Oregon game thread - 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: Oregon game thread (/thread-7761.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: Oregon game thread (/thread-7761.html)
Re: Oregon game thread - stupac2 - 11-02-2014
(11-02-2014, 08:58 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:"What if we attempted to graft an entirely different offensive system onto ours, using small, quick wide receivers and running backs onto a team with bulky tight ends and wide receivers? What if we tried to use reasonably mobile QBs -- for so-called pro-style QBs -- and put them in a system with much greater demands on QB mobility?" etc.
I mean, I agree with you that it's sort of silly to think "Oregon's offense is good, this guy is Oregon's OC, therefore if he was our OC our offense would be good", but at the same time good coaches aren't just system guys. They mold the scheme to their personnel and to the opponent's personnel. Does Frost do that well? I honestly have no idea, and I don't really think anyone else necessarily does either. That's the real problem here, it's utterly impossible to know how well people will do after a change of scenery.
Re: Oregon game thread - BostonCard - 11-02-2014
With the right pieces, Greg Roman's offense put up 40 points a game, 472 yards per game, and 6.7 yards per play.
I suppose the ultimate question is whether the Harbaugh/Roman/Shaw/Hamilton/Bloombgren Stanford offense requires pieces that only come every once in a while: bruising running backs and once-in-a-generation QB's. Given that we've succeeded with three different running backs (Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney), I think that piece is one we don't seem to have too much trouble recruiting. The question is whether we need a Luck-like QB to truly be successful.
I will admit to being partial to the offense, perhaps boneheadedly so. There is something appealing to hanging 50 on USC and flattening them each and every play, even though they knew what was coming. It may not be as razzle dazzle, but in my opinion, it was viscerally satisfying. We have demonstrated that the offense can work. Obviously if the offense can only work when all the stars align, then it should probably be scrapped. But if it can be gotten to work with pieces we have or can get, then yeah, I like it.
BC
Re: Oregon game thread - stupac2 - 11-02-2014
(11-02-2014, 09:10 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:With the right pieces, Greg Roman's offense put up 40 points a game, 472 yards per game, and 6.7 yards per play.
I suppose the ultimate question is whether the Harbaugh/Roman/Shaw/Hamilton/Bloombgren Stanford offense requires pieces that only come every once in a while: bruising running backs and once-in-a-generation QB's. Given that we've succeeded with three different running backs (Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney), I think that piece is one we don't seem to have too much trouble recruiting. The question is whether we need a Luck-like QB to truly be successful.
I will admit to being partial to the offense, perhaps boneheadedly so. There is something appealing to hanging 50 on U$ and flattening them each and every play, even though they knew what was coming. It may not be as razzle dazzle, but in my opinion, it was viscerally satisfying. We have demonstrated that the offense can work. Obviously if the offense can only work when all the stars align, then it should probably be scrapped. But if it can be gotten to work with pieces we have or can get, then yeah, I like it.
BC
Maybe the problem is that it worked when it was novel. How many other teams were running power back then? Other teams figured out how to defend it and it stopped being so effective. I don't know, I'm just guessing. It's not like we ran over anyone last year (except Oregon, and I'd argue that 4.2 ypc isn't really that great anyway, we got 6.5 in the What's Your Deal game).
Re: Oregon game thread - BostonCard - 11-02-2014
(11-02-2014, 09:41 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11041.msg104275#msg104275 date=1414987849]
With the right pieces, Greg Roman's offense put up 40 points a game, 472 yards per game, and 6.7 yards per play.
I suppose the ultimate question is whether the Harbaugh/Roman/Shaw/Hamilton/Bloombgren Stanford offense requires pieces that only come every once in a while: bruising running backs and once-in-a-generation QB's. Given that we've succeeded with three different running backs (Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney), I think that piece is one we don't seem to have too much trouble recruiting. The question is whether we need a Luck-like QB to truly be successful.
I will admit to being partial to the offense, perhaps boneheadedly so. There is something appealing to hanging 50 on U$ and flattening them each and every play, even though they knew what was coming. It may not be as razzle dazzle, but in my opinion, it was viscerally satisfying. We have demonstrated that the offense can work. Obviously if the offense can only work when all the stars align, then it should probably be scrapped. But if it can be gotten to work with pieces we have or can get, then yeah, I like it.
BC
Maybe the problem is that it worked when it was novel. How many other teams were running power back then? Other teams figured out how to defend it and it stopped being so effective. I don't know, I'm just guessing. It's not like we ran over anyone last year (except Oregon, and I'd argue that 4.2 ypc isn't really that great anyway, we got 6.5 in the What's Your Deal game).
[/quote]
I highly doubt it. The pro style offense is called that because it has been commonly run in the NFL for ages. Although we see it a bit less often in college (especially recently), there is nothing novel about it. The key about our offense, and what I like about it, is that when executed properly it is tough for defenses to stop. As we've seen the last few years, Power (the play) is tough to stop without putting 8 men in the box, and a defense that does that can be eaten up with a play action pass (see Orange Bowl). Other offenses, like Oregon's can do well against most defenses, but a disciplined defense with a strong front seven that can tackle well in space (see Stanford last year or two years ago, or the SEC defenses Oregon played before that) can stop it.
BC
Re: Oregon game thread - OutsiderFan - 11-03-2014
The common denominator between the Niners and the Stanford offense in terms of how defenses defend it is position of Safeties. Neither Stanford or the Niners do a good job threatening Safeties down field. Neither team has a real serious deep threat other teams fear. And then, both the Niners and Stanford are terrible scoring TDs in the red zone. Stanford couldn't score even a meaningless TD against Oregon at the end of the game inside the Oregon 5 on Saturday, and the Niners stumbled and bumbled into screwing up first and goal from the Rams' 2.5 and lost in the final seconds on Sunday.
I was watching Georgia defend Florida on Saturday. Florida threw six passes all game long and ran for over 400 yards. Yet despite this, Georgia mostly played with six in the box. I don't remember Florida's offensive formations off the top of my head, but they wouldn't have won the game if Georgia played 7/8 in the box and dared Florida to throw the ball. The previous week, LSU ran the ball down Ole Miss' throat and never faced 8 in the box either. I don't think there is any team in college football that faces 7 and 8 guys as close to the LOS as Stanford does as routinely as Stanford does. It's very difficult to run against defenses that keep their Safeties close to the LOS.
Stanford's coaching staff and the Niners coaching staff have been unable to punish teams for playing 8 in the box or playing Safeties shallow. And the red zone play calling and execution is pathetic. Unless and until these things change thee offenses will sputter. Now throw too many turnovers into the mix and all signs point to teams that need new leaders for their offense.
Every team has injuries or inexperience. Those are not acceptable excuses for such poor performance with good rosters.
Re: Oregon game thread - StanFan88 - 11-03-2014
(11-02-2014, 09:10 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I suppose the ultimate question is whether the Harbaugh/Roman/Shaw/Hamilton/Bloombgren Stanford offense requires pieces that only come every once in a while: bruising running backs and once-in-a-generation QB's.
I agree with the RB part but not the QB part. For two seasons Stanford had an above average QB and a bruising RB and made the Rose Bowl and would have been in the 2013 NCG against Alabama absent refs wearing leprechaun hats.
That there is not a single bell cow on the roster is Shaw & Bloomgren's fault for not recruiting one.
Re: Oregon game thread - yvonne - 11-03-2014
I think the point Boston Card is making, StanFan88, is that maybe a bruising running back is harder to recruit than we had previously believed. During the dominant years, the coaches and pundits said Stanford adopted that style of offense because those were the kinds of players it could recruit more easily. Perhaps, it's true that these are easier to recruit, but not with regularity needed for sustained success.
Re: Oregon game thread - stupac2 - 11-03-2014
(11-02-2014, 10:03 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I highly doubt it. The pro style offense is called that because it has been commonly run in the NFL for ages. Although we see it a bit less often in college (especially recently), there is nothing novel about it. The key about our offense, and what I like about it, is that when executed properly it is tough for defenses to stop. As we've seen the last few years, Power (the play) is tough to stop without putting 8 men in the box, and a defense that does that can be eaten up with a play action pass (see Orange Bowl). Other offenses, like Oregon's can do well against most defenses, but a disciplined defense with a strong front seven that can tackle well in space (see Stanford last year or two years ago, or the SEC defenses Oregon played before that) can stop it.
Right, there's nothing novel about Power, but there's also nothing novel about the triple option and it still gives teams fits, especially if they don't see it all the time. I don't necessarily think my speculation was right either, but it does seem to me like we've gotten less and less effective with running power over the years. Is it the OL? The RBs? The coaching staff training those positions? Is it just that people figured out to stack the box now that we don't have Luck and we haven't been able to counteradjust? I dunno, I think it's complicated.
Re: Oregon game thread - BostonCard - 11-03-2014
(11-03-2014, 09:49 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11041.msg104279#msg104279 date=1414990981]I highly doubt it. The pro style offense is called that because it has been commonly run in the NFL for ages. Although we see it a bit less often in college (especially recently), there is nothing novel about it. The key about our offense, and what I like about it, is that when executed properly it is tough for defenses to stop. As we've seen the last few years, Power (the play) is tough to stop without putting 8 men in the box, and a defense that does that can be eaten up with a play action pass (see Orange Bowl). Other offenses, like Oregon's can do well against most defenses, but a disciplined defense with a strong front seven that can tackle well in space (see Stanford last year or two years ago, or the SEC defenses Oregon played before that) can stop it.
Right, there's nothing novel about Power, but there's also nothing novel about the triple option and it still gives teams fits, especially if they don't see it all the time. I don't necessarily think my speculation was right either, but it does seem to me like we've gotten less and less effective with running power over the years. Is it the OL? The RBs? The coaching staff training those positions? Is it just that people figured out to stack the box now that we don't have Luck and we haven't been able to counteradjust? I dunno, I think it's complicated.
[/quote]
By "over the years" you really mean "this year".
This is our rushing over the last 7 years (top running back is in parentheses)
2008 (Gerhart): 199.6 y/g; 4.9 y/car
2009 (Gerhart): 218.2 y/g; 5.3 y/car
2010 (Taylor): 213.8 y/g; 5.2 y/car [barely a drop from Toby to Stepfan]
2011 (Taylor): 210.6 y/g; 5.3 y/car
2012 (Taylor): 174.3 y/g; 4.4 y/car [big drop-off, not because of a change in running back but because of a change in QB]*
2013 (Gaffney): 207.4 y/g; 5.0 y/car [and back to 200+ y/g 5 y/car]
2014 (Wright): 140.1 y/g; 4.2 y/car
We'd been remarkably consistent for 6 years between 2008 and 2013, with a drop-off in 2012, when we had issues in our offense after Luck's departure. The drop-off to this year has been dramatic (though it looks a bit worse because sacks are included in the total, and we've given up more sacks). Still we are down about 60 yards per game compared to our long-term recent average, and about 0.8 to 1 yard per carry. In the past, we did that with four different offensive coordinators (Shaw, Roman, Hamilton, Bloomgren), four different quarterbacks (Pritchard, Luck, Nunes, and Hogan), three different running backs (Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney), and countless iterations of our offensive line.
Yvonne brings up whether I believe we can recruit appropriate backs for our system. I brought that up as a question, not as a statement. Obviously, we were able to recruit three of them over the course of seven years, so I certainly think it is possible. But we also don't have one on our roster right now, unless Ty Montgomery moves to running back. The question, I suppose, is whether this was a temporary dry period, where a bunch of guys (Wilkerson, Young, Wright, Seale, Sanders) have either been bad fits for our offense or just recruiting misses and it has just been bad luck, or whether something has changed such that the type of running back we are looking for is just not available to us any more. I honestly don't know the answer to that.
BC
Re: Oregon game thread - shinsengumi - 11-03-2014
(11-03-2014, 11:37 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:The question, I suppose, is whether this was a temporary dry period, where a bunch of guys (Wilkerson, Young, Wright, Seale, Sanders) have either been bad fits for our offense or just recruiting misses and it has just been bad luck, or whether something has changed such that the type of running back we are looking for is just not available to us any more.
I think you are avoiding a plausible explanation - lack of player development.
Re: Oregon game thread - stupac2 - 11-03-2014
(11-03-2014, 11:37 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:stuff
How much of that came off power, though? The question isn't whether we can run the ball effectively over the years, but whether we can run power effectively. It was completely stuffed last year against MSU, and even against Oregon it wasn't that great (4.2 ypc, what we averaged in that game, is exactly Wright's season average). I dunno, charting that would be a pain, but I don't think your numbers are necessarily conclusive.
Re: Oregon game thread - CTcard - 11-03-2014
(11-03-2014, 11:48 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11041.msg104311#msg104311 date=1415039851]stuff
How much of that came off power, though? The question isn't whether we can run the ball effectively over the years, but whether we can run power effectively. It was completely stuffed last year against MSU, and even against Oregon it wasn't that great (4.2 ypc, what we averaged in that game, is exactly Wright's season average). I dunno, charting that would be a pain, but I don't think your numbers are necessarily conclusive.
[/quote]
Over the years BC quoted stats, Power was our bread and butter run play, though far from the only run play.
There were two years it wasn't used much. The first was 2012, where the run game was notably less effective. BC attributes the lesser run game to poor QB play. While that was an element, I attribute the major blame both for the poorer run game and the fact that Power was seldom used to poor guard play. That was the year that Yankey played LT because we had no other options, and the guards left couldn't pull effectively. The other year we haven't run Power much is this year. We actually tried it a little more vs Oregon, but there were several cases of the guards not getting around. A couple of times, particularly going right, the guard did get around and we had some good gains - but the essential consistency was not there.
In 2013, the Oregon game was the epitome of effective use of both Power and the generic power run game. The yds/carry were limited (4.2 - Gaffney 3.5) but consistent. That led us to convert 15 of 22 third and fourth down attempts, control the clock for 42 1/2 minutes, and generally grind Oregon into pulp.
Re: Oregon game thread - BostonCard - 11-03-2014
Even at our 2009 height, we averaged 3.75 y/c in our loss against Arizona and 3.72 y/c in our loss at Oklahoma (though without Luck QB'ing). We had only 115 yards rushing against Wake Forrest (also a loss). The next year, we had a 3.05 y/c game against ASU . In 2011, we averaged 3.53 y/c against San Jose State (for crying out loud), and 3.69 yards per carry in our loss against Oregon. Those were our three most productive years running the football, probably in a generation. And yet, we still had some games where, on a relative basis, our running game was slowed down.
We will always have good games and bad games rushing the football. Some defenses have better front sevens than others. Some stack the box more aggressively. Sometimes guys will be a bit tired, or will be a shoestring tackle away from breaking a 40 yard run that would have added a yard per carry to the game average, or will be a bit dinged up, or will zig when they should have zagged. The point is, there will always be variability, and no team is immune from subpar rushing games. Last year, we didn't have a single game where we averaged less than 4 yards per carry (even against MSU, we averaged 4.5 yards per carry) . This year, we've done it four times (unsurprisingly against: USC (3.37), Notre Dame (1.47), ASU (3.45), and Oregon (3.38)).
As for your other questions, it is difficult to get the exact breakdown of our playacting in a game. I think someone once went through the film a couple years ago, and counted that we ran Power (the play where a pulling guard and fullback lead block for a running back out of the i formation) about 30 - 40% of our running plays. We run a whole bunch of other stuff, much of it which can be considered power running (between the tackles, using blocking tight ends, fullbacks, or extra offensive linemen), but not "Power" itself.
BC
Re: Oregon game thread - gocard14 - 11-03-2014
As always, average numbers don't tell the whole story. A run game with a consistent 4 ypc (like we had against Oregon last year) is MUCH more effective in terms of game flow and sustaining drives then a boom-or-bust run game with a similar average but wider standard deviation (like we have this year).
Re: Oregon game thread - gocard14 - 11-03-2014
Likewise, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would bet we were much more effective at converting third or fourth and short last year (and 2011) as compared to this year and 2012. Having 3rd and 1 or 2 be near automatic dramatically opens up your playcalling when you find yourself in advantagous down and distance positions (which admittedly we haven't seen nearly enough of this year).
Re: Oregon game thread - BostonCard - 11-03-2014
(11-03-2014, 12:23 PM)gocard14 link Wrote:Likewise, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would bet we were much more effective at converting third or fourth and short last year (and 2011) as compared to this year and 2012. Having 3rd and 1 or 2 be near automatic dramatically opens up your playcalling when you find yourself in advantagous down and distance positions (which admittedly we haven't seen nearly enough of this year).
You would be right:
2008: 38.0%
2009: 44.3%
2010: 57.6% (best in the country!)
2011: 52.6% (3rd best in the country)
2012: 38.1%
2013: 49.8%
2014: 39.5%
Our worst years since 2009 were 2012 and this year. 2008 was slightly worse than either.
BC
Re: Oregon game thread - SamAtoms1980 - 11-03-2014
We should appreciate how blessed and fortunate we were that Tyler Gaffney decided to come back last year and play RB for us when he could have easily flown the coop. If he hadn't come back, then we might have started seeing this year's problems last year.
Re: Oregon game thread - BostonCard - 11-03-2014
(11-03-2014, 12:10 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=11041.msg104316#msg104316 date=1415040520]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11041.msg104311#msg104311 date=1415039851]stuff
How much of that came off power, though? The question isn't whether we can run the ball effectively over the years, but whether we can run power effectively. It was completely stuffed last year against MSU, and even against Oregon it wasn't that great (4.2 ypc, what we averaged in that game, is exactly Wright's season average). I dunno, charting that would be a pain, but I don't think your numbers are necessarily conclusive.
[/quote]
Over the years BC quoted stats, Power was our bread and butter run play, though far from the only run play.
There were two years it wasn't used much. The first was 2012, where the run game was notably less effective. BC attributes the lesser run game to poor QB play. While that was an element, I attribute the major blame both to the poorer run game and the fact that Power was seldom used to poor guard play. That was the year that Yankey played LT because we had no other options, and the guards left couldn't pull effectively. The other year we haven't run Power much is this year. We actually tried it a little more vs Oregon, but there were several cases of the guards not getting around. A couple of times, particularly going right, the guard did get around and we had some good gains - but the essential consistency was not there.
In 2013, the Oregon game was the epitome of effective use of both Power and the generic power run game. The yds/carry were limited (4.2 - Gaffney 3.5) but consistent. That led us to convert 15 of 22 third and fourth down attempts, control the clock for 42 1/2 minutes, and generally grind Oregon into pulp.
[/quote]
So maybe we've all been misdiagnosing the problem. It is not the lack of a power back, or problems at qb, but specifically the lack of a skilled pulling guard. Im surprised that Garnett has not developed the skills to do so. It does the best to account for the drop in offensive production in 2012 and 2014. The question is whether Garnett could develop into one.
BC
Re: Oregon game thread - stupac2 - 11-03-2014
(11-03-2014, 02:26 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:So maybe we've all been misdiagnosing the problem. It is not the lack of a power back, or problems at qb, but specifically the lack of a skilled pulling guard. Im surprised that Garnett has not developed the skills to do so. It does the best to account for the drop in offensive production in 2012 and 2014. The question is whether Garnett could develop into one.
Well, I've been convinced that poor OL play relative to our baseline has been our #1 issue for a while now. Our worst nightmare coming into the season was that the highly touted recruits wouldn't cohere into a highly performing unit, and it's basically happened. Unfortunate for us, but if Peat comes back next year could be a lot better with all that continuity.
Re: Oregon game thread - washingtonismoney - 11-03-2014
Did anyone notice the distribution of playing time at RG? I saw Austin in for at least a couple plays, and was wondering what the breakdown was there.
(It looked like Shuler had a lot of trouble matched up one-on-one with his guy.)
Oddly, our best puller might be Shuler -- I've seen a few plays where he just clobbers some poor, unsuspecting linebacker who isn't expecting a center at all, let alone one as mobile as he. But unfortunately it's kind of hard to make a center-pull the foundation of a running game, rather than an occasional wrinkle.