The CardBoard
A nod from the New York Times - 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: A nod from the New York Times (/thread-10099.html)

Pages: 1 2

A nod from the New York Times - Sea Loon - 10-04-2015

David Shaw... has rhythm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/sports/ncaafootball/stanford-rolls-to-the-rhythms-of-david-shaw.html

Re: A nod from the New York Times - washingtonismoney - 10-04-2015

Not to nitpick, but weren't Vince Lombardi's Packers famous not for between-the-tackles running but sweep plays?

Re: A nod from the New York Times - OutsiderFan - 10-04-2015

That was a really cool article.  Great summary of the day in major college football, while calling out the value of teams that play like Stanford.  If Stanford is to get to the playoff, it will have to be perceived as better than a TCU/Baylor type team to secure a spot in it.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - stupac2 - 10-04-2015

(10-04-2015, 07:46 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Not to nitpick, but weren't Vince Lombardi's Packers famous not for between-the-tackles running but sweep plays?

Seems like he was famous for that: http://smartfootball.com/run-game/does-anyone-still-use-vince-lombardis-packers-sweep

I thought I've read that he also ran power/counter but I'm not a schematic historian.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - washingtonismoney - 10-04-2015

Speaking of, this play design might look familiar to some people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=0&v=Gr0-eCWr1qk

Re: A nod from the New York Times - BostonCard - 10-04-2015

(10-04-2015, 08:22 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13045.msg132724#msg132724 date=1444013206]Not to nitpick, but weren't Vince Lombardi's Packers famous not for between-the-tackles running but sweep plays?

Seems like he was famous for that: http://smartfootball.com/run-game/does-anyone-still-use-vince-lombardis-packers-sweep

I thought I've read that he also ran power/counter but I'm not a schematic historian.
[/quote]

I doubt Lombardi ran much counter...

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-nfl-college-football-power-running-counter-running/

Quote:While Power’s origin is a bit foggy, history credits two men with inventing Counter: former Nebraska Cornhuskers head coach Tom Osborne and his offensive line coach, Milt Tenopir. In the 1970s, Osborne’s Nebraska teams — already known for their great ground attacks — used a devastating Counter Sweep play in which a wingback took the ball and ran around the end, but by the close of the decade, defenses had adjusted and were often stuffing the play.
...
But while Osborne and Tenopir reimagined Counter, a third coach made it truly famous: former Washington Redskins head coach Joe Gibbs. “We stole it,” Gibbs told Sports Illustrated. “We saw some film on Nebraska, and Tom Osborne was doing some really innovative things with his line up front. We were watching it and thought, God, that’s good stuff. So we stole it.”

Lombardi had stepped down as coach of the Packers a decade earlier, in 1967.

BC

Re: A nod from the New York Times - needle - 10-04-2015

One of my favorite moments in the Oregon State game was a mic picking up Johnny Caspers loudly screaming, "Let's run it again!" after a sweep with pulling guards that, iirc, had gained something like close to first-down yardage. This was after Sanders' TD run.

Stanford did run the play again, but Oregon State by that time was very clearly looking for it. Their linebackers stuffed it for a very minimal gain.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - CornFed - 10-04-2015

The Packer Sweep was arguably more legendary and more devastating to opponents than Student Body Left/Right at usc. 

Re: A nod from the New York Times - washingtonismoney - 10-04-2015

(10-04-2015, 09:03 PM)needle link Wrote:One of my favorite moments in the Oregon State game was a mic picking up Johnny Caspers loudly screaming, "Let's run it again!" after a sweep with pulling guards that, iirc, had gained something like close to first-down yardage. This was after Sanders' TD run.

Yup, we've been running the "buck sweep" play very successfully these past few games. (See the smart football post for more detail.)

Re: A nod from the New York Times - BostonCard - 10-04-2015

Quote:Asked after the game whether there had been any surprises, Arizona Coach Rich Rodriguez told reporters, “Nope.”

Sometimes unpredictability is overrated.

BC

Re: A nod from the New York Times - Mick - 10-05-2015

(10-04-2015, 09:07 PM)CornFed link Wrote:The Packer Sweep was arguably more legendary and more devastating to opponents than Student Body Left/Right at U$¢.


I remember listening to John Madden talk about his early influencers as a coach.  His first mention was Vince Lombardi.  He was in a room full of young coaches and Lombardi held forth on the nuances of the sweep...for 8.5 hours.  No typo.  Madden thought it was amazing.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - CTcard - 10-05-2015

(10-04-2015, 09:46 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:
Quote:Asked after the game whether there had been any surprises, Arizona Coach Rich Rodriguez told reporters, “Nope.”
Sometimes unpredictability is overrated.

It is indeed.
However, there is rarely much reason to take a coach at his word - even if it is the other guys'.

[And however again, we were rather vanilla vs Arizona.]

Re: A nod from the New York Times - Hulk01 - 10-05-2015

Didn't help the author's credibility when he used Rosen's game Saturday as evidence that a team can have a "good game statistically passing" as still lose.

Rosen completed 55% of his passes, went 3-14 on third down, lost 17 yards rushing, and averaged only 7.0 yards per pass and 6.25 per attempted pass.  This netted him a deservedly low PER of 125 for the game. 

Rosen did not have a good game, statistically or otherwise.  I can't imagine a well-informed observer of football reaching any other conclusion.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - BostonCard - 10-05-2015

(10-05-2015, 06:09 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13045.msg132759#msg132759 date=1444020413]
Quote:Asked after the game whether there had been any surprises, Arizona Coach Rich Rodriguez told reporters, “Nope.”
Sometimes unpredictability is overrated.

It is indeed.
However, there is rarely much reason to take a coach at his word - even if it is the other guys'.

[And however again, we were rather vanilla vs Arizona.]
[/quote]

I suppose it is true that if Rich Rod had been unprepared for what we sent him, he'd be loathe to admit it.  However, as you pointed out, we were fairly vanilla against Arizona.  Perhaps the only play that might qualify as a surprise would be having your back-up QB run as a lead blocker [pretty sure the poor DB that got Catoused wasn't expecting it], especially when your starter has a gimpy ankle.  Then again, the game was out of hand by then already.

I doubt Rich Rod was surprised by our playcalling.  We ran first, and with few exceptions only passed in clear passing situations (third and long).  What might have surprised him was how effective it was.  But I've said it several times and I will again, I'll take well-executed boring and predictable over poorly executed surprise any time.

BC

Re: A nod from the New York Times - CTcard - 10-05-2015

(10-05-2015, 12:34 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I suppose it is true that if Rich Rod had been unprepared for what we sent him, he'd be loathe to admit it. 

I don't think it is so much that he would be loathe to admit it, though that could be true. The bigger issue is that in speaking to the media coaches are typically thinking along the lines of "what message am I sending to my team", or simply "how do I get out of here".

Most coaches think that the message to the team should be something like, "Don't worry about fancy strategy things; rather work hard in practice, learn your job, and go do it. Let the coaches worry about bigger picture stuff." So coaches tend to play down factors of surprise, etc.

But that is all a general statement about coaches. I don't think Stanford beat Arizona by fooling them.



Re: A nod from the New York Times - teejers1 - 10-06-2015

I am more thrilled than anyone by what we're seeing on offense the last few games.  It is FUN to watch Stanford football again on offense.  Really, really fun.

But don't kid yourself on a few things.  First, it is always better to be unpredictable than predictable, as you know.  Yes, being unpredictable isn't much help if the WR drops an easy ball when he is wide open, but it's always better to have an open WR than a covered one.  Second, we are seeing some nice plays being called.  The play where Chryst pitched behind him left and then became lead blocker right was brand new; and the screen play to Wright was a TD as soon as it left Hogan's hand, given how out of position/fooled AZ was to defend it.  (BTW, the beauty of that play reminded me of one of Walsh's most memorable calls:  the delayed screen pass to JJ Lasley at ND - god that was beautiful!).  Third, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Hogan is playing exceptional ball lately.  He is buying time in the pocket, moving well, and making plays on his own - often by late decision dump offs.  And the toss to Cajuste in the 1H after stepping up in the pocket was an NFL-caliber play.  So, I think we all need to be a little careful projecting that level of play for Hogan going forward - it really has been remarkable (and would be hard to sustain for anyone).

Still, it's hard not to get excited about Stanford's offense and Stanford football for THIS season.  The D needs to tackle better, and if the boys can get and stay healthy, I think the experience will help the D improve as the season progresses.  And that's exciting, too.

P.S.  Love the fact that it was Arizona (and not Stanford) burning timeouts to call plays.  Moreover, I think the burning of 3 timeouts in the 1H prevented Arizona form challenging a spot that I thought was erroneous in Stanford's favor on third and short.  And this brings me to my one criticism - please dump the overloaded, no-split, 3-guys-bunched-in-the-backfield, everyone-within-4-yards-of-the-ball, running play.  It gets 0-1.5 yards every time.  There are better running formations than that one. 

Re: A nod from the New York Times - Hulk01 - 10-06-2015

Isn't anyone going to complain about throwing the fade in the end zone? 
I thought that play had been banned by several playcalllers on this board.

Ditto, the wildcat. 
I thought it had been banned, too.  No?

And the really tight Jumbo formations, also widely assailed here in the past, partly because it's obvious we are going to run.
Can't believe we still use that.

Shaw is stubbornly sticking with all that stuff. 
Unbelievable!! 
But he is, as I recall, too arrogant to change.





Re: A nod from the New York Times - jacketree - 10-06-2015

Frankly I'd take predictably dominant over anything else.

When Southern California was just crushing the world for decades at a time, the only guess was "left" or "right."  Predictable path to the Rose Bowl every year.

I don't even know what "unpredictable" means.  Just do stupid crazy batshit stuff all the time? Isn't a sane varied attack kind of predictable? Or are we just talking down, distance and score here? California converted a 3rd and 36 from inside their own 10 because they (predictably) ran.  The play just happened to work.  What would have been the unpredictable?  Hail Mary for the hell of it? Hook and lateral? Kick it out of the back of their own end zone to take a safety so they could get a better free kick without pressure?

There are only so many ways to move the ball.  I get that running three straight times out of jumbo into a 10 or 11 man box is pretty futile/stupid.  But it isn't predictable; I'd say it is unpredictable and borderline crazy.  Maybe that's what people consider predictable? Let's see there's no way they think that we will run that again, so they must think we will run it again so instead of running it again, let's do something else, but no that's what they are banking on, so let's run it again. My head hurts.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - stupac2 - 10-06-2015

(10-06-2015, 12:31 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Isn't anyone going to complain about throwing the fade in the end zone? 
I thought that play had been banned by several playcalllers on this board.

I complained in real time about that. I saw Stallworth split out and single-covered and said "ugh we're going to throw a fade". Maybe it just happens that Chryst is better at that than Hogan. But I still tend to hate fades, especially on 3rd down, because they seem low-percentage. Even when it's Tom Brady to Rob Gronkowski I hate seeing it (and the most recent one of those I can think of came on 3rd down and was broken up).


But I agree with your general point, I genuinely don't understand what people mean when they're asking for more unpredictability right now. I could sort of see wanting to mix it up a little in short yardage, but given that "feed Wright the ball out of a jumbo set" is working pretty consistently I can't even take that too seriously.

Re: A nod from the New York Times - CornFed - 10-06-2015

I don't think unpredictability is created from play to play, as such.  One has the fundamental basis of one's offense.  The manner in which the team riffs from that is important.  The deviations from core offense should be effected w/ purpose; both to establish further play extensions that are enhanced by the first deviation and to gain insight about the manner and capability of the defense in reacting.

The SC game seemed to me to be about executing our core perfectly - over and over.  The departures were not numerous, but they were sufficient to maintain the efficacy of the core approach.

The Arizona game, however, seemed to be a perfect orchestration designed to keep the defense entirely off balance with respect to the next play call.  The effect of our success in that effort opened up the entire playbook, which ultimately we did not need to reveal.

I very much enjoyed both games (obviously) but for different reasons.  I probably enjoyed the U.SC beat down more because they are  .  .  .  well  .  .  .  U.SC.  For so long when I was first getting into Stanford football, U.SC was depicted as tough guys.  We were deemed to be more of a finesse offense.  It has been highly satisfying these last few years that Stanford has become the intimidator - at least more so and to a degree that I think is unprecedented.