The CardBoard
On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - 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: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . (/thread-14322.html)

Pages: 1 2

On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - teejers1 - 09-18-2017

Warning:  many old timers can skip this post as it restates a long-held position.

Stanford football is in serious trouble  because the offense isn't just bad . . . it's unwatchable.  Nothing kills a fan base more quickly than this - and there isn't much of a fan base here to begin with.  If this team goes sub .500 this year - which looks likely right now - then there will be even more wide open swaths of empty seats in the stands in 2018 (the "off year" from a home scheduling standpoint).

The offense has been mediocre to bad for the entirety of this regime, save the Andrew Luck season and the Kevin Hogan 5th Year season.  And those teams had overwhelming/superior offensive talent to their defensive opponents.  (I'd argue that even in those seasons the team underperformed to talent on offense).  It is clear that this Stanford team (and the ones in the foreseeable future) will NOT be superior - let alone overwhelmingly superior - from a talent perspective than their opponents.  There is no Andrew Luck or C-Mac on this roster, nor is there an OL that can impose its will on all comers.  And because there is no overwhelming talent on O, we see (and will continue to see) what we've been seeing from Stanford's offense of late:  mediocrity/unwatchability defined.  It's entirely predictable.

Will replacing Chryst with Costello help?  Yeah, maybe . . . a bit . . . on the margin.

But THAT is just re-arranging deck chairs (to borrow from BC's recent post).

Until the head guy puts up a mirror in his house and sees where the problem lies and takes appropriate action, then we're all just saying prayers for delivery from things that go bump in the night.  For the love of God, please do what great CEOs do and hire a talented OC to run a real college offense and get out of the way! 

It never, ever should have descended to this point.

P.S.  Rocky, ERRR AncientCityIndian, beeg dawg, and other 'leg refugees have been on this train for years.  Lex, are you now on it, too?  The Cardboard population has always had a higher Shawpology Coefficient, but even that wall is breaking. 

P.P.S.  Again, we're only talking on the O side of the ball, which unfortunately is the most public face of coaching, which has the most fan enjoyment impact.  In all other respects, Coach Shaw has been (and is) great for Stanford football.

P.P.P.S.  Watched a fair amount of the Denver Broncos in Week 1.  Now THAT is an offense that has a defense on its heels.  Impressive.  [Don't know how they looked in Week 2, but I did see that they rolled the Cowboys, which is itself an impressive feat].  We need an O like that . . . or like the 2000/2001 Stanford offense.

P.P.P.P.S.  Add:  Bryce Love is an extraordinarily gifted player.  Where would "the O" be without him?  I can't even bear to think about the game stat line without this guy working his magic.


Teejers, We Have Bumped Into Each Other At Many Stanford (Bowl) Games - AncientCityIndian - 09-18-2017

and I will support this team to the day I die with enthusiasm, but as you note, I just get so totally frustrated with an otherwise perfect Stanford HC when he just absolutely refuses to accept the fact he is not Bill Walsh, not Mike Leach, not Lincoln Riley and not even Rocky Long as an O tactician and coordinator.

On bended knee with arms outstretched and body prostrate, I implore him PLEASE,PLEASE accept reality and find an OC able to utilize our incredibly talented O people. 

I am of the opinion and strongly so that had David done this and hired a Lincoln Riley type years ago, we would have been in the playoffs once or twice.

When people like myself and Teejers start losing interest out of frustration, Stanford football fan support is on the cusp of a death spiral. 

Coach, you and Bloom need to give up the OC mantle and ghost, replace Tavita with a dedicated OC who coaches QB`s and/or hire a separate QB coach and, without question or discussion, rejuvenate & reenergize the  tunnel workers by going back to the Harbaugh techniques and attitudes or spend a million dollars and hire back Drevno.

Re: Teejers, You and I Have Bumped Into Each Other At Many Stanford Bowl Games - stupac2 - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 10:38 AM)AncientCityIndian link Wrote:not Mike Leach

Weren't Leach's early teams at WSU pretty horrible? Sure, they put up decent yardage/points against bad teams, but they'd get curbstomped by good teams. They're better now, but it's not like he was always entertaining. (At least, I remember being bored and seeing empty stands when we were stomping them.)

Anyway, the results we've been seeing are bizarre. It's not like Shaw never changes anything up, he's done it a bunch. And we had a pretty darn watchable offense only a couple years ago (which, IIRC, is an example of a change, didn't we switch from man to zone run blocking after Northwestern?).

Clearly something needs to change, but I'm not sure what it is. I think there's enough evidence that the O staff needs a shakeup, but I'm not solidly convinced of that. Could be something else, could be nothing. A football season is a really small sample size.

Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - cardcrimson - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 09:38 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:Warning:  many old timers can skip this post as it restates a long-held position.

Stanford football is in serious trouble  because the offense isn't just bad . . . it's unwatchable.  Nothing kills a fan base more quickly than this - and there isn't much of a fan base here to begin with.  If this team goes sub .500 this year - which looks likely right now - then there will be even more wide open swaths of empty seats in the stands in 2018 (the "off year" from a home scheduling standpoint).

The offense has been mediocre to bad for the entirety of this regime, save the Andrew Luck season and the Kevin Hogan 5th Year season.  And those teams had overwhelming/superior offensive talent to their defensive opponents.  (I'd argue that even in those seasons the team underperformed to talent on offense).  It is clear that this Stanford team (and the ones in the foreseeable future) will NOT be superior - let alone overwhelmingly superior - from a talent perspective than their opponents.  There is no Andrew Luck or C-Mac on this roster, nor is there an OL that can impose its will on all comers.  And because there is no overwhelming talent on O, we see (and will continue to see) what we've been seeing from Stanford's offense of late:  mediocrity/unwatchability defined.  It's entirely predictable.

Will replacing Chryst with Costello help?  Yeah, maybe . . . a bit . . . on the margin.

But THAT is just re-arranging deck chairs (to borrow from BC's recent post).

Until the head guy puts up a mirror in his house and sees where the problem lies and takes appropriate action, then we're all just saying prayers for delivery from things that go bump in the night.  For the love of God, please do what great CEOs do and hire a talented OC to run a real college offense and get out of the way! 

It never, ever should have descended to this point.

P.S.  Rocky, ERRR AncientCityIndian, beeg dawg, and other 'leg refugees have been on this train for years.  Lex, are you now on it, too?  The horrible message board with incompetent manager population has always had a higher Shawpology Coefficient, but even that wall is breaking. 

P.P.S.  Again, we're only talking on the O side of the ball, which unfortunately is the most public face of coaching, which has the most fan enjoyment impact.  In all other respects, Coach Shaw has been (and is) great for Stanford football.

P.P.P.S.  Watched a fair amount of the Denver Broncos in Week 1.  Now THAT is an offense that has a defense on its heels.  Impressive.  [Don't know how they looked in Week 2, but I did see that they rolled the Cowboys, which is itself an impressive feat].  We need an O like that . . . or like the 2000/2001 Stanford offense.

P.P.P.P.S.  Add:  Bryce Love is an extraordinarily gifted player.  Where would "the O" be without him?  I can't even 59er to think about the game stat line without this guy working his magic.

What a great post.

Re: Teejers, You and I Have Bumped Into Each Other At Many Stanford Bowl Games - Duck Tears - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 10:54 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=AncientCityIndian link=topic=17429.msg201343#msg201343 date=1505756322]not Mike Leach

A football season is a really small sample size.
[/quote]

This is hardly one season. Since Luck, Stanford has routinely finished in lower tier among Pac-12 teams in scoring offense.
Year      Rank
2012:      7
2013:      7
2014:      11
2015:      3
2016:      9

And to hammer home Teejers' point, ATTENDANCE SUFFERS. Last year's USC didn't even sell out. The crowds for Oregon State in 2014/2016 and Utah in 2014 were pathetic. Stanford's fanbase will not support a) a loser and b) a winning team held down by a  boring, drab offense

[/img][/img]

Re: Teejers, You and I Have Bumped Into Each Other At Many Stanford Bowl Games - Spiny_Norman - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 11:51 AM)Duck Tears link Wrote:This is hardly one season. Here's how Stanford's has finished among Pac-12 teams in scoring offense.
Year      Rank
2012:      7
2013:      7
2014:      11
2015:      3
2016:      9

Got me to look up Stanford's ranking among Pac 12 teams for scoring defense in the same period
2012: 1
2013: 1
2014: 1
2015: 3
2016: 2


Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - BostonCard - 09-18-2017

That is a bit deceptive.

A) It ignores 2011, Shaw's first year as head coach
B) Because of differences in pace of play, number of plays and number of possessions, evaluations of the offense that depend on total offensive production (either points per game or total offense per game) make the offense look less effective than it really is.  The best metric (in my opinion) is points per possession, though that one is somewhat hard to come by. At least yards per play is a bit better.

YearYPPrank
2011:6.82
2012:5.58
2013:6.43
2014:5.97
2015:6.63
2016:5.88

There is clearly room for improvement, but the offense has been very good (top quartile in the Pac-12) about half of the years Shaw has been head coach.  Even the "bad" years (about half the years), Stanford's offense has been at the third quartile (so bottom half, but hardly amongst the worst offenses).

As others have noted, I think a reasonable goal would be for our offense to consistently be in the top half of the conference; the problem has not been in the good years, rather it has been the drop-offs during the bad years.

BC

Re: Teejers, You and I Have Bumped Into Each Other At Many Stanford Bowl Games - BostonCard - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 12:05 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=Duck Tears link=topic=17429.msg201363#msg201363 date=1505760672]
This is hardly one season. Here's how Stanford's has finished among Pac-12 teams in scoring offense.
Year      Rank
2012:      7
2013:      7
2014:      11
2015:      3
2016:      9

Got me to look up Stanford's ranking among Pac 12 teams for scoring defense in the same period
2012: 1
2013: 1
2014: 1
2015: 3
2016: 2
[/quote]

Scoring defense is a flawed metric for the same reason; our opponents have fewer possessions to score against us.

BC

Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - Duck Tears - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 12:09 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The best metric (in my opinion) is points per possession, though that one is somewhat hard to come by. At least yards per play is a bit better.

BC

Your advanced stats: Here's how Football Outsiders ranked Stanford in Offensive FEI (Fremeau Efficiency Index), which measures an offense's opponent-adjusted efficiency. 

2016: 79
2015: 2
2014: 56
2013: 22
2012: 34
2011: 6

It's safe to say that over half of colllege football's offenses are not more talented than Stanford. Yet since Bloomgren became OC (2014), its highly talented offense has twice finished among the bottom half nationally in efficiency.

Three games in Season Four, things still look bleak.

Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - OutsiderFan - 09-18-2017

I don't think anyone minds a low scoring offense as long as the team wins.  In Stanford's case, the most important stat for the program is 3rd down efficiency.  Stanford needs to possess the ball for its style to be effective.  It must convert 3rd downs at least at a 50% clip.  Right now it's at 46%.  Last year it was 42%.

FYI, Stanford converted 50% of 3rd downs against USC.  The problem in that game was much more the defense than the offense, but still think a better QB would help a lot, and frankly, make the OL look better.

Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - BostonCard - 09-18-2017

Thanks.  By that metric, we've had two top-10 offenses, and a third one that was in the top-25.  The other three ranged from ok (2014, though FEI looks like a bit of an outlier compared to YPP and total scoring) to pretty bad (2016).

I share CTCard's concern that the FEI is a bit of a black box and can't easily be re-created.  Points per possession can be, because total points and the outcomes of all possessions are known (TP = TD + FG + punts + TOs + failed 4th down conversions).  There are some quibbles (how do you deal with possessions at the end of a half or end of the game) and what do you do about garbage time, but since with few exceptions the number of possessions in a game are about the same for each team (± 1; 2 if there is a successful onside kick), the difference between offensive points per possession and defensive points per possession should correlate well with winning.

BC

Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - BostonCard - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 12:22 PM)Duck Tears link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17429.msg201365#msg201365 date=1505761770]
The best metric (in my opinion) is points per possession, though that one is somewhat hard to come by. At least yards per play is a bit better.

BC

Your advanced stats: Here's how Football Outsiders ranked Stanford in Offensive FEI (Fremeau Efficiency Index), which measures an offense's opponent-adjusted efficiency. 

2016: 79
2015: 2
2014: 56
2013: 22
2012: 34
2011: 6

It's safe to say that over half of colllege football's offenses are not more talented than Stanford. Yet since Bloomgren became OC (2014), its highly talented offense has twice finished among the bottom half nationally in efficiency.

Three games in Season Four, things still look bleak.
[/quote]

So who kidnapped Bloomgren and replaced him with Chip Kelly in 2015?

BC

Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - 81alum - 09-18-2017

I think it has been 2 (or is it 3?) years since I called for Bloomgren to move back to just coaching the O-Line, for the replacement of Tavita with someone who can truly develop our quarterbacks, and for the hiring of a more dynamic Offensive Coordinator.  Then the improvement of Hogan and the success of CMac made it all unnecessary and I felt foolish.

I am going to wait two more games before making up my own mind about calling for such changes again (not that what I call for makes the slightest difference!).  Beating UCLA and ASU is vital to our chance of having even a sub-par but winning season.  We win those two and get some problems ironed out in the meantime, and then Utah and Oregon begin to look like we might have a chance.  We lose one of those two and it will probably be too late to salvage anything at all from the season.

As for watchability--we are a long way from descending to the Walt Harris era on offense.  The truth is that we were ahead in our latest game until the last few minutes, and that there were a few electric plays from Love along the way.  Not good enough by a long shot--but vastly more entertaining than the dull, grinding, lengthy drubbings that we received in that earlier circle of hell.

When The Shaw/Bloomgren system is working--which is utterly dependent on the O-Line--it is very satisfying to watch.  Making your opponent helpless up front and toying with them with play action passes can be wonderfully fun for a spectator.  Toby was fun to watch even though he was radically different from Love.  So when the system is successful, watchability is not a problem.  The observation is correct, however, that when the system is NOT successful that watchability is very poor.  A gunslinging program that loses 60-40 is certainly more "watchable" than what we have right now.

The problem is not so much watchability but whether this particular power oriented system is well suited to our recruiting base.  I have felt for years that this system is too easy to gum up and stop when DCs know what they are doing--like Michigan State--unless we have an overwhelming physical advantage.  I think that Shaw has really NOT fully embraced the philosophy of his mentor Walsh, who stressed running when a pass was expected and passing when a run was expected, and being sufficiently unpredictable as to force the defense to be prepared for anything on any play.  The Walsh philosophy is better suited for an offense that is not physically dominant--but it benefits of course if we are physically dominant. 

So, I'll give it a little more time before coming to any conclusion in my own mind.  My concerns are longstanding but Shaw has had a way of disarming them.  I'll see if he can do it again.

Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - Hulk01 - 09-18-2017

Third down conversion rate, however, is another incomplete stat.  USC's average third down was a third and three.  Ours was a third and eight.  Only a few college quarterbacks (Manziel and Winston) have managed to convert 50 percent or more on third and 7-10.

So one very useful stat is, on what percentage of your first downs does you manage at least four yards? 

And what percent of your third downs required three or fewer yards to convert? 







Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - Hulk01 - 09-18-2017

Stanford points per drive ranking
2007:  105
2008:    52
2009:    5
2010:    2
2011:    2
2012:  71
2013;  30
2014:  50
2015:    2
2016:  62


Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - phxfan - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 12:36 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=Duck Tears link=topic=17429.msg201370#msg201370 date=1505762549]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17429.msg201365#msg201365 date=1505761770]
The best metric (in my opinion) is points per possession, though that one is somewhat hard to come by. At least yards per play is a bit better.

BC

It's safe to say that over half of colllege football's offenses are not more talented than Stanford. Yet since Bloomgren became OC (2014), its highly talented offense has twice finished among the bottom half nationally in efficiency.

Three games in Season Four, things still look bleak.
[/quote]

So who kidnapped Bloomgren and replaced him with Chip Kelly in 2015?

BC
[/quote]
His name was Christian McCaffrey

Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - stupac2 - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 12:41 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:So one very useful stat is, on what percentage of your first downs does you manage at least four yards?

That's the "successful play" metric. Per someone (Football Outsiders, maybe) a successful play on offense is one that gains 40% of the required yardage on 1st, 70% on 2nd, or 100% on 3rd/4th. On defense it's preventing those percentages. Part of USC's demolition of us is that virtually all of their plays in the first half were successful. It was alarming.

We seem to get behind the chains (have unsuccessful plays) a lot. It's a problem.

Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - qwerty49 - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 01:15 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=17429.msg201377#msg201377 date=1505763670]

Part of U$C's demolition of us is that virtually all of their plays in the first half were successful. It was alarming.

We seem to get behind the chains (have unsuccessful plays) a lot. It's a problem.
[/quote]

I can't bear to watch my DVR to verify but while in the stadium it seemed like SDSU had 2nd and 3 almost every time, while we had 2nd and 9.

The other mystery was why/how their TE was always open over the middle. 


Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - Red State - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 12:54 PM)phxfan link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17429.msg201374#msg201374 date=1505763362]
[quote author=Duck Tears link=topic=17429.msg201370#msg201370 date=1505762549]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17429.msg201365#msg201365 date=1505761770]
The best metric (in my opinion) is points per possession, though that one is somewhat hard to come by. At least yards per play is a bit better.

BC

It's safe to say that over half of colllege football's offenses are not more talented than Stanford. Yet since Bloomgren became OC (2014), its highly talented offense has twice finished among the bottom half nationally in efficiency.

Three games in Season Four, things still look bleak.
[/quote]

So who kidnapped Bloomgren and replaced him with Chip Kelly in 2015?

BC
[/quote]
His name was Christian McCaffrey
[/quote] And Kevin Hogan. Also the Outland Trophy Winner, who played lights out.

Re: On mirrors, deck chairs, and things that go bump in the night . . . - OutsiderFan - 09-18-2017

Not that anyone here cares what Cal fans think, but here's something that shows they are thinking the same thing a lot of Stanford fans are, copied from Cal Rivals board (not my post):

What really doesn't click for me is how Stanford can be underperforming on the OL and QB despite the really highly rated recruits they've gotten. Could it really be that a few really bright stars (most recently McCaffrey on offense, Solomon Thomas on defense) made that team look much better than they really are?

Bottom line: hard for Stanford to have an effective offense when they go one dimensional toward a run game (with an OL that isn't as dominating as usual).