(12-29-2017, 09:17 PM)JustAnotherFan link Wrote:We do have a predictable offense. The predictability comes in the personnel groupings and formations.
...Â ran a certain set of plays from specific formations and personnel groupings.

Without checking any chart of tendencies versus anyone else, I think it is true that formation is more closely correlated with play call for Stanford than average. That is largely built-in to the design of the offense.

For an extreme, compare to Oregon under Kelly.
They basically had one offensive formation and about five plays.
They rarely changed personnel between plays, and when they did sub it was mainly to give someone a rest but the sub was plugged into the same role in the same formation.
This was all done for maximum tempo. The response to the defense was primarly through post-snap decisions by the QB using the built in options for the play.

Stanford pretty much does the opposite.
Stanford substitutes massively, trying to optimize the the personnel for each play.
The hope is to overpower the D with bigger stronger blockers on power-run plays and overwhelm the defense with receivers on pass plays, etc. The hope is to catch the defense with personnel they cannot match up with either for a given play or overall because some personnel sets the defense just doesn't have.
So, yes, Stanford tends to run out of the no-receiver sets and tends to pass out of the empty backfield sets.

It's a different approach - much more the traditional NFL approach that features match-ups over tricking the defense. I am not sure that it is inherently better or worse, but it certainly has its trade-offs.

(12-31-2017, 11:57 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example, and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too.Â

(12-31-2017, 01:48 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I did the math not long ago.Â We run on first down 2/3 of the time and gain an average of 5.8 yards per carry.Â Yes, the number is skewed by a bunch of 50+ Yard Bryce Love runs, but at this point it is a feature of the offense.Â We pass the football on about 1/3 of first downs and gain about 5 yap.Â Note that the run numbers are slightly inflated because dropbacks that result in a sack count as rushing yards, so they take yards away from rushing and inflate the denominator.

Interesting.
I think Hulk is correct, though of course it is difficult to just how often the average fan thinks we run on first down.
BC - I think you have a typo in there. The pass numbers are inflated and the run numbers deflated by counting sacks as runs.
For the season, the numbers on first down were:
RunÂ 67.6%; 6.41 yds/att
Pass 32.3%; 5.45 yds/attÂ Â Â PER = 104

While I would think that is a high percentage of runs on first down, it's hard to have a feel without a comparison. To do this with every team is too much, but a few selective choices are:
Bama - 72.6% runs
Oregon - 72.4%
Michigan - 67.1%
U$C - 62.2%
UW -Â 60.7%
TCU - 58.4%
cal - 52.2%
WSU - 34.7%

Stanford is high on the percent of runs on first down, but not out of the box high.

(12-31-2017, 03:13 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Costello passing, by down:

1st: 53.7%, 4.99 ypa, 3 touchdowns, 1 interception, 18% first downs
2nd: 65%, 9.01 ypa, 6 touchdowns, 0 interceptions, 36% first downs
3rd: 55.7%, 8.24 ypa, 5 touchdowns, 2 interceptions, 44% first downs

This isn't common, as you can easily guess.Â

A few others:
Chryst
1st:Â 46.8%, 5.34 ypa
2nd: 65.3%, 7.27 ypa
3rd: 51.1%, 7.33 ypa

Rosen
1st: 66.2%, 9.12 ypa
2nd: 64.9%, 7.96 ypa
3rd: 52.0%, 7.01 ypa

Darnold
1st: 65.2%, 8.40 ypa
2nd: 64.6%, 9.80 ypa
3rd: 58.7%, 7.63 ypa

Browning
1st: 72.1%, 8.47 ypa
2nd: 67.6%, 8.02 ypa
3rd: 60.8%, 7.11 ypa

Don't know what to make of this, but since both Chryst and Costello seem notably bad on first down, I have to wonder if we are calling particularly poor or low percentage passes when we pass on first down.

(01-03-2018, 01:07 AM)qwerty49 link Wrote:Someone can correct my math on this but I'm tempted to look at the 2nd down numbers and conclude that with 9+ ypa and only 36% 1st downs that our first down play is either incomplete or getting stuffed about 64% of the time.Â And I'm not surprised if that indeed is true.

Definitely not doing the math correctly, though perhaps your overall point holds.
With these numbers there is no direct way to calculate a stuff rate on first down.

Football Outsiders does run a stat called "Stuff Rate" (under Offensive Line stats). It is runs that go for zero or fewer yards, with no adjustment for strength of opponent. It is not broken down by down, and it is for runs only.
Stanford has been "stuffed" on 21.8% of run plays (far from 64%). That is 105th out of 130 teams.
But it is worth noting that the actual rate on this stat doesn't vary a whole lot. The #30 team is at 17%.

That is an indicated of the all or nothing nature of our run game this year, which has been commented upon extensively.

Re: The Loss to TCU - Hulk01 - 01-03-2018

Excellent observations.

I'd offer an added reason that many Stanford fans think Stanford's offense is too predictable, and even dull.Â

It's because those fans have seen this Stanford offense now for a decade.Â It's the Harbs offense with a few new wrinkles and plays each year.

And fans have seen it so often there is no element of surprise--until Hogan fakes a fumble and throws deep for a TD, say.

I suspect fans would have the same reaction if they'd rooted for Chip Kelly's team for several years.Â (Thanks for the lead in).Â Inside zone-read give, inside zone-read keep--over and over.Â And over.

Then there's the zone-read fake, quick bubble right.Â
Then the zone-read fake, bubble fake, deep ball.

Over and over.

Not much more than that.

The pros figured it out.Â They knew what Kelly was going to do from the formation alone.Â And not just generally--not just "they're going to run."Â Defenses knew exactly where the Eagles were going to run.Â End of Chip Kelly's offense in the NFL.

Scott Frost's very good UCF offense isn't that different.Â And you watched his offenses 13-14 times a year for a couple seasons, you might start yearning for less predictability and more variety--particularly if your Frost team is losing a couple or more games a year.Â You'd start blaming the apparent sameness of the offense for the losses.

Again, terrific post.Â Thank you!

Re: The Loss to TCU - teejers1 - 01-03-2018

CTC, I respectfully note in response to your "Stanford-tries-to gain-an-edge-with-personnel-groupings-even-if-cost-of-that-is-tipping" that in college, when an offense substitutes players, the refs sit on the ball to ensure the D has time to bring in substitutions, if desired.Â Thus, I think the chances of improving odds with personnel groupings are not that great.

I respectfully submit that every citation to "Chip Kelly's offense" or his ilk (see UCF) is a red herring.Â Respectfully, no one is suggesting that Stanford implement that kind of hurry-up, no-huddle, the-play-should-be-called-from-the-sidelines-by-the-coaches-after-they-see-the-defensive-alignment, for a variety of reasons.Â Rather, the more appropriate comparisons would be to pro teams that run more traditional pro offenses.Â And while I'm sure there is a less accomplished offense somewhere in NFL land, I'm also pretty sure that there are numerous teams with better approach/strategy/etc., starting with the ones in the Bay Area.

P.S.Â How many times this season has Stanford thrown for more than 200 yards?
Â Â Â Â When is the last time a Stanford QB has thrown for more than 300 yards?
Â

Re: The Loss to TCU - lex24 - 01-03-2018

One of the things I gleaned from the sidelines is the dizzyingÂ array of personnel packages. Not just formations. Essentially every play running out new groups. Theyd not only call out the package but often preceded it with a players name. So, for example- Trips Rector. Or trips Stallworth. Not the actual formation nameÂ My memoryÂ >:(

Stallworth is a good example. He was an excellent blocker. When he went in, it was a run a very high pct of time.

But here is the thing - most teams have tendencies out of formations and personnel groups. Stanford is probably a tad extreme. But its not out of the ordinary.Â

Re: The Loss to TCU - BostonCard - 01-03-2018

This might be a good place to note that Alabama won their national semi-final game against Clemson with 261 yards of total offense, of which 120 were passing yards.Â Jalen Hurts has not thrown for 300 yards this season, and has done so only once in his career.Â As a team Alabama has only thrown for 200 yards 5 times all season.

The last time a Stanford QB threw for more than 300 yards, was Hogan against Oregon in 2015.

BC

Re: The Loss to TCU - stupac2 - 01-03-2018

(01-03-2018, 10:53 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:I respectfully submit that every citation to "Chip Kelly's offense" or his ilk (see UCF) is a red herring.Â Respectfully, no one is suggesting that Stanford implement that kind of hurry-up, no-huddle, the-play-should-be-called-from-the-sidelines-by-the-coaches-after-they-see-the-defensive-alignment, for a variety of reasons.Â Rather, the more appropriate comparisons would be to pro teams that run more traditional pro offenses.Â And while I'm sure there is a less accomplished offense somewhere in NFL land, I'm also pretty sure that there are numerous teams with better approach/strategy/etc., starting with the ones in the Bay Area.

The comparison is apt because virtually no one calls those offenses boring or predictable despite having their own issues.

Quote:P.S.Â How many times this season has Stanford thrown for more than 200 yards?
Â Â Â Â When is the last time a Stanford QB has thrown for more than 300 yards?

You are aware you can look these things up yourself, right? We passed for >200 yards in 4 games this year, our last 300-yard passer was Hogan against Oregon. But the real question is, so what? Our QBs were pretty bad this year and we had the Voldemort runner-up at RB, who, even while gimpy, was still amazing. Is it particularly surprising that we haven't been effective throwing the ball?

Re: The Loss to TCU - BostonCard - 01-03-2018

(01-03-2018, 01:07 AM)qwerty49 link Wrote:Someone can correct my math on this but I'm tempted to look at the 2nd down numbers and conclude that with 9+ ypa and only 36% 1st downs that our first down play is either incomplete or getting stuffed about 64% of the time.Â And I'm not surprised if that indeed is true.

That's not right.Â Let's say that our first down plays always result in either a first down or a second a five.Â If our second down throws are complete for 27 yards 1/3 of the time, and incomplete 2/3 of the time, we would average 9 ypa, but only 33% 1st downs.Â You can't make any conclusions about what happened on first down.

What we do know, is that on second down passes, we gain a first down 33% of the time and a touchdown 11% of the time (43 first downs and 11 touchdowns in 130 passes), we threw an incompletion or interception 35% of the time (since the completion percentage is 65%), which leaves 21% of the time where we throw a completion short of the sticks.Â The average yards per completion is about 12.7 yards (1080 total yards/85 completions), but of course the first down percentage will depend on how many "to go" yards are needed and the variance around that average completion yardage.

Also, of note, this is only the throws on second down.Â Typically the "to go" distance on second down is going to be greater for attempted passes than attempted runs.Â We still passed on second down only 45% of the time (130 passes versus 156 rushes), andÂ got a first down or touchdown 33% of the time rushing on second down (40 first downs, 12 TDs in 156 rushes), gaining an average of 6.26 ypc.

BC

Re: The Loss to TCU - CTcard - 01-03-2018

(01-03-2018, 10:53 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:CTC, I respectfully note in response to your "Stanford-tries-to gain-an-edge-with-personnel-groupings-even-if-cost-of-that-is-tipping" that in college, when an offense substitutes players, the refs sit on the ball to ensure the D has time to bring in substitutions, if desired.Â Thus, I think the chances of improving odds with personnel groupings are not that great.

That is (more or less) the rule in the NFL as well.

I was only describing what Stanford was doing. I was not commenting on whether it is good or bad.
[Well, I did make a few points about the trade-offs.]

Quote:I respectfully submit that every citation to "Chip Kelly's offense" or his ilk (see UCF) is a red herring.Â Respectfully, no one is suggesting that Stanford implement that kind of hurry-up, no-huddle, the-play-should-be-called-from-the-sidelines-by-the-coaches-after-they-see-the-defensive-alignment, for a variety of reasons.Â

I meant no comment upon anybody else's preferred offense for Stanford. Again, the point was to describe what Stanford was doing. As far as I can tell, on the matter of tempo and player substitutions, the Chip Kelly Oregon offense is about as polar opposite to the Stanford offense as any I know. It is also an offense that is well known to Stanford fans. Thus it seemed a helpful reference point for discussing the nature of different approaches.Â

Quote:Rather, the more appropriate comparisons would be to pro teams that run more traditional pro offenses.Â And while I'm sure there is a less accomplished offense somewhere in NFL land, I'm also pretty sure that there are numerous teams with better approach/strategy/etc., starting with the ones in the Bay Area.

Actually, I think that the more appropriate comparisons for teams running something kind of similar to what Stanford does are college teams with a more power-run, pass downfield/for first downs approach. That was why I included Alabama, U$C, and UW in the comparison for things like run percentage on first down, QB success passing on first down, etc.

-----------
Anyway, don't be so defensive. To the extent that post was on the topic of your bete noir, it was promoting the ideas that a) Stanford does tend to tip its plays by formation, and b) there may be a systematic issue with the first down passing game - ideas that would seem to align with your predilections.

Re: The Loss to TCU - BostonCard - 01-03-2018

(01-03-2018, 01:44 PM)CTcard link Wrote:Anyway, don't be so defensive. To the extent that post was on the topic of your bete noir, it was promoting the ideas that a) Stanford does tend to tip its plays by formation, and b) there may be a systematic issue with the first down passing game - ideas that would seem to align with your predilections.

Well, given that Teejers is agitating for fewer runs between the tackles, I suspect that suggestions that passing on first down is not working very well would not align all that well with his predilection for more passing on first down, at least assuming that Teejers is agitating for more passing as a means to an end and not an end in itself (sometimes I wonder about that).

BC

Re: The Loss to TCU - JustAnotherFan - 01-03-2018

(01-03-2018, 08:43 AM)CTcard link Wrote:Stanford pretty much does the opposite.
Stanford substitutes massively, trying to optimize the the personnel for each play.
The hope is to overpower the D with bigger stronger blockers on power-run plays and overwhelm the defense with receivers on pass plays, etc. The hope is to catch the defense with personnel they cannot match up with either for a given play or overall because some personnel sets the defense just doesn't have.
So, yes, Stanford tends to run out of the no-receiver sets and tends to pass out of the empty backfield sets.

It's a different approach - much more the traditional NFL approach that features match-ups over tricking the defense. I am not sure that it is inherently better or worse, but it certainly has its trade-offs.

It is deeper than that. In the pros you might have third down backs, or a blocking tight end, but they still know they have to keep the defense honest. If you only run THREE plays out of a certain formation-player grouping all year, and all three plays are running plays between the tackles ...

Also, Trevor Speights is not what I would call someone who gives Stanford a personnel advantage in the passing game (other than being a better pass blocker than Love), but you knew very well that when he was on the field with multiple formations that it was a limited number of pass plays. Zero exceptions.

As a defensive back or linebacker ... that's what you call dinner.

Re: The Loss to TCU - JustAnotherFan - 01-03-2018

(01-03-2018, 11:17 AM)lex24 link Wrote:But here is the thing - most teams have tendencies out of formations and personnel groups. Stanford is probably a tad extreme. But its not out of the ordinary.

A would say a tad extreme is out of the ordinary. And when the defense knows the play you're running that puts us at a disadvantage, not the defense. It might work with most of the time ... but when you're playing top 15 teams that s not a good strategy to stick to.

In other words, if an inside linebacker knows the play is coming off center he can shoot the A gap. But if he has to worry about a tight end release or a slot cross ...

Re: The Loss to TCU - BostonCard - 01-03-2018

The bottom line is that there is a tradeoff involved in putting in the personnel that you think can most effectively run the play you have designed, at the expense of tipping off the defense, or do you want to keep the defense guessing, but have personnel who might be less effective at carrying out the plays.

Both approaches have pluses and minuses, and neither is intrinsically better or worse.Â If you are an inside linebacker and know the play is coming off center and shoot the A gap, but are met with a pulling guard (or fullback) who effectively blocks you and springs the running back, it doesn't matter a lick that you knew the play was coming.Â And if you (as a defense) sell out completely, you are vulnerable to the rare trick play where the offense totally goes against its alignment (see, for example, touchdowns thrown to our tight end out of the jumbo package).

BC

Re: The Loss to TCU - teejers1 - 01-03-2018

I respectfully have no clue what you're referring to on being "defensive."Â FTR, the Chip Kelly reference was not even in response to your post, but in response to Hulk saying Chip's offense is predictable but no one complains about that (or they might if it didn't succeed, as happened in NFL).Â My respectful suggestion is that such a statement is a red herring because no one is talking about that.

I respectfully suggest that what Nick Saban does at Alabama is also a red herring, and certainly not something Stanford should aspire to . . . unless and until Stanford fills its two-deep with the number of 5*s Saban does at 'Bama.Â But in the hypothetical world of Stanford playing 'Bama, how do you think the Cardinal would fare with Shaw's signature "this is what we do, try and stop us" approach?Â Yeah, I don't think very well, either.Â But that's okay - Swinney and Clemson couldn't do jack, either . . . but at least they tried.

Lastly, BC, I respectfully submit that I have not called for more pass plays on first down, per se (though I do think running the ball 60+% of the time is generally a bad idea - I'd go into more detail, but don't want to offend CI, Hulk, and others, who have heard the commentary numerous times).Â So I'll just say this:Â I respectfully have suggested that running Love between the tackles via pitchout or straight handoff is not the most prudent way to get the most dynamic player room in space.Â And contrary to others, I found Stanford ranked 105 out of 130 teams on "stuff rate" to be rather alarming, and entirely consistent with what our eyes told us about repeatedly giving the ball to the RB between the tackles.

Re: The Loss to TCU - CTcard - 01-03-2018

(01-03-2018, 02:19 PM)JustAnotherFan link Wrote:Also, Trevor Speights is not what I would call someone who gives Stanford a personnel advantage in the passing game (other than being a better pass blocker than Love), but you knew very well that when he was on the field with multiple formations that it was a limited number of pass plays. Zero exceptions.

The use of backs in the passing game is one of the things that I think Stanford did poorly this year. Not only did they almost never catch outlet passes or run routes, but weren't particularly distinguished at pass blocking either. Our main backs had 16 receptions all year (Love 6, Scarlett 6, Marx 3, Speights 1 - possibly one or two of Weddington's receptions were out of the backfield though I do not remember offhand).

I think that Love could have been productive in the short passing game, and the bowl game showed that Scarlett could catch and run (he also had the long catch and run vs Rice, and a good gain vs $C game 1). Both in routes and as an outlet, more RBs catching the ball could have helped out our QBs a lot and limited opposing LBers crashing.

Toward the end of the season, Love was almost always coming out on obvious passing downs. That sort of tipped our hand, but the down and distance did so as well. It's hard to tell how much of that was because he was less effective in the pass game and how much that was simply to find as many plays as possible to spell him.