The CardBoard
Triage - 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: Triage (/thread-12823.html)

Pages: 1 2

Triage - BostonCard - 10-06-2016

RJ over on the Bootleg has a good breakdown of the game, if you can brave revisiting it, and a good assessment on how how much was the OL's fault and how much was Burns' fault.

http://www.scout.com/college/stanford/story/1713523-stanford-after-the-husky-mauling-triage

Quote:So Burns averaged 2.1 seconds on the plays where successfully got the pass off to a receiver.  On the sacks, he held the ball for an average of 3.01 seconds.

As a basis for comparison, this site gives NFL QBs "time to throw" and "time to sack".

https://www.profootballfocus.com/signature-stat-snapshot-time-to-throw/

Time to throw ranges between 2.5 seconds for Tom Brady to 3.1 seconds for Russell Wilson (data is 4 years old, but probably representative).  So when Burns got rid of the ball, he got rid of it faster than even Tom Brady did.

On sacks, Kevin Kolb had 2.3 seconds before getting hit, while Russell Wilson luxuriated in the backfield for over 4 seconds before finally getting hit.  So Burns' 3 seconds is slightly less time than the median, and would be comparable to Andy Dalton and Eli Manning.

I think the bottom line is that it would be hard to blame Burns for the sacks.  Nor can you really blame the coaches for putting in slow developing plays.  Burns simply didn't have much time back there.  As RJ suggests, though, that doesn't absolve the coaches, who could have (should have) given Hall more help.

BC

Re: Triaje - OutsiderFan - 10-06-2016

Burns didn't have a lot of time on average, but it's not like he didn't have any time at all.  The OL could have done better, but he could have gotten rid of the ball faster too. 

This is why it is so important to prioritize QBs with quick releases if they are primarily pocket passers.  Burns has a quicker release than Hogan, but it's not exceptionally quick either.  Chryst appears to get the ball off quicker. 

Re: Triaje - BostonCard - 10-06-2016

(10-06-2016, 12:45 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:This is why it is so important to prioritize QBs with quick releases if they are primarily pocket passers.  Burns has a quicker release than Hogan, but it's not exceptionally quick either.  Chryst appears to get the ball off quicker. 

That's based on a sample size of 8.

BC

Re: Triaje - washingtonismoney - 10-06-2016

It seems hard to criticize Burns for not getting the ball off quickly unless we know the openness (or not) of his receivers. I could throw a pick one second after the snap every play. That doesn't make me a good player.

FWIW, here's Bloomgren's assessment of Burns:

Quote:“What he did is he stood in there and he continued to lead throughout the game,” he said. “He made throws and even after getting hit you never saw a fear factor come into play. It was never too big. And all he kept doing is being positive and trying to get the guys to perform around him. Was he perfect? Absolutely not. But his leadership was and I appreciate that.”

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/stanford-offensive-line-looks-to-rebound-against-cougars

Re: Triaje - OutsiderFan - 10-06-2016

Getting the ball off doesn't mean getting it to an open receiver or throwing a pick, it could be throwing the ball away, or throwing it so it can't be picked off.  This is one of the reasons I don't understand the lack of roll-outs.  At least that gets a QB outside the pocket where he can throw the ball 20 yards out of bounds without penalty, if he can't find a receiver when being pressured.

Re: Triaje - BostonCard - 10-06-2016

A couple times no one was open...

Quote:Pass 2:  Nobody was open on this play, in part because once again there was no route variety in the depth of the routes run, meaning Burns was staring at a cluster of defenders at the level he’d have been throwing the ball.  Elijah Qualls beats Guard Johnny Caspers on a power rush.  Burns did hold it for a while here, but he really had no place to go with the ball, and with the rush coming up the middle, stepping up and running wasn’t really an option.

BC

Re: Triaje - Mick - 10-06-2016

(10-06-2016, 12:59 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Getting the ball off doesn't mean getting it to an open receiver or throwing a pick, it could be throwing the ball away, or throwing it so it can't be picked off.  This is one of the reasons I don't understand the lack of roll-outs.  At least that gets a QB outside the pocket where he can throw the ball 20 yards out of bounds without penalty, if he can't find a receiver when being pressured.


I think the problem with rollouts is that they conflict with what are generally accepted passing principles; e.g., balance, set stance, shoulders in line with target, etc.

Re: Triaje - OutsiderFan - 10-06-2016

I'm not advocating that every pass be a designed rollout, but sprint options and bootleg rollouts should always be thrown in every now and then to keep defenses honest.

It sure would be nice to see Stanford start a game with a fake handoff to CMac off a power look, then a bootleg rollout, with a WR running to the post, a TE down the seem, and the FB into the flat. 

Re: Triaje - CTcard - 10-06-2016

(10-06-2016, 12:37 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:RJ over on the Bootleg has a good breakdown of the game, if you can brave revisiting it, and a good assessment on how how much was the OL's fault and how much was Burns' fault.

http://www.scout.com/college/stanford/story/1713523-stanford-after-the-husky-mauling-triage

Quote:So Burns averaged 2.1 seconds on the plays where successfully got the pass off to a receiver.  On the sacks, he held the ball for an average of 3.01 seconds.

My sense is to agree with these conclusions, but for some reason the article isn't opening for me right now (either from your link or from the bootleg).

Of course the intervals are quite small and getting the numbers correct takes some care. Did RJ time the pass plays himself?
A comparison to other games would make this far more interesting, but it's not quite fair to tell other people they have to go do more work.

(10-06-2016, 01:17 PM)Mick link Wrote:I think the problem with rollouts is that they conflict with what are generally accepted passing principles; e.g., balance, set stance, shoulders in line with target, etc.

There are other problems as well. Rollouts shrink the field available to the receivers by typically something more than half. No college QB is generally going to be able to roll out to his right and either see or throw the ball to the left hand side of the field.

They certainly have their uses, but come with significant trade offs.



----------------
Finally, are you really allowed to spell triage spelled with a "j"?
And isn't it something you do beforehand?
I think this article was more of a postmortem.

Re: Triaje - CTcard - 10-06-2016

(10-06-2016, 01:35 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:It sure would be nice to see Stanford start a game with a fake handoff to CMac off a power look, then a bootleg rollout, with a WR running to the post, a TE down the seem, and the FB into the flat.

I think that generally if you are passing off of play action with a power look, then you want the QB staying the the pocket to first sell the fake and secondly have a relatively quick throw. Rolling out alerts the defense and gives them time to recover after looking in for the run. 

Of course every play depends upon just what strategy you are trying to employ and depends upon the details.

Re: Triaje - BostonCard - 10-06-2016

Note, I didn't realize the article was behind the paywall.  The Bootleg site was glitching and allowed me to view the article (without many of the front end graphics) and let me into it without being a subscriber.  So sorry for linking a paywalled article.

BC

Re: Triaje - CrazedZooChimp - 10-06-2016

(10-06-2016, 01:40 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15867.msg174877#msg174877 date=1475782674]
RJ over on the Bootleg has a good breakdown of the game, if you can brave revisiting it, and a good assessment on how how much was the OL's fault and how much was Burns' fault.

http://www.scout.com/college/stanford/story/1713523-stanford-after-the-husky-mauling-triage

Quote:So Burns averaged 2.1 seconds on the plays where successfully got the pass off to a receiver.  On the sacks, he held the ball for an average of 3.01 seconds.

My sense is to agree with these conclusions, but for some reason the article isn't opening for me right now (either from your link or from the bootleg).

Of course the intervals are quite small and getting the numbers correct takes some care. Did RJ time the pass plays himself?
A comparison to other games would make this far more interesting, but it's not quite fair to tell other people they have to go do more work.

(10-06-2016, 01:17 PM)Mick link Wrote:I think the problem with rollouts is that they conflict with what are generally accepted passing principles; e.g., balance, set stance, shoulders in line with target, etc.

There are other problems as well. Rollouts shrink the field available to the receivers by typically something more than half. No college QB is generally going to be able to roll out to his right and either see or throw the ball to the left hand side of the field.

They certainly have their uses, but come with significant trade offs.



----------------

[/quote]

The other problems with roll outs are that they take time (as does play action), and if the defense can get pressure by only rushing 4, there is probably a free linebacker who can more or less spy your QB.

Also, aren't UWs DBs like some of the best in the country? I think it's fair to say that for the most part they probably had pretty tight coverage on our WRs more often than not (without reviewing the film myself). I'm inclined not to blame Burns much for the performance.

Although I would argue that Luck was a college QB who could throw across his body. But he was Luck.

Re: Triaje - CTcard - 10-06-2016

(10-06-2016, 01:48 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Note, I didn't realize the article was behind the paywall.  The Bootleg site was glitching and allowed me to view the article (without many of the front end graphics) and let me into it without being a subscriber.  So sorry for linking a paywalled article.

Well, that wasn't my problem since I am still a subscriber over there.
Maybe they kicked me out when they let you in.

Re: Triaje - CTcard - 10-06-2016

(10-06-2016, 01:56 PM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:Although I would argue that Luck was a college QB who could throw across his body. But he was Luck.

Partially true.
It's one thing to be able to zing and occasional pass across your body.
It's something else to be able to see the left hand side of the field while you are running to your right.

Re: Triaje - Spiny_Norman - 10-06-2016

Thanks, BC.  I was able to read the article once before they fixed the glitch.  RJ made some very salient points about the offense weaknesses, including the fact that the team seems to have reverted to the 2014 habit of formation predictability.  Also Hall has been victimized on half of the team's sacks over the first 4 games. And the more blockers who stay in to help him means fewer in the pattern.  Finally he observes something that we should all keep in mind - the problems will not be solved in one week.

Re: Triaje - thunder_chik - 10-06-2016

I want to believe the UW game was an anomaly due to the "perfect storm" combo of short week, injuries, travel/away game, noise, top 10 opponent, new QB, school starting, etc.  However, IIRC, the last time we lost two in a row was just two years ago, @Ducks 45-16 and at home vs the Utes, 20-17 (2OT) with a bye week in-between.  So I guess anything can happen.

Hope we do see some more creative play calling on Saturday night.


Re: Triaje - BostonCard - 10-06-2016

Surprised that nobody chastised me for misspelling the subject of the thread... or spelling it in French.

BC

Re: Triaje - CTcard - 10-06-2016

(10-06-2016, 04:21 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Surprised that nobody chastised me for misspelling the subject of the thread... or spelling it in French.

BC

Vous n'avez pas lu mon post.

(and the French spell it triage I believe)

Re: Triaje - CrazedZooChimp - 10-06-2016

(10-06-2016, 04:34 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15867.msg174919#msg174919 date=1475796095]
Surprised that nobody chastised me for misspelling the subject of the thread... or spelling it in French.

BC

Vous n'avez pas lu mon post.

(and the French spell it triage I believe)
[/quote]

My quick google search implies it IS the Spanish spelling of it, though. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triaje

Re: Triaje - BostonCard - 10-06-2016

(10-06-2016, 04:34 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15867.msg174919#msg174919 date=1475796095]
Surprised that nobody chastised me for misspelling the subject of the thread... or spelling it in French.

BC

Vous n'avez pas lu mon post.

(and the French spell it triage I believe)
[/quote]

I mentally processed that as a signature and didn't read it.  I guess I was more interested in your take on the stats.  Finally, I don't know if it counts as being chastised for it if the response is devoid of snark or humor.  And yes, it is the Spanish, not French spelling.

BC