The CardBoard
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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-27-2017

(12-27-2017, 09:06 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:We had no possession receivers who could work the middle, so the gameplan was "run it a bunch and throw deep/screens". It worked okay, and hell, if it weren't for a few bad breaks (that uncatchable PI on Lyons still pisses me off) it would've won that game too!
For me, it was the long interception where Rector had it and let the DB take the ball away. In a close game, things like that kill you.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - Mick - 12-27-2017

(12-27-2017, 09:06 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=18390.msg219196#msg219196 date=1514389683]What works is brilliant, and what doesn't is stupid.

That's the essential problem with these arguments (besides the fact that no one actually tallies up the scores for the liked/didn't like worked/didn't work punnett squares to see if their post hoc impressions are accurate at all). It's really easy to look at a game where nothing worked and say "The playcalling sucked!" But as you run down with MSU, sometimes nothing is working. You can say that's a problem with coaching, and sure, I suppose, but that 2013 team had some serious flaws. Didn't we complete <10 passes to TEs that year? We had no possession receivers who could work the middle, so the gameplan was "run it a bunch and throw deep/screens". It worked okay, and hell, if it weren't for a few bad breaks (that uncatchable PI on Lyons still pisses me off) it would've won that game too! But we didn't get all the breaks we needed, MSU was a really good team, and we lost. stuff happens.

At any rate, literally any coaching staff will have games like that. What the hell happened to the Patriots against the Dolphins a few weeks ago? You like Shanny and Jimmy GQ in SF? Well good thing Shanny doesn't have a history of farting away big games with dumb playcalls! I sure haven't spent this entire NFL offseason seeing postmortems of that, no siree bob. Good thing Nick Saban has never done anything stupid to lose a big game at the last minute, good thing Urban Meyer has never been blown out, and good thing Dabo Swinny never loses to unranked teams. It's just stubborn old David Shaw sitting there with his winning percentage in the same league as those guys with less talent and (most years) a harder schedule, derping away games because he's a dumb-dumb. Yeah, that's the ticket.
[/quote]


The Niners just scored 44 points against the NFL's #1 defense.  That's pretty damned good any way you slice it.

The 10-4 (going in) Jaguars just lost to a 4-10 (going in) team that started 0-9.  That's pretty damned bad any way you slice it.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - Mick - 12-27-2017

(12-27-2017, 09:06 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=18390.msg219196#msg219196 date=1514389683]What works is brilliant, and what doesn't is stupid.

That's the essential problem with these arguments (besides the fact that no one actually tallies up the scores for the liked/didn't like worked/didn't work punnett squares to see if their post hoc impressions are accurate at all). It's really easy to look at a game where nothing worked and say "The playcalling sucked!" But as you run down with MSU, sometimes nothing is working. You can say that's a problem with coaching, and sure, I suppose, but that 2013 team had some serious flaws. Didn't we complete <10 passes to TEs that year? We had no possession receivers who could work the middle, so the gameplan was "run it a bunch and throw deep/screens". It worked okay, and hell, if it weren't for a few bad breaks (that uncatchable PI on Lyons still pisses me off) it would've won that game too! But we didn't get all the breaks we needed, MSU was a really good team, and we lost. stuff happens.

At any rate, literally any coaching staff will have games like that. What the hell happened to the Patriots against the Dolphins a few weeks ago? You like Shanny and Jimmy GQ in SF? Well good thing Shanny doesn't have a history of farting away big games with dumb playcalls! I sure haven't spent this entire NFL offseason seeing postmortems of that, no siree bob. Good thing Nick Saban has never done anything stupid to lose a big game at the last minute, good thing Urban Meyer has never been blown out, and good thing Dabo Swinny never loses to unranked teams. It's just stubborn old David Shaw sitting there with his winning percentage in the same league as those guys with less talent and (most years) a harder schedule, derping away games because he's a dumb-dumb. Yeah, that's the ticket.
[/quote]


The Niners just scored 44 points against the NFL's #1 defense.  That's pretty damned good any way you slice it.

The 10-4 (going in) Jaguars just lost to a 4-10 (going in) team that started 0-9.  That's pretty damned bad any way you slice it.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - Hulk01 - 12-27-2017

An odd read, that (1) wide-open receivers often are a sign of good/clever play calling and (2) Stanford receivers never get wide-open because of the team's unimaginative, run-first style and overly conservative play calling.

Neither statement is true.  A wide open receiver tells you one of two things: (1) the defense was in a zone, and either one of the defenders totally blew his assignment or the offense was able to overload one of the zones at opposite corners of the zone, or (2) the defense was in man-to-man and the defender either fell or slipped badly.  (Or the receiver was Will Fuller or John Ross, and he got one step and turned it quickly into five yards--and the opposing DC chose not to have a safety helping to cover him over the top.

We don't see zone coverages, so none of the above related to zones applies.  It would be foolish to cover our receivers other than man-to-man because none of our current receivers possess the speed/quickness to badly beat one-on-one coverage.

Arcega-Whiteside never gets wide open because every good Pac 12 corner can stay with him.

Irwin doesn't get wide open because he's running timing routes that thrive off his very good cuts and the immediate three steps of separation. 

And our tight ends don't get wide open because they're tight ends.  And they're facing man--to-man coverage





Re: It's official: Pritchard - Hulk01 - 12-27-2017

An odd read, that (1) wide-open receivers often are a sign of good/clever play calling and (2) Stanford receivers never get wide-open because of the team's unimaginative, run-first style and overly conservative play calling.

Neither statement is true.  A wide open receiver tells you one of two things: (1) the defense was in a zone, and either one of the defenders totally blew his assignment or the offense was able to overload one of the zones at opposite corners of the zone, or (2) the defense was in man-to-man and the defender either fell or slipped badly.  (Or the receiver was Will Fuller or John Ross, and he got one step and turned it quickly into five yards--and the opposing DC chose not to have a safety helping to cover him over the top.

We don't see zone coverages, so none of the above related to zones applies.  It would be foolish to cover our receivers other than man-to-man because none of our current receivers possess the speed/quickness to badly beat one-on-one coverage.

Arcega-Whiteside never gets wide open because every good Pac 12 corner can stay with him.

Irwin doesn't get wide open because he's running timing routes that thrive off his very good cuts and the immediate three steps of separation. 

And our tight ends don't get wide open because they're tight ends.  And they're facing man--to-man coverage





Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-27-2017

(12-27-2017, 11:52 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:An odd read, that (1) wide-open receivers often are a sign of good/clever play calling and (2) Stanford receivers never get wide-open because of the team's unimaginative, run-first style and overly conservative play calling.

Neither statement is true.  A wide open receiver tells you one of two things: (1) the defense was in a zone, and either one of the defenders totally blew his assignment or the offense was able to overload one of the zones at opposite corners of the zone, or (2) the defense was in man-to-man and the defender either fell or slipped badly.  (Or the receiver was Will Fuller or John Ross, and he got one step and turned it quickly into five yards--and the opposing DC chose not to have a safety helping to cover him over the top.

We don't see zone coverages, so none of the above related to zones applies.  It would be foolish to cover our receivers other than man-to-man because none of our current receivers possess the speed/quickness to badly beat one-on-one coverage.

Arcega-Whiteside never gets wide open because every good Pac 12 corner can stay with him.

Irwin doesn't get wide open because he's running timing routes that thrive off his very good cuts and the immediate three steps of separation. 

And our tight ends don't get wide open because they're tight ends.  And they're facing man--to-man coverage
+1, although our tight ends and JJAW are often open on the Z axis  :)

Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-27-2017

(12-27-2017, 11:52 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:An odd read, that (1) wide-open receivers often are a sign of good/clever play calling and (2) Stanford receivers never get wide-open because of the team's unimaginative, run-first style and overly conservative play calling.

Neither statement is true.  A wide open receiver tells you one of two things: (1) the defense was in a zone, and either one of the defenders totally blew his assignment or the offense was able to overload one of the zones at opposite corners of the zone, or (2) the defense was in man-to-man and the defender either fell or slipped badly.  (Or the receiver was Will Fuller or John Ross, and he got one step and turned it quickly into five yards--and the opposing DC chose not to have a safety helping to cover him over the top.

We don't see zone coverages, so none of the above related to zones applies.  It would be foolish to cover our receivers other than man-to-man because none of our current receivers possess the speed/quickness to badly beat one-on-one coverage.

Arcega-Whiteside never gets wide open because every good Pac 12 corner can stay with him.

Irwin doesn't get wide open because he's running timing routes that thrive off his very good cuts and the immediate three steps of separation. 

And our tight ends don't get wide open because they're tight ends.  And they're facing man--to-man coverage
+1, although our tight ends and JJAW are often open on the Z axis  :)

Re: It's official: Pritchard - Hulk01 - 12-27-2017

"A lot of us fans have a slightly different perspective.  We remember how Ralston and Vermeil took advantage of Plunkett's talents and built a great passing game and an offense that was finally able to beat $C.  We remember how Walsh installed a complex playbook that somehow did not require a QB to sit on the bench for 2-3 years to learn it, and that those QBs were not necessarily as talented as Plunkett or Luck.  So there's always the temptation to compare our current offensive scheme with what we might have seen in the past."

Nostalgia regularly fools us of course.  It's that classic scene in the movie where a grown-up man returns to the summer camp he loved as a boy, glances around, then asks another returnee, "Wasn't it bigger when we came?"

This seems to hold true of our memories of Ralston and Walsh particularly, and their brand of offensive genius.
At least, that's what the following numbers seem to suggest.

A fair way of comparing Stanford coaches in different years is to identify those Stanford teams that have ranked in the nation’s top 20 in scoring.  Since 1965, these are the teams, listed along with the respective coach, QB1, points per game, and national rank for scoring.

1969, Ralston, Plunkett, 34.9 (9th)
1970, Ralston, Plunkett, 28.6 (20th)
1975, Christiansen, Cordova and Benjamin, 25.4 (12th)
1978, Walsh, Dills, 27.2 (20th)
1980, Wiggin, Elway, 28.4 (11th)
1981, Wiggin, Elway, 28.5 (16th)
1982, Wiggin, Elway, 29.8 (13th)
1991, Green, Stenstrom, 30.7 (19th)
1999, Willingham, Husak, 34.8 (9th)
2001, Willingham, Fasani and Lewis, 35.2 (12th)
2009, Harbaugh, Luck, 35.5 (12th)
2010, Harbaugh, Luck, 40.3 (9th)
2011, Shaw, Luck, 43.2 (7th)
2015, Shaw, Hogan, 37.8 (18th)

Which coaches appear to be offensive wizards?  Based on points per game, Wiggin has the best case.  But to serious long time fans, that idea sounds bizarre. 

Ralston, particularly given his long tenure, looks at least a little less impressive than Harbaugh, Shaw, and Willingham.  And note that Ralston's first team after Plunkett graduated struggled badly on offense, averaging fewer than 22 points a game and just 13 points per game over the final three.) 

And perhaps most surprising, Walsh managed only one top 20 scoring team.

Seems like the good news days stack up pretty well to the old ones.






Re: It's official: Pritchard - Hulk01 - 12-27-2017

"A lot of us fans have a slightly different perspective.  We remember how Ralston and Vermeil took advantage of Plunkett's talents and built a great passing game and an offense that was finally able to beat $C.  We remember how Walsh installed a complex playbook that somehow did not require a QB to sit on the bench for 2-3 years to learn it, and that those QBs were not necessarily as talented as Plunkett or Luck.  So there's always the temptation to compare our current offensive scheme with what we might have seen in the past."

Nostalgia regularly fools us of course.  It's that classic scene in the movie where a grown-up man returns to the summer camp he loved as a boy, glances around, then asks another returnee, "Wasn't it bigger when we came?"

This seems to hold true of our memories of Ralston and Walsh particularly, and their brand of offensive genius.
At least, that's what the following numbers seem to suggest.

A fair way of comparing Stanford coaches in different years is to identify those Stanford teams that have ranked in the nation’s top 20 in scoring.  Since 1965, these are the teams, listed along with the respective coach, QB1, points per game, and national rank for scoring.

1969, Ralston, Plunkett, 34.9 (9th)
1970, Ralston, Plunkett, 28.6 (20th)
1975, Christiansen, Cordova and Benjamin, 25.4 (12th)
1978, Walsh, Dills, 27.2 (20th)
1980, Wiggin, Elway, 28.4 (11th)
1981, Wiggin, Elway, 28.5 (16th)
1982, Wiggin, Elway, 29.8 (13th)
1991, Green, Stenstrom, 30.7 (19th)
1999, Willingham, Husak, 34.8 (9th)
2001, Willingham, Fasani and Lewis, 35.2 (12th)
2009, Harbaugh, Luck, 35.5 (12th)
2010, Harbaugh, Luck, 40.3 (9th)
2011, Shaw, Luck, 43.2 (7th)
2015, Shaw, Hogan, 37.8 (18th)

Which coaches appear to be offensive wizards?  Based on points per game, Wiggin has the best case.  But to serious long time fans, that idea sounds bizarre. 

Ralston, particularly given his long tenure, looks at least a little less impressive than Harbaugh, Shaw, and Willingham.  And note that Ralston's first team after Plunkett graduated struggled badly on offense, averaging fewer than 22 points a game and just 13 points per game over the final three.) 

And perhaps most surprising, Walsh managed only one top 20 scoring team.

Seems like the good news days stack up pretty well to the old ones.






Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-27-2017

(12-27-2017, 02:40 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:A fair way of comparing Stanford coaches in different years is to identify those Stanford teams that have ranked in the nation’s top 20 in scoring.
I fully agree with the point you are trying to make, but saying that a fair way to compare coaches is by how they ranked in scoring probably isn't right, IMHO. For instance, Elway had to score a lot of points because we couldn't stop anybody  :). He was running the air raid before it was invented. Thus, the Wiggin anomaly. Also, what allowed Ralston to beat SC was 1) no OJ, and 2) the defensive line. Yes, the offense was pretty good, but many argue Plunkett's junior year it was actually better, when we didn't win. The offensive rankings gives no weight at all to the defense the coach created, which kind of does matter.
However, as much as I loved Ralston, he took a lot of flack for the fact he was a CEO head coach and not an "X's and O's" type guy, and also for the "Doink" games that we lost, which were much more frequent then than they are now. Back then, for Stanford, no lead was safe. We chewed our nails all the way through most games.
With Walsh, it was "we may win, but in any case it will be entertaining and exciting". We didn't expect to win against good teams, and mostly, we didn't. We were better than we had been, which was a great improvement.
None of these coaches won as frequently as we have been in the last 6 years. In Walsh's case, that was despite perfecting the "West Coast Offense", which later was so effective for the 49ers. So, while fun to watch, it wasn't as effective in delivering wins.

Re: It's official: Pritchard - Goose - 12-27-2017

(12-27-2017, 02:40 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:A fair way of comparing Stanford coaches in different years is to identify those Stanford teams that have ranked in the nation’s top 20 in scoring.
I fully agree with the point you are trying to make, but saying that a fair way to compare coaches is by how they ranked in scoring probably isn't right, IMHO. For instance, Elway had to score a lot of points because we couldn't stop anybody  :). He was running the air raid before it was invented. Thus, the Wiggin anomaly. Also, what allowed Ralston to beat SC was 1) no OJ, and 2) the defensive line. Yes, the offense was pretty good, but many argue Plunkett's junior year it was actually better, when we didn't win. The offensive rankings gives no weight at all to the defense the coach created, which kind of does matter.
However, as much as I loved Ralston, he took a lot of flack for the fact he was a CEO head coach and not an "X's and O's" type guy, and also for the "Doink" games that we lost, which were much more frequent then than they are now. Back then, for Stanford, no lead was safe. We chewed our nails all the way through most games.
With Walsh, it was "we may win, but in any case it will be entertaining and exciting". We didn't expect to win against good teams, and mostly, we didn't. We were better than we had been, which was a great improvement.
None of these coaches won as frequently as we have been in the last 6 years. In Walsh's case, that was despite perfecting the "West Coast Offense", which later was so effective for the 49ers. So, while fun to watch, it wasn't as effective in delivering wins.