Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - 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: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren (/thread-14591.html)
+- 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: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren (/thread-14591.html)
Pages:
1
2
Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - OutsiderFan - 10-15-2017
Many people, self included, derided the "musical OL" that got Stanford off to a 1-2 start this season. But ever since then, it's been 4 wins in a row, with some tremendous OL performances. It culminated against Oregon, as at one point Stanford was playing LT #3, who also happened to start the season as LT #1.Â
It seems there might have been a method to the early season madness in terms of developing depth on the OL. But I think more importantly, you have to really give Bloomgren a lot of credit for accomplishing his 2017 goal. Ever since Spring, he said his top priority was to improve pass protection. I don't have the stats for sacks per pass attempt, but Stanford is now #9 in fewest sacks allowed per game with its now 4-game sack not allowed streak, and seems on track to be even better in the second half of the season. After a shaky start to the year, it's hard to think there is a better OL in the country right now.Â
Even the offense itself - for which Bloomgren is OC - seems to be more dynamic now. Really liked how they mixed it up against Oregon. It seems like a little thing, but the slant passes to Wedington and Stewart were great to see. Now just need some crossing routes in the middle of the field (which should be more available with great pass protection), and all I'll be able to gripe about is the run defense!
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - phxfan - 10-15-2017
I also salute Mike but I was also surprised at how bad Oregon was last night.
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - OutsiderFan - 10-15-2017
(10-15-2017, 08:06 AM)phxfan link Wrote:...I was also surprised at how bad Oregon was last night.
Why?
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - BostonCard - 10-15-2017
Well , Oregons strength offensively (running the football) matched up well with Stanfords weakness (stopping the run, especially without Phillips and Kalambayi). In the first half they exploited it to rack up a lot of yards on the ground, but shockingly only got 7 points out of it.
On defense, their strength (against the run) stacked up well against our strength. I thought we were going to have to beat them in the air, and indeed thats largely what we did.
On paper, I expected a much closer game (I put down 35-31 in the prediction game), and even up 28-7, I agreed with WIM that it really would have been nice to have that JJAW touchdown on the slant, with Oregon getting the ball to start the second half. Probably misplaced worry, but that is the fate of the Stanford fan.
BC
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - BostonCard - 10-15-2017
Whats impressive is that as much as the line has improved since the shuffle, in the five games weve played since the move to start Little, and move Bright and Hebrig rightward, we lost a player to illness/injury in two of the games. Last night, Little was scratched, and Hamilton came in and played well; Hamilton went down, and Bright moved to tackle, Fanaika came in and we still moved the chains with relative ease.
The OL gave up no sacks, and there were relatively few tackles for loss. The only black mark was the fumbled snap between the backup center and backup QB.
The offensive line has been quite remarkable.
BC
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - washingtonismoney - 10-15-2017
Well, I am surprised with how successful the Stanford offense was in virtually all dimensions. I expected a much choppier game on offense: some dull stretches punctuated by booms. Instead the offense was simply successful, full stop.
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - winflop - 10-15-2017
Bloomgren has done a great job this season of assembling an OL that started playing up to its potential in week 4. But I am nowhere near to saluting him. Since taking the dual role of OC & OL coach it has been very hit & miss on an OL that has been loaded two-deep with 4- and 5-star recruits. And it took him 4 weeks to find that groove this year. We've had two of the last four seasons - including this one - where the OL has performed way below expectations.
There is too much talent on the OL to have the kinds of performances we saw against U$C & SDSU. Bloomgren needs to deliver a functioning unit in week 1 or 2, not week 4. It's the difference between conference championship potential and national championship potential.
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - fullmetal - 10-16-2017
If Stanford wins the Pac-12, I'll salute Bloomgren. I'm with winflop--get your teams ready by week 1, not week 4+.
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - BostonCard - 10-17-2017
He incorporated a true freshman starting at left tackle, something we havent had since Kirk Chambers nearly 20 years ago (and Chambers came back from a mission 6 months early and was able to participate in spring ball).
His starting quarterback was returning from an ACL tear (and probably was showing residual effects of the injury).
Given this, I think he deserves a bit of slack if it took three games to get the offense into shape.
Moreover its not like the offense sucked against Rice or even USC (it wasnt great but that was much more a defensive problem than an offensive one). The offense had a bad game against SDSU. Thats it. Bad ganes happen. It happened to WSU against Cal, UW against ASU, and USC against WSU.
I think people who were quick to condemn Bloomgren after the SDSU game should at least be willing to acknowledge that they may have been a bit quick to judge. Even if you dont salute him, some humility might be in order.
BC
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - 81alum - 10-17-2017
My how much the tone has changed since SDSU. I was very worried after that game but decided to wait a couple of weeks before jumping on the anti-Bloomgren band wagon. I'm glad I waited. At that point I wondered whether we could have a winning season. Now I'm wondering whether we can run the table. The truth is, of course, that the success of this season's team still has largely to be determined and the season could still go either way.Â
I am somewhat reminded of the 2014 team, in which all the same doubts about Bloomgren were raised, and we kept wondering if the O-line would "jell" in time to save the season.Â
Bloomgren still leaves me absolutely confused. Ever since he became offensive coordinator, there have been many times in which the offense has clicked and he looked brilliant, and a few times in which the offense looked stagnant, uncreative, and miserable. U$C 2014, Michigan State, Northwestern, Colorado 2016, San Diego State--a list that shall live in infamy. To what extent were those defeats preventable with better coaching? I really don't know. But in all those seasons we did also have some splendid successes--in fact we won most of the time, sometimes overwhelming victories. It just leaves me wondering why we have this inconsistency. Is it just that 90 guys all have a bad day simultaneously every so often? I'm sure WSU and Washington are asking that same question.
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - BostonCard - 10-17-2017
As painful as bad games are, I think there is an unhealthy fixation on them as if they are somehow revealing of a fatal flaw in the offensive system.
Sometimes teams just have a bad game. Sometimes the opponent plays particularly well.
UW and WSUs bad games show that the two teams may be vulnerable, but I have no expectation that their offenses will be as bad against us as they were last week (10 points combined against Cala and ASU).
BC
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - winflop - 10-17-2017
(10-17-2017, 05:33 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:As painful as bad games are, I think there is an unhealthy fixation on them as if they are somehow revealing of a fatal flaw in the offensive system.
BC, while this is correct we've now seen the OL play multiple bad games to start two of the last three seasons and take too long to gel into a functioning unit. If we somehow win out, I will be frustrated that the poor OL performance against SDSU in particular is the reason we get left out of the playoff. If we get the Holiday Bowl I'll wonder whether better OL performance against U$C and SDSU might have put us in the Alamo Bowl or an NY6 game.
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - CTcard - 10-17-2017
(10-17-2017, 12:40 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:The offense had a bad game against SDSU. Thats it.Â
Aha. Now I get the disconnect between my brain and what seems to be a common opinion here.
I was not able to see the SDSU game as it was on an obscure CBS sub-channel and to this date I haven't found a broadcast of the game.
Now I have seen the stats and read the commentary from the SDSU game, but it's not the same as suffering the psychological trauma of actually watching the whole offensive implosion.
Presumably due to being spared that horror, my general impression is that the offense, which I hadn't expected to be particularly good, has performed quite well. The defense, which I had expected to be very good, has been disappointing. Yet it seems to be far more common here to complain about the offense.
My best wishes to the permanently scarred.
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - OutsiderFan - 10-17-2017
winflop, while it is true the OL didn't cover itself in glory against SDSU, the reason Stanford has two losses has much less to do with Bloomgren than the DL.Â
Stanford is allowing a "you aren't championship material" 5.03 YPC every time the opponent runs the ball this year. That's #113 in the country. I know Washington hasn't played many good teams, but they lead the country in this category, yielding 2.17 YPC. That's a staggering 3 YPC less than Stanford allows. Stanford was dominated on the ground against U$C and SDSU. And frankly, they were against ASU and Oregon as well, but Stanford also leads the country in YPC gained, which is Bloomgren's area of responsibility.
Washington gave up 1.3 YPC to ASU. Stanford gave up 4.7 to them. This is the only common opponent for the two teams so far. Of course, Stanford gained 9.9 YPC on ASU and UW only managed 2.9, so again, why should we be unhappy with Bloomgren? I was bothered by the shuffling early in the season, but if leading the country in YPC through 7 games, and no sacks allowed through 4 games, is the result of that shuffling, there is nothing to be complaining about, especially when that OL is now also facilitating a much more balanced offense.
In conclusion, Stanford's OL has played plenty well enough to win every game this season. Sure SDSU wasn't a masterpiece, but sometimes the offense has an off game and the defense has to step up. Championship caliber teams find a way to stop teams like SDSU, and they don't average giving up 5 YPC through 7 games of a season.
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - Goose - 10-17-2017
(10-17-2017, 06:02 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:In conclusion, Stanford's OL has played plenty well enough to win every game this season. Sure SDSU wasn't a masterpiece, but sometimes the offense has an off game and the defense has to step up. Championship caliber teams find a way to stop teams like SDSU, and they don't average giving up 5 YPC through 7 games of a season.I think you are 100% correct, as written. The OL played well enough against SDSU that we could have won. Chryst didn't however. It might have been too much to ask of even a championship defense to compensate (as SDSU is pretty good at running the ball), but it is undoubtedly true that giving up 5 YPC is way too much. Certainly Shaw indicated he expected (and requires) the defense to stop SDSU on that last drive, and they didn't. If they do, we win the game despite not looking great on offense. We just don't have enough big bodies on the DL. We didn't last year either, but made up for it by having two real good players that "punched above their weight". This year we have one. Against teams that basically don't run much, we are fine. We may give up tons of yards on the ground, but we can usually prevent big plays, limit the damage, and win the game. Against the spread, we don't need quite as much "beef", even when they do run, so we can get by IF WE TACKLE WELL (which sometimes we don't). But against teams like USC, ND, and UW, who can and will run right at us, we are at a disadvantage. Right now, USC may have enough OL injuries that the problem is mitigated (and we only care if we win out). UW just took a big hit, but even with the loss of their Left Tackle, they probably can push us around. We need the rest of the DL besides 66 to step up and play better than ever before against UW. The offense is playing well, but we are not designed to win shoot outs.
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - BostonCard - 10-17-2017
The OL gave up 4 sacks on 25 dropbacks, against SDSU. I think anyones accuracy would suffer if they were getting sacked roughly once every six dropbacks.
And though we looked ok running the ball, the results were vastly aided by two 50 yard Love runs. Take those out and you have 20 carries for 74 yards, which is pretty meh. Im not generally a fan of removing outliers (especially with regards to Love, since he has broken a big one every game this year). However, if looking only at the offensive line, they should get credit for getting love to the second level, but not for him outrunning everyone else, so I think it is reasonable to take those out.
BC
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - qwerty49 - 10-17-2017
(10-17-2017, 05:53 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17702.msg206896#msg206896 date=1508226008]
The offense had a bad game against SDSU. Thats it.Â
Aha. Now I get the disconnect between my brain and what seems to be a common opinion here.
I was not able to see the SDSU game as it was on an obscure CBS sub-channel and to this date I haven't found a broadcast of the game.
Now I have seen the stats and read the commentary from the SDSU game, but it's not the same as suffering the psychological trauma of actually watching the whole offensive implosion.
Presumably due to being spared that horror, my general impression is that the offense, which I hadn't expected to be particularly good, has performed quite well. The defense, which I had expected to be very good, has been disappointing. Yet it seems to be far more common here to complain about the offense.
My best wishes to the permanently scarred.
[/quote]
Well, I was at SDSU and given how poorly Chryst played, along with some typical headscratcher playcalling, it was hard to truly evaluate the offense at that point in time. I think expectations were optimistic from the Rice game, but most folks were realistic enough to temper that somewhat.
In retrospect, the OL has improved since game 2, and so has Chryst. JJAW has begun to assert himself and thats been a big plus to the passing game. There are still concerns about play calling and game clock management, but those seem to be embedded in the Shawgren DNA.
The defenses inability to stop the run is significant and will ultimately be the single largest impediment to winning the North, the conference, and any Bowl game. Theres one guy getting way too much time at ILB IMHO. Hes undersized, gets knocked back a couple yards when he makes tackles, and is too slow in pass coverage. Unfortunately thats a big weak link on our D.
But
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - Langdude - 10-17-2017
I've heard Kirk Chambers mentioned a few times as the last true freshman to start on the OL. Is that true? If so, remember that he had a two-year mission first; he was a 19- or 20-year old true freshman (though I am not suggesting that it was not impressive for him to start as a true frosh, even if he was a bit more mature). I wonder when the last time a 17- or 18-year-old true freshman started on the OL. We all know that Bob Whitfield started at LT as a 17-year-old; have there been any since then? Jeff Buckey started as a true frosh, no?
-m.
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - RedShift - 10-17-2017
Has there been much criticism on this board on the theme on whether Bloomgren is doing a poor job as OC? I have noticed some criticism of Bloomgren doubling as OC and O line coach. I share that reservation. Personally, I've always appreciated him one of the best college O line coaches and a very good recruiter for Stanford. In the Shavitagren offense, I am not always clear on how to apportion credit or blame on various facets of the offense. I wonder if we'd be having this discussion if Scarlett was the #1 RB. Love has bailed out the offense this season.
Re: Time to salute Mike Bloomgren - terry - 10-17-2017
My recollection is fuzzy, but I believe that Kirk Chambers was on the team as a freshman in the fall of 1997 and redshirted. At the end of fall quarter 1997, he went on his two-year mission, so he was gone in 1998 and 1999. He returned in early 2000 and participated in spring practice. Then he was the starter in fall of 2000. So he wasn't really a true freshman starter. But I'm not certain about this.
I don't recall a true freshman starter at LT since Whitfield. Buckey was not a starter as a true freshman.
(10-17-2017, 09:59 AM)Langdude link Wrote:I've heard Kirk Chambers mentioned a few times as the last true freshman to start on the OL. Is that true? If so, remember that he had a two-year mission first; he was a 19- or 20-year old true freshman (though I am not suggesting that it was not impressive for him to start as a true frosh, even if he was a bit more mature). I wonder when the last time a 17- or 18-year-old true freshman started on the OL. We all know that Bob Whitfield started at LT as a 17-year-old; have there been any since then? Jeff Buckey started as a true frosh, no?
-m.