Great adjustment - Printable Version

Great adjustment - 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: Great adjustment (/thread-14374.html)

Pages: 1 2

Great adjustment - gocard14 - 09-24-2017

One great adjustment made by Shaw/Bloomgren was to increase the use of the shotgun run. UCLA was only putting 6 or 7 in the box against our Shotgun 3-wide + tight end formation, which, combined with the use of the zone-read meant we equaled or outnumbered them at the point of attack, as opposed to running at a 9 man box from a jumbo set.Â One thing that has previously driven me crazy was how rarely we ran out of the passing sets (the shotgun) or passed out of running sets (our jumbo packages). Shaw did a great job spreading the field to set up the run today.

Also, while Love is a better between the tackles back then most give him credit for, he is at his best when he has the space to find the crease in the zone scheme and then explode through it. Combine that with the credible threat of Costello running or rolling out (which he looked great doing), and you have an offense that looks infinitely more dynamic then it did last week, even with Costello missing a few throws.

Re: Great adjustment - qwerty49 - 09-24-2017

On Costello's TD run we were unbalanced, heavy left. At first I thought Hamilton had come in for Little but then I saw Little lined up inside him. And sure enough, UCLA cheated to that side and Costello rolled the other way.

It was a refreshing look.

OTOH I am still befuddled as to why we tried a 50yd FG on 4th and 1 and immediately afterward went for it on 4th and 6.

Re: Great adjustment - North Woods - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 09:08 AM)qwerty49 link Wrote:OTOH I am still befuddled as to why we tried a 50yd FG on 4th and 1 and immediately afterward went for it on 4th and 6.

Toner didn't have enough distance on the kick from 50. That made it fairly certain he wasn't going to make it from 55 -- a long kick even for a pro -- so field goal attempt was off the table. I like the aggressive decision vs. punting which is what we frequently decide to do in this situation.

The bigger contrast IMO is yesterday vs. last week. Reading into it, seemed that Shaw felt more confident in a first down despite the longer distance and let Costello make a play. The lower quality of defense certainly may have had something to do with it but the trust for a new QB was good to see.

Re: Great adjustment - Goose - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 09:23 AM)North Woods link Wrote:Toner didn't have enough distance on the kick from 50. That made it fairly certain he wasn't going to make it from 55 -- a long kick even for a pro -- so field goal attempt was off the table.

The field goal try was messed up. The ball was snapped out of rhythm andÂ unexpectedly because we we going to get a penalty (which we did). Toner can kick a 50 yard field goal if the play is on time and in rhythm. Why nobody called time out is the real question. You shouldn't get a delay of game penalty under those conditions.

Quote:The bigger contrast IMO is yesterday vs. last week. Reading into it, seemed that Shaw felt more confident in a first down despite the longer distance and let Costello make a play. The lower quality of defense certainly may have had something to do with it but the trust for a new QB was good to see.

Yes, but I think it was more like "The odds of making a 50 yard field goal are better than making a fourth and one, while the odds of making a 55 yard field goal are less than the odds of making a fourth and six". Not sure I would agree with those odds. Maybe it was just that Shaw was so angry about the penalty that he made an emotional choice. If so, good choice! I don't think that a coldly rational David Shaw makes that decision :)

Re: Great adjustment - North Woods - 09-24-2017

True, we should have called a time out rather than take a penalty. That's poor awareness regardless and a mistake we seem to make too often.

In any case the comparison isn't just FG odds vs. odds of first down, but also factoring in the subsequent odds that we would turn a first down into a better outcome than a FG as well as considering the downside of each if we don't succeed. That's part of why I didn't like the call to kick a FG last week: if we had succeeded, it was fairly likely that we would get a touchdown. If we failed, we had SDSU pinned deep in their territory. But he didn't feel like we were going to succeed last week and of course we'll never know who was right.

In any case, the pleasant surprise for me was that these alternatives trumped punting and playing for field position. And it's much easier to say that now in hindsight since we both converted 4th and 6 and also won the game.

Re: Great adjustment - OutsiderFan - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 07:30 AM)gocard14 link Wrote:One great adjustment made by Shaw/Bloomgren was to increase the use of the shotgun run. UCLA was only putting 6 or 7 in the box against our Shotgun 3-wide + tight end formation, which, combined with the use of the zone-read meant we equaled or outnumbered them at the point of attack, as opposed to running at a 9 man box from a jumbo set.Â One thing that has previously driven me crazy was how rarely we ran out of the passing sets (the shotgun) or passed out of running sets (our jumbo packages). Shaw did a great job spreading the field to set up the run today.

Also, while Love is a better between the tackles back then most give him credit for, he is at his best when he has the space to find the crease in the zone scheme and then explode through it. Combine that with the credible threat of Costello running or rolling out (which he looked great doing), and you have an offense that looks infinitely more dynamic then it did last week, even with Costello missing a few throws.

The only way the shotgun works as a run threat is with a credible passing threat at QB.Â I too noticed more shotgun, zone running schemes that spread the field, even with extra OL.Â Love is great at finding creases, making guys miss, and using his acceleration to get away from tacklers.

The next step is developing a credible downfield passing game that utilizes the TEs and WRs.

Re: Great adjustment - Goose - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 10:01 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:The only way the shotgun works as a run threat is with a credible passing threat at QB.Â I too noticed more shotgun, zone running schemes that spread the field, even with extra OL.Â Love is great at finding creases, making guys miss, and using his acceleration to get away from tacklers.

The next step is developing a credible downfield passing game that utilizes the TEs and WRs.

Correct, and I think we took some small steps in that direction last night. If Costello can reliably hit the open receiver, which he did a few times last night, it will really help. He didn't pass for tons of yards, but he moved the chains, which is what we need.

Re: Great adjustment - magnus - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 09:08 AM)qwerty49 link Wrote:OTOH I am still befuddled as to why we tried a 50yd FG on 4th and 1 and immediately afterward went for it on 4th and 6.

I was wondering if perhaps coming off a takeaway played a part in the decision.Â 4th and 1, perhaps he thought he had a good chance of getting points on the board to punish the turnover, but perhaps at 4th and 6, he thought...well, worst case, if we don't make it, it's just a continuation of the last UCLA drive with a little breather for the D.Â Best case...conversion and TD.

Re: Great adjustment - DC 86 - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 09:51 AM)North Woods link Wrote:In any case the comparison isn't just FG odds vs. odds of first down, but also factoring in the subsequent odds that we would turn a first down into a better outcome than a FG as well as considering the downside of each if we don't succeed. That's part of why I didn't like the call to kick a FG last week: if we had succeeded, it was fairly likely that we would get a touchdown. If we failed, we had SDSU pinned deep in their territory. But he didn't feel like we were going to succeed last week and of course we'll never know who was right.

Exactly. If you build a probability tree the logic of Shaw's decisions become defensible, because of field position. In either case if you make a first down the most probable outcome is still a FG attempt, so initially attempting the FG makes sense, but once the FG becomes a 55 yard attempt there is value in getting back in range which apparently outweighed the value of punting. In both cases Toner's reliability inside of 50 yards is a key assumption. As an aside, Toner's performance as Ukropina's replacement has been great.

Re: Great adjustment - jacketree - 09-24-2017

I think going for it on 4th and 6th from that distance is usually a better play than punting, particularly when you defense is a little iffy.Â Should have gone for it on 4th and 1 probably.

Re: Great adjustment - dabigv13 - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 10:49 AM)jacketree link Wrote:I think going for it on 4th and 6th from that distance is usually a better play than punting, particularly when you defense is a little iffy.Â Should have gone for it on 4th and 1 probably.

Re: Great adjustment - martyup - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 10:55 AM)dabigv link Wrote:[quote author=jacketree link=topic=17482.msg202547#msg202547 date=1506275393]
I think going for it on 4th and 6th from that distance is usually a better play than punting, particularly when you defense is a little iffy.Â Should have gone for it on 4th and 1 probably.

That's why the whole sequence was bonkers. 4th and 1, should probably go for it in that field position, but Shaw never does that. To see him make the 4th and 6 call then was really strange. if we had come upon that 4th and 6 with that field position, without having that FG delay of game attempt right before it, I don't think Shaw goes for it.
[/quote]

Regarding the decision to kick the field goal on 4th and 1, you have to factor in the score of the game at the time.Â I don't recall the score at the time, but I suspect that 3 more points would have been important to our margin and Coach Shaw was confident that Toner could hit it. Therefore, the risk of getting stopped and turning it over on downs was too high compared to the high probability of putting 3 more points on the board.Â Once we suffered the foolish delay of game penalty, we were out of Toner's range.Â At that point, you have to wipe the slate clean and make the decision based on field position, the score, and the probability of success.Â

Re: Great adjustment - Goose - 09-24-2017

FWIW, I don't buy the argument that going for it on fourth and six has a higher expected value than punting, psychology ignored. While there is some upside if you make it, you give Rosen a short field if you don't. With a questionable defense, those 30 yards you get from a good, high punt matter a lot. I bet you that 49 times out of 50, Shaw punts. I think he didn't last night because either 1) he was just mad as hell and wouldn't take it any more, or 2) He felt we had a psychological edge that would improve our odds of making the first down (and we would lose some of that edge if we punted). I can't read minds, but I have seen Shaw punt form the U$C 35 yard line.

Re: Great adjustment - jacketree - 09-24-2017

I think Stanford was down 6-13 at the time. A field goal was something, but it didn't feel like that big a deal in the moment and ultimately 92 points were scored.

Just my opinion, but with a defense you aren't sure will stop Rosen from anywhere on the field, I don't think those 30 yards (assuming a good net punt) mean all that much.Â This was with a lot of time left before halftime, so that wouldn't play into it. I think you are right that Shaw finally had enough and said to hell with it.Â

Re: Great adjustment - martyup - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 11:07 AM)Goose link Wrote:FWIW, I don't buy the argument that going for it on fourth and six has a higher expected value than punting, psychology ignored. While there is some upside if you make it, you give Rosen a short field if you don't. With a questionable defense, those 30 yards you get from a good, high punt matter a lot. I bet you that 49 times out of 50, Shaw punts. I think he didn't last night because either 1) he was just mad as hell and wouldn't take it any more, or 2) He felt we had a psychological edge that would improve our odds of making the first down (and we would lose some of that edge if we punted). I can't read minds, but I have seen Shaw punt form the U$C 35 yard line.

Okay, but perhaps another consideration was that we were not stopping Rosen.Â It didn't matter if we gave him the ball at the 10 or the 40, he was picking apart our secondary.Â Perhaps coach Shaw put more value on keeping the ball out of Rosen's hands than field position.

P.S.Â Jackatree, you and I posted simultaneously.Â We are thinking alike.

Re: Great adjustment - Goose - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 11:16 AM)martyup link Wrote:Okay, but perhaps another consideration was that we were not stopping Rosen.Â It didn't matter if we gave him the ball at the 10 or the 40, he was picking apart our secondary.Â Perhaps coach Shaw put more value on keeping the ball out of Rosen's hands than field position.

Could be. But in the past we have had luck against Rosen (two years ago) not being able to string long drives together. Maybe our defense was so questionable that he would agree those yards didn't matter, but I think it much more likely that it was an aberration. A great aberration, to be sure, but not what Shaw would "normally" do.

Re: Great adjustment - OutsiderFan - 09-24-2017

Is everyone sure Toner really can't hit from 55?Â People are suggesting that because his kick from 50 was short, that justified foregoing the FG attempt after the penalty.Â

However, I thought what I saw was Toner pull off his attempt a bit, or otherwise got off a flawed kick after the whistle blew.Â IOW, it wasn't really indicative of what he can do.Â He drilled kicks that would've been good from well beyond 50 in Spring game.

Re: Great adjustment - martyup - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 11:16 AM)jacketree link Wrote:I think Stanford was down 6-13 at the time.

Wow, I thought it was in late 3rd Q and we were up 10.Â I'll have to re-watch the game.

Re: Great adjustment - Goose - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 11:22 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Is everyone sure Toner really can't hit from 55?Â People are suggesting that because his kick from 50 was short, that justified foregoing the FG attempt after the penalty.Â

However, I thought what I saw was Toner pull off his attempt a bit, or otherwise got off a flawed kick after the whistle blew.Â IOW, it wasn't really indicative of what he can do.Â He drilled kicks that would've been good from well beyond 50 in Spring game.

I agree that he pulled off. The timing was messed up by a hurried snap, trying to avoid the penalty. I am sure he can kick a 55 yarder. The percentage probably isn't great though. I am still surprisedÂ we didn't punt after the penalty. Remember, Shaw wouldn't kick a 45 yard field goal (granted, into a strong wind) against U$C.

Re: Great adjustment - BostonCard - 09-24-2017

(09-24-2017, 11:04 AM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=dabigv link=topic=17482.msg202552#msg202552 date=1506275730]
[quote author=jacketree link=topic=17482.msg202547#msg202547 date=1506275393]
I think going for it on 4th and 6th from that distance is usually a better play than punting, particularly when you defense is a little iffy.Â Should have gone for it on 4th and 1 probably.