A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - 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: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory (/thread-14699.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: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory (/thread-14699.html)
A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - washingtonismoney - 10-27-2017
I, of course, disdain baroque, speculation-stuffed theories for anything unless they're my own. So here's my baroque theory (requiring speculation) for last night's game: sandbagging.
Cast your minds back four years ago, to 2013, when the team visited Oregon State. Stanford skated by a so-so Beaver team 20-12, with the team needing to try until the very play to avoid an upset to a pretty poor opponent. Everyone was very angry, especially because the team hadn't shown much effort or creativity. It was deemed a poor foreshadowing for the next week's game, #2 Oregon. We all know what happened next: Stanford came out with a fury and won perhaps Shaw's signature win in his entire tenure.
My theory is that Shaw was sandbagging then, as he periodically does from time to time. And my theory is that he's sandbagging now. The situations are superficially similar in a few ways: as in 2013, the Oregon State game precedes a tough stretch of games. And, as in 2013, the gameplan was stripped of novelty:
1) the past two weeks, Shaw made a deliberate effort to get significant snaps to Costello despite a hue and cry that it was disrupting rhythm and so on and so forth. Against Oregon State, Shaw went out of the way to do the "normal" thing -- as if he wanted to introduce confusion for future opponents as to how much Costello they'd see.
2) no real oddity or creative plays; in fact, a very constrained menu of plays. Take an opponent like Utah as an example: the team showed off some real novelty plays that produced spectacular gains. Against good opponents the coaches usually have some stuff they've specially prepared for the situation. Not so against Oregon State.
3) a general conservatism: Chryst is of course the main example, but there were no play action plays, no reverses, a lot of short routes. And for the first half they seemed content to simply pound it up the middle, before running it to the edges to gain an advantage. Again, seemingly a way of holding back the true capabilities.
4) No Love: who knows how much he's actually injured, right? Seems at least vaguely plausible that, were the opponents from Washington, Love'd be out there.
So my completely speculative theory is that Shaw underestimated the Beavers' motivation, overestimated Chryst and in particular his ability to march the offense down the field with short passes, and overestimated the offensive line and running backs' ability to manufacture yardage with simple plays. That, of course, is the risk with sandbagging.
And of course the damage isn't contained to the game; barely beating Oregon State has wider consequences. Holder is seemingly out for the season. And Chryst is so bad that even Shaw was unable to defend him, or unable to forthrightly endorse him as the starter going forward. So instead of increasing uncertainty (will there be Costello?) I'm guessing the Cougar coaches will simply assume they'll see some Costello and prepare accordingly.
In other words, according to this theory, the sandbagging was a very failed strategem.
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - JeffInCorvallis - 10-27-2017
I'm not opposed to this theory, in fact I think some of that thinking probably played into game preparation. However, don't you think that by the fourth quarter when it was clear that the game was in serious jeopardy Shaw would have taken off the gloves a little bit? Open up the playbook? We were very, very lucky. If OSU doesn't fumble on their next-to-last possession we are sitting here trying to explain how we lost to a team that was previously winless in conference.
If this is the thinking then it is even more puzzling to me why Shaw acted the way he did. We supposedly have one of the more complex offensive schemes in college football, but you're right: it was not on display Thursday night.
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - jacketree - 10-27-2017
I really hope a P12 coach with that sort of experience isn't sandbagging on the road, tied for first in the division, with the teams they are tied with up next. I do think they collectively underestimated their opponent and were really unprepared to boot. No amount of game adjustments can make up for a poor week of preparation, admitting I have no idea how well they prepared.
Vanilla schemes should have worked just fine against such an over-matched opponent. That they didn't is more worrisome to me than any schematic issues.
This is a bizarre season. Very uneven performances. You have ASU and Utah, but SDSU and OSU. So is this team younger than we thought? Defense isn't as stout as last few years; QB performance shaky; no one behind Love really. What's the deal? This defense against the ND run game? Yikes....
Fleming told Husak before the game he essentially expected a curb stomping. You could hear the surprise in his and Huard's voices as things developed.
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - stupac2 - 10-27-2017
(10-27-2017, 05:50 PM)JeffInCorvallis link Wrote:I'm not opposed to this theory, in fact I think some of that thinking probably played into game preparation. However, don't you think that by the fourth quarter when it was clear that the game was in serious jeopardy Shaw would have taken off the gloves a little bit? Open up the playbook?
One would think we'd do that, and I think that, in fact, we did. I mentioned it in the game thread with the perimeter runs, they were open all through the first half but they only started to do them in the second, and started getting nice gains. I think that was an example of a thing we hadn't really planned to do but started to do once we had to.
There are two confounding issues here:
1) You're somewhat limited in terms of what plays you can run based on what you practiced. If WiM's hypothesis is correct, we probably ran only our base plays. Sure, we had practiced stuff earlier, but if everything's going haywire do you really want to call something you haven't ran in a month?
2) Chryst was really playing like garbage all night. There's only so much you can do when a QB plays that poorly. It's conceivable that we would've had more success literally only running the ball, but all it takes is one stuff or holding call and suddenly you more-or-less have to throw. When the QB can't...
Anyway, I think that this is partly true. I think it's likely that the coaches were treating this somewhat like a glorified scrimmage, like we did the Rice game, given that ORST appeared to be barely better than Rice. But without Love and with half the team forgetting how to play, it didn't work. We shouldn't do that.
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - CornFed - 10-27-2017
Oh WIM, I SOOOOOO want to think your speculation is true. If nothing else, it provides me w/ a lifeline of hope to get through the next week. Don't anyone destroy this by trying to prove WIM wrong!
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - Snorlax94 - 10-27-2017
So, I can partially agree with this theory.
Part of it is that we didnt have Love, part of it was that Oregon State had a great gameplan for a Loveless Stanford and played well (for them). (As I have mentioned in the Chryst thread)
But I just wanted to clarify by what is meant by sandbagging. Sandbagging typically means you arent trying your best, and I dont think the team would ever throw a game or a point margin. Ever.
So I word it as looking ahead, and by that I mean, spend time before the OSU game preparing for the Washington games. And I said, looking ahead is a horrible thing to do, if you lose. So having squeaked by the Beavers, Im hoping to see some good new extra preparation in the coming weeks.
As to the question, why didnt we use it when losing in the fourth quarter. Well, if we started installing new plays to exploit Wazoos under-sized d line that stems (pre snap shifts with frequent gap blitzing), that cant necessarily help you late against Oregon State.
So as to whether weve spent extra time preparing for the Washingtons, we will see.
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - BostonCard - 10-27-2017
Here's my theory: we played like crap.
I agree with you to the extent that Shaw does tend to dial the playbook down when we are facing poor opposition. I don't know if that constitutes sandbagging, which typically implies deliberately playing below ability. I think this is more a case of not wanting to put stuff on film for our next opponent.
I think it is probably worth discussing where we fell short.
The defense played fine. Compared to OSU's other opponents, they had a lower yards per play against a very good Washington team and Minnesota. Of note, they actually got more yards per play against USC than against us. We were tied with Minnesota for third most points given up to OSU behind UW (7) and USC (10). We held them to 264 total yards. We forced three turnovers. We only got to their QB twice, though. It wasn't a great defensive performance given the opponent, but it was a pretty good one.
The offense, on the other hand, did not. Compared to OSU's other opponents, we were dead last in yards per play, and it wasn't even close. 3.7 ypp was over 2 yards less than Colorado, their next lowest opponent. It was 2.5 yards per play lower than FCS Portland State. Only Washington State managed fewer rushing yards than the 81 we managed; nobody had fewer passing yards. While OSU had played a couple close games, we scored less than half as many points as the next lowest scoring team, FCS Portland state. OSU gave up over points twice, it had not given up fewer than 30 points until we played them.
On offense it is obviously easy to point the finger at Chryst (or at Shaw for not replacing him), but really our offense was in a funk any way we cut it. Rushing, we got 3 yards per cary, less than any other team that played OSU. We obviously missed Love, but I was struck by how much our other running backs struggled. To my untrained eye, the offensive line did open holes; the running backs seemed to impatient to wait for them to develop or hit the wrong hole. We had a bit of second half success running outside the tackles or those numbers would have been worse. But last night the running game's struggles seemed to fall largely at the feet of the running backs. I think a competent running back should have been able to rip off 5+ yards per carry most times with the football; Love would have likely had several long touchdowns.
And that of course leaves us with Chryst, whose struggles here have been documented. My unified theory is that the coaches still believe in him, but I'm not sure he believes in himself. I think the Oregon game, which many have dismissed as an aberration may be what the coaches think he can accomplish day in and day out. Maybe he does it day in and day out in practice but on Saturday night (or THursday night as the case may be) with the lights shining bright on him, he is trying too hard. He aims his throws instead of just letting them rip. He waits too long for his receivers to get open instead of trusting them to make the play; he just takes too long to pull the trigger. He gets tunnel vision instead of scanning the field. So his throws are errant, often to a well covered receiver, and too often the DB can read where he is going. I think the coaches really truly believe this is a fixable problem. Like pretty much everyone here, I don't think so. And the Oregon to OSU transition seems to suggest that even if you fix it for a while, it can rear its ugly head at any time.
Ultimately, we will see if the coaches keep pushing (and if so, whether they are ultimately successful and Chryst develops into a decent QB), or if they throw in the towel and go with Costello. Personally, I'd love to see what Costello can do with a couple weeks of consistent first team reps. I'd love to see more and more of the playbook opened up to him. I think given that we have Love, we don't need a QB who is as good as Chryst was against Oregon; we just need a QB who is never as bad as Chryst was against SDSU and OSU.
BC
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - 81alum - 10-27-2017
I think way too little attention has been paid to the collapse of our inside running game. Speights and Scarlett were completely ineffective up the middle, when the previous week they did very well up the middle.Â
Many people have commented that the line opened holes for them but they did not hit the holes. No doubt that is true. But on numerous runs the OSU inner linebackers were not blocked, and Speights and Scarlett simply ran into the hole plugger. Not sure why that was--whether OSU somehow had a superior scheme for keeping their ILBs off the various blocks, but our blocking scheme was often defective. Isn't it usually a FB or TE or pulling guard that takes out the linebacker? Well, they didn't.
This probably fed into Chryst's poor night. So many third and long plays can't have been helpful for him getting settled down.
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - akiddoc - 10-27-2017
Shaw typically has conservative game plans when we play inferior opponents. Usually we win handily in those games. Northwestern and SDSU are games where the strategy backfired. I think you can expect a more varied offense on Saturday, but this team has some real limitations. Little talent at WR and nothing behind Love are as big as no established above average QB.
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - BostonCard - 10-27-2017
(10-27-2017, 10:32 PM)akiddoc link Wrote:Shaw typically has conservative game plans when we play inferior opponents. Usually we win handily in those games. Northwestern and SDSU are games where the strategy backfired. I think you can expect a more varied offense on Saturday, but this team has some real limitations. Little talent at WR and nothing behind Love are as big as no established above average QB.
JJ Arcega Whiteside, Trent Irwin, and Connor Weddington are the best set of wide receivers we've had since Montgomery/Cajuste/Rector in 2013, while Schultz, Kaden Smith, and Colby Parkinson are the best set of tight ends we've had since Fleener/Ertz/Toilolo in 2011. There is no shortage of receiving weapons on this team.
BC
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - lex24 - 10-27-2017
Mostly agree. I dont agree on the WRs. Irwin and JJ are both excellent possesssion receivers. Problem is they have no one to stretch the field.
(10-27-2017, 10:32 PM)akiddoc link Wrote:Shaw typically has conservative game plans when we play inferior opponents. Usually we win handily in those games. Northwestern and SDSU are games where the strategy backfired. I think you can expect a more varied offense on Saturday, but this team has some real limitations. Little talent at WR and nothing behind Love are as big as no established above average QB.
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - UltimateCard - 10-27-2017
I find it supremely ironic that a coach who "never gets too high with the highs and too low with the lows" apparently favors a QB whose performance has been at the extremes.
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - washingtonismoney - 10-28-2017
(10-27-2017, 11:03 PM)lex24 link Wrote:Mostly agree. I dont agree on the WRs. Irwin and JJ are both excellent possesssion receivers. Problem is they have no one to stretch the field.
JJ's 15 ypc is 6th in the conference. Don't buy the first sentence. Third is directionally correct.
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - North Woods - 10-28-2017
Put me in the Snorlax/BC camp. We underestimated them, and as a result were unprepared and played like crap. Lucky to win.
Re: A unified, comprehensive, utterly speculative theory - Mick - 10-30-2017
Perfect storm.
Looked ahead to future opponents by both players and staff.
Overly conservative game plan by coaches.
Poor execution by players.
Failure to adjust
Highly motivated opponents (and coaching staff--yeesh).
Some questionable calls