The CardBoard
Shaw's Mood - 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: Shaw's Mood (/thread-14286.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Shaw's Mood - Hank 91 - 09-13-2017

Anyone listen to yesterday's media luncheon? Coach Shaw tends to be reserved and sometimes secretive at those, but he can sometimes get a little prickly after losses. He was different yesterday, not just defensive, but combative as he sparred with the reporters. The piece of land they were fighting over was something that's been brought up here -- the choice to field only two down linemen for much of the game. I wouldn't say that it got ugly, but I'm sure there was discomfort in the room.

My hope is that Shaw's anger is a reflection of his team's mood. We'll see on Saturday.

Re: Shaw's Mood - Mick - 09-13-2017

(09-13-2017, 11:27 AM)Hank 91 link Wrote:Anyone listen to yesterday's media luncheon? Coach Shaw tends to be reserved and sometimes secretive at those, but he can sometimes get a little prickly after losses. He was different yesterday, not just defensive, but combative as he sparred with the reporters. The piece of land they were fighting over was something that's been brought up here -- the choice to field only two down linemen for much of the game. I wouldn't say that it got ugly, but I'm sure there was discomfort in the room.

My hope is that Shaw's anger is a reflection of his team's mood. We'll see on Saturday.

Could it be his tacit acknowledgement that their Monday morning/Sunday afternoon quarterbacking was accurate and that two linemen were too few?  Or was it unhappiness that he had so few options?

Re: Shaw's Mood - washingtonismoney - 09-13-2017

Is there any tape available?

Re: Shaw's Mood - Goose - 09-13-2017

(09-13-2017, 11:34 AM)Mick link Wrote:Could it be his tacit acknowledgement that their Monday morning/Sunday afternoon quarterbacking was accurate and that two linemen were too few?
When the other team runs at will, two  linemen is clearly too few. I think almost nobody could argue that 2-4-5 can produce good run defense, and 2-5-4 is marginal at best against the run, especially if all the LBs are pretty small.
Quote: Or was it unhappiness that he had so few options?
I think this is the case. It was more "What else can I do?" as opposed to "This is what I want to do?"

Against a Team Like USC or Alabama and Possibly SDSU, the Problem Is That - AncientCityIndian - 09-13-2017

you have 5, 300 pound linemen and a 260 pound TE all with talent blocking guys who weigh 280 and 265 on the line and linebackers weighing between 225 and 255.  When they hit our guys, they drive us off the ball and they average an ungodly number of yards per carry.  Against other teams, that may work.  When you are playing against 5 future pro linemen, it sucks.

Re: Shaw's Mood - Hulk01 - 09-13-2017

Shhav's point is that since 2007, Stanford's coaches always have deployed a nickel when an opponent shows a three wide receiver set, and no reporter has questioned the wisdom of that until this week.

His further point, by implication, is that a two DL set can work if everyone does their jobs.  It's not inherently weak against a run. 

And while he neither said nor implied this, my guess is that Shaw saw on film that our three DL sets weren't stopping SC's running game, either.



Re: Shaw's Mood - CardinalSagehen - 09-13-2017

(09-13-2017, 11:41 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Is there any tape available?
Here's one way to get it: https://www.facebook.com/stanfordfootball/videos/1566243923397006/

The pissiness starts around 4:15.  Assorted zingers included the following:
Entertaining, actually.  Reminiscent of Harbaugh.  Good to see Shaw being punchy and defiant.  Reporters (and we message board pundits!) would do right to approach Shaw with a bit more humility.  He has forgotten more about football in the last 15 minutes than most of us can ever hope to know in our lifetimes!

Re: Shaw's Mood - Goose - 09-13-2017

(09-13-2017, 11:55 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Shhav's point is that since 2007, Stanford's coaches always have deployed a nickel when an opponent shows a three wide receiver set, and no reporter has questioned the wisdom of that until this week.

His further point, by implication, is that a two DL set can work if everyone does their jobs.  It's not inherently weak against a run.
But it IS inherently weak against the run. 95% of our opponents  have shown little stomach for running right at us. That is because they are not built to do that. In 2016 I was scared to death that U$C would commit to the run. They had some early success against us, and then, miracle of miracles, they stopped trying to run at us. It can work against the run if 1) the opposing team isn't very good running the ball or 2) the opposing team chooses not to run the ball much between the tackles. It is not a matter of doing your job. If the other team is good at banging between the tackles, you need enough beef on the LOS or you will have a very long day. Most college teams today don't (and probably can't) do this. Some do however.
Utah has a history of grinding it out between the tackles. We haven't done well against them. OSU can run the ball inside with Nall, but they aren't good otherwise, so it doesn't matter. UW has hurt us with the run even in 2015. However, in 2015 their QB was hurt, so we played more 3 man line (and we had some bigger guys).
I think that the 2-5-4 was adopted to solve the "Oregon problem". Spread teams are trying to go around you, spreading the field laterally. Big defensive linemen can't move fast enough to stop this. OTOH, the wide offensive line splits spread teams use doesn't generate as much "push", so using more lighter, faster players makes sense. With three wide receivers, or four, they will pass or run a sprint draw type play. They aren't going to run into your strength.
In the recent past, U$C had the backs and linemen who could run right at us. But, because their coaches weren't so good, they didn't. That error has been corrected. If you try to defend USC as if they were Oregon, you will get a double dose of tailback. That's why they are good.

Quote:And while he neither said nor implied this, my guess is that Shaw saw on film that our three DL sets weren't stopping SC's running game, either.
Unfortunately, I think this is also true. It could be we just didn't play well, or it could be we just don't have the personnel. We don't have a prototypical nose tackle for our 3 man line. Phillips should be playing end. He is a good nose tackle, but it seems he is all by himself even when we have two other linemen in the game. He would be a beast as an end. We need a couple of guys to step up, and soon.

Re: Shaw's Mood - Hank 91 - 09-13-2017

(09-13-2017, 12:29 PM)Cardinal Sagehen link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17393.msg200442#msg200442 date=1505328113]
Is there any tape available?
Here's one way to get it: https://www.facebook.com/stanfordfootball/videos/1566243923397006/

The pissiness starts around 4:15.  Assorted zingers included the following:
Entertaining, actually.  Reminiscent of Harbaugh.  Good to see Shaw being punchy and defiant.  Reporters (and we message board pundits!) would do right to approach Shaw with a bit more humility.  He has forgotten more about football in the last 15 minutes than most of us can ever hope to know in our lifetimes!
[/quote]

This hits all the comments that I was referencing, and as Hulk mentioned, Shaw also pointed out that they've been playing defense this way since he arrived. I also agree with Sagehen. I think Shaw and the rest of the staff know what they're doing.

Re: Against a Team Like U$C or Alabama and Possibly SDSU, the Problem Is That - winflop - 09-13-2017

(09-13-2017, 11:48 AM)AncientCityIndian link Wrote:you have 5, 300 pound linemen and a 260 pound TE all with talent blocking guys who weigh 280 and 265 on the line and linebackers weighing between 225 and 255.  When they hit our guys, they drive us off the ball and they average an ungodly number of yards per carry.  Against other teams, that may work.  When you are playing against 5 future pro linemen, it sucks.

I haven't checked roster lately but my impression from Saturday is that we have only two ILBs over 225 - Palma & Alfieri. Most of them look like they're about the size of a safety.

Re: Shaw's Mood - BostonCard - 09-13-2017

So, three wideouts (plus a QB and a ball carrier), leaves 6 players to block.  A nickel defense will leave 2 DL and 4 LB in the box (plus any safety who creeps up).  So that means that at least one member of the front 6 at or near the point of attack has to be able to shed their block to make the tackle.  When the opposing team's linemen are good that's a favorable matchup for the offense.  Or, to put it another way, I would assume that if we were in a three wide formation and looking at a nickel defense, we would likely pick the run option and like our chances.

However, consider the alternative.  Let's say we decided to line up in a traditional 3-4 defense facing 3 wideouts and a tight end.  We have good defensive backs, but Darnold would have carved it up.  In fact, most competent quarterbacks would, which is why Shaw is right that most teams shift to a nickel defense when up against 3 wideouts.  Add to that the fact that we haven't established ourselves as a good passing rushing defense, and that we don't really have the quantity/quality defensive linemen, and as flawed as it was against running plays, it offered us the best chance to get the best 11 defenders on the field.

When the offense is executing well, it doesn't matter if the defense is geared towards stopping the run or stopping the pass; you exploit the defense's weakness, and that is what USC did to us.  I sensed a lot of frustration in Shaw's voice.  He was in a damned if you do/damned if you don't position.  But I think the bigger problem is that I don't think there are easy fixes for this problem as we simply don't have enough quality defensive linemen.  That means other good teams will be able to exploit our weakness.

Through two games, it is clear that the loss of Solomon Thomas was much more impactful than the loss of Christian McCaffrey.

BC

Re: Shaw's Mood - washingtonismoney - 09-13-2017

I'd also caution that...it's early. Some early-season losses are perfectly predictive of what kind of season will unfold (you understood perfectly what type of team it would be when Stanford lost to SC in 2014). Some are not (the 2015 loss to Northwestern looked like it foretold another mediocre offense, stout defense combination...when in fact, of course, it was a high-scoring team with a questionable defense).

We just don't know yet. Hopefully the players and coaches will use this opportunity to learn how to win and become elite.

Re: Against a Team Like U$C or Alabama and Possibly SDSU, the Problem Is That - hayaka - 09-13-2017

(09-13-2017, 01:22 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=AncientCityIndian link=topic=17393.msg200445#msg200445 date=1505328521]
you have 5, 300 pound linemen and a 260 pound TE all with talent blocking guys who weigh 280 and 265 on the line and linebackers weighing between 225 and 255.  When they hit our guys, they drive us off the ball and they average an ungodly number of yards per carry.  Against other teams, that may work.  When you are playing against 5 future pro linemen, it sucks.

I haven't checked roster lately but my impression from Saturday is that we have only two LBs over 225 - Palma & Alfiere. Most of them look like they're about the size of a safety.


[/quote]

According to the roster, of the LBs who have been getting meaningful playing time, all but Barton are 235 or up.  Toohill, Palma  and Kalambayi are the heaviest at 247, 247, and 243 respectively.

http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/depth-chart/stanford/91901



Re: Against a Team Like U$C or Alabama and Possibly SDSU, the Problem Is That - winflop - 09-13-2017

(09-13-2017, 02:05 PM)hayaka link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=17393.msg200451#msg200451 date=1505334148]
[quote author=AncientCityIndian link=topic=17393.msg200445#msg200445 date=1505328521]
you have 5, 300 pound linemen and a 260 pound TE all with talent blocking guys who weigh 280 and 265 on the line and linebackers weighing between 225 and 255.  When they hit our guys, they drive us off the ball and they average an ungodly number of yards per carry.  Against other teams, that may work.  When you are playing against 5 future pro linemen, it sucks.

I haven't checked roster lately but my impression from Saturday is that we have only two LBs over 225 - Palma & Alfiere. Most of them look like they're about the size of a safety.


[/quote]

According to the roster, of the LBs who have been getting meaningful playing time, all but Barton are 235 or up.  Toohill, Palma  and Kalambayi are the heaviest at 247, 247, and 243 respectively.

http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/depth-chart/stanford/91901
[/quote]

Sorry I meant to say ILB. I have no issue with our OLBs but up the middle we are mostly small, soft, and all-too-frequently out of position for the second year in a row.

Re: Shaw's Mood - fullmetal - 09-13-2017

Shaw spitting straight fire there.  I hope the reporters were focusing on the issues at hand.  Shaw doesn't have a good solution for defending an opponent who fields a great run game with 3 WRs...but surely other teams have to do that, right?

Re: Shaw's Mood - Goose - 09-13-2017

(09-13-2017, 06:21 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Shaw spitting straight fire there.  I hope the reporters were focusing on the issues at hand.  Shaw doesn't have a good solution for defending an opponent who fields a great run game with 3 WRs...but surely other teams have to do that, right?
It is not just a great run game. It is a great inside running game. Spread teams often run well, but not the same way, and Shaw CAN defend that with what he has. However, teams that can put 3 wide on the field and run power, like Stanford does at times, are real hard to defend. You need the right guys on the defensive line and linebacker. Lately, the PAC-12 has tended toward spread, as has most of the nation. We have been able to adapt to that, although it took a bit of doing. Ideally, against a team like U$C, your "nickle" puts a DB in for a linebacker, keeps 3 linemen, and can both pass rush and stop the run between the tackles that way. We don't have ideal guys to be the DL in that case. That will be a problem, no doubt about it. How big a problem, we shall see.
Very few programs have the personnel to defend both the spread game and the power game well. Alabama may have the horses. U$C may have the horses. However, U$C played an almost perfect game against us. I am not sure they can do that repeatably.
Most teams have to rely on pure offense to defeat the opponent that they can't actual defend against. We may be there against U$C. That may be reflected in the play calling if we gety another shot at the Toejams.


Re: Shaw's Mood - washingtonismoney - 09-13-2017

Listening to the luncheon, there's some context here: Shaw's annoyed with Tom FitzGerald. The two have an affectionately annoyed relationship, I've noticed. So that makes me find his mood a bit less notable. While he's a bit more aggressive than usual, he doesn't seem at peak pique to me -- he's still mostly in control. And his answers are mostly responsive and logical; you can tell when he's most wroth when he simply dismisses the question without responding. He comes close with FitzGerald's question about nickel and 3-4 but doesn't shade all the way.

Re: Shaw's Mood - lex24 - 09-13-2017

Excellent analysis.  They will employ a different front versus SDS. And I suspect they will load the box. They have to bake them try to throw the ball.


(09-13-2017, 12:41 PM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=17393.msg200446#msg200446 date=1505328932]
Shhav's point is that since 2007, Stanford's coaches always have deployed a nickel when an opponent shows a three wide receiver set, and no reporter has questioned the wisdom of that until this week.

His further point, by implication, is that a two DL set can work if everyone does their jobs.  It's not inherently weak against a run.
But it IS inherently weak against the run. 95% of our opponents  have shown little stomach for running right at us. That is because they are not built to do that. In 2016 I was scared to death that U$C would commit to the run. They had some early success against us, and then, miracle of miracles, they stopped trying to run at us. It can work against the run if 1) the opposing team isn't very good running the ball or 2) the opposing team chooses not to run the ball much between the tackles. It is not a matter of doing your job. If the other team is good at banging between the tackles, you need enough beef on the LOS or you will have a very long day. Most college teams today don't (and probably can't) do this. Some do however.
Utah has a history of grinding it out between the tackles. We haven't done well against them. OSU can run the ball inside with Nall, but they aren't good otherwise, so it doesn't matter. UW has hurt us with the run even in 2015. However, in 2015 their QB was hurt, so we played more 3 man line (and we had some bigger guys).
I think that the 2-5-4 was adopted to solve the "Oregon problem". Spread teams are trying to go around you, spreading the field laterally. Big defensive linemen can't move fast enough to stop this. OTOH, the wide offensive line splits spread teams use doesn't generate as much "push", so using more lighter, faster players makes sense. With three wide receivers, or four, they will pass or run a sprint draw type play. They aren't going to run into your strength.
In the recent past, U$C had the backs and linemen who could run right at us. But, because their coaches weren't so good, they didn't. That error has been corrected. If you try to defend U$C as if they were Oregon, you will get a double dose of tailback. That's why they are good.

Quote:And while he neither said nor implied this, my guess is that Shaw saw on film that our three DL sets weren't stopping SC's running game, either.
Unfortunately, I think this is also true. It could be we just didn't play well, or it could be we just don't have the personnel. We don't have a prototypical nose tackle for our 3 man line. Phillips should be playing end. He is a good nose tackle, but it seems he is all by himself even when we have two other linemen in the game. He would be a beast as an end. We need a couple of guys to step up, and soon.
[/quote]

Re: Shaw's Mood - martyup - 09-17-2017

What is going on with David Shaw?  I've never seen him show so much emotion in all of his years coaching at Stanford.  We've been in worst game situations and he remained calm and stoic.  Last night he nearly got into a fight at the halftime break.  He was markedly more animated on the sideline.  And, in one TV shot during the game he was off away from the team standing by himself.

I suspect that this team is not performing up to Shaw's expectations and he is getting frustrated.  Perhaps this is the most under achieving group he has coached at Stanford.  Or, perhaps Coach Shaw has other things going on in his life that has affected his demeanor.

Having lived through the various coaching iterations at Stanford since the late seventies, I am thankful that Stanford has David Shaw as head football coach.  I have confidence that he will right this ship.  I hope this time isn't the beginning of his end at Stanford.

Re: Shaw's Mood - washingtonismoney - 09-17-2017

(09-17-2017, 09:17 AM)martyup link Wrote:What is going on with David Shaw?  I've never seen him show so much emotion in all of his years coaching at Stanford.  We've been in worst game situations and he remained calm and stoic.  Last night he nearly got into a fight at the halftime break.  He was markedly more animated on the sideline.  And, in one TV shot during the game he was off away from the team standing by himself.

I suspect that this team is not performing up to Shaw's expectations and he is getting frustrated.  Perhaps this is the most under achieving group he has coached at Stanford.  Or, perhaps Coach Shaw has other things going on in his life that has affected his demeanor.

Having lived through the various coaching iterations at Stanford since the late seventies, I am thankful that Stanford has David Shaw as head football coach.  I have confidence that he will right this ship.  I hope this time isn't the beginning of his end at Stanford.

Was struck that he seemed almost morose on the sideline, as you were.

Certainly the coaching gameplan was uncharacteristic. For better or worse, Shaw's history has not been one of "bold" (or, to look at it from another perspective, "hasty") decisions. He makes his plan and gives it a chance to work. In a world where people panic at the first sign of failure, that can be a helpful quality and I think it's served Stanford pretty well.

Which is what made this game so puzzling. Obviously the game against Rice was not exactly top-tier opposition but the offense looked good. And while the SC performance won't go into the hall of fame, it wasn't a disgraceful performance by any means. A B- or B, we'll say. So why did Shaw decide to blow it up and overhaul the offensive line? It's really weird.

And when that didn't seem to work, the coaches seemed to be mashing the buttons to see what worked. I think there were nine offensive linemen out there at various points (Hall, Little, Burkett, Herbig, Bright, Chaffin, Wilson, Sarell, Hamilton). That's a lot. That's to say nothing of the other various odd decisions. In a situation in which "steady goes the ship of state" wouldn't've been a crazy policy -- and would've stayed true to character -- the coaches opted for desperation. I don't get it, at all.