The evolution of David Shaw - 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: The evolution of David Shaw (/thread-16329.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: The evolution of David Shaw (/thread-16329.html)
The evolution of David Shaw - OutsiderFan - 09-01-2018
This is what I love about fan message boards. Fans like me criticize coaches for being too stubborn to abandon game plans or ineffective players when they clearly aren't working, and then some other fans criticize those fans saying "it's about execution and you've never coached, so how do you know," blah, blah, blah. Then, later down the road, something happens that demonstrates the fans who were being critical of coaches and catching flack for it, were spot on, because said coaches actually demonstrate a proof that those criticizing, were actually correct. It happens all the time in all sports.
I give you David Shaw after the SDSU game, and he himself bringing up the "S" word:
"We came back at halftime and said, 'Ok, let's just stop being stubborn. Let's take advantage of it.' You saw that at the end of the first half and then into the second half."
The "it" to which he is referring is the defense stacking 8 or 9 guys in the box to stop the run, and the "stop being stubborn" is realizing it would be a good idea to pass the ball more when the defense is in fact daring you to pass.
And it was born out in the stats. Stanford passed much more in the second half than the first, and had success. But before we break our arms patting ourselves on the back about the fact the coach validated previously critical fans, let's keep this in mind. The OL did a masterful job pass blocking and had a QB and receivers capable of making plays. Absent having those, maybe you do keep running into a wall, because as Darrel Royal famously said, when you pass three things can happen, and two are bad. It's actually four things can happen, and three are bad, because Royal wasn't factoring QB sacks.
Speaking of passing... one of my assumptions about how this year Stanford would have an improved passing offense was Kevin Carberry probably being better at teaching pass protection than Bloomgren. Lo and behold, David Shaw went out of his way to praise Carberry in his presser for the pass protection, as Shaw said it was the most blitzing he's seen in a game in his 12 years coaching at Stanford. Now if they can just run some more varied passing routes...
RE: The evolution of David Shaw - winflop - 09-01-2018
Yes kudos to changing up the plan, but at the same time I think they have to find ways to get Love into space. Running him 15+ times up the middle and hoping that lightning will strike as it did last year is not OK with me. Hope is not a strategy. Once or twice outside the tackles just isn't enough. Not getting him into the pass pattern, whether as a WR or out of the backfield as more than a safety valve isn't enough either. Why not run him on a jet sweep, even as a decoy? Who is going to double up JJ or Smith if we are faking Love on a jet sweep?
Not sure we need much more variety in the passing game. JJ and others ran routes that few DBs in the country can regularly handle in single coverage, and KJ showed (with a couple exceptions) that he can deliver the ball and avoid pressure.
I hope the game plan is more opened up next week. It has to be
RE: The evolution of David Shaw - stupac2 - 09-01-2018
To be fair, we were passing pretty effectively on the first drive. I think the coaches probably figured SDSU wouldn't stack the box literally all game, which was kind of suicidal as it turned out. But halftime is a pretty natural point to make that adjustment, which seems to be what happened.
Maybe in previous years we would've kept calling runs in the second half, who knows?
RE: The evolution of David Shaw - winflop - 09-01-2018
(09-01-2018, 09:02 AM)stupac2 Wrote: Maybe in previous years we would've kept calling runs in the second half, who knows?
In previous years, Shawgren DID keep calling runs.
I wonder if maybe our new OC had something to do with the change? Maybe, just maybe, the fanboy hero was a better choice than I thought.
RE: The evolution of David Shaw - washingtonismoney - 09-01-2018
(09-01-2018, 09:02 AM)stupac2 Wrote: To be fair, we were passing pretty effectively on the first drive. I think the coaches probably figured SDSU wouldn't stack the box literally all game, which was kind of suicidal as it turned out. But halftime is a pretty natural point to make that adjustment, which seems to be what happened.
Maybe in previous years we would've kept calling runs in the second half, who knows?
Yeah, KJ wasn't on the same page as JJ and Parkinson on the first two drives, which prevented catches. Then the coaches seemed to believe they could catch SDSU unawares with screens, which *really* didn't work. Finally they went back to aggressive downfield passing and, well, the rest was history. Probably they should've kept on gunning and mixed in a play action pass or two.
RE: The evolution of David Shaw - BostonCard - 09-01-2018
(09-01-2018, 08:33 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: This is what I love about fan message boards. Fans like me criticize coaches for being too stubborn to abandon game plans or ineffective players when they clearly aren't working, and then some other fans criticize those fans saying "it's about execution and you've never coached, so how do you know," blah, blah, blah. Then, later down the road, something happens that demonstrates the fans who were being critical of coaches and catching flack for it, were spot on, because said coaches actually demonstrate a proof that those criticizing, were actually correct. It happens all the time in all sports.
I give you David Shaw after the SDSU game, and he himself bringing up the "S" word:
"We came back at halftime and said, 'Ok, let's just stop being stubborn. Let's take advantage of it.' You saw that at the end of the first half and then into the second half."
The "it" to which he is referring is the defense stacking 8 or 9 guys in the box to stop the run, and the "stop being stubborn" is realizing it would be a good idea to pass the ball more when the defense is in fact daring you to pass.
And it was born out in the stats. Stanford passed much more in the second half than the first, and had success. But before we break our arms patting ourselves on the back about the fact the coach validated previously critical fans, let's keep this in mind. The OL did a masterful job pass blocking and had a QB and receivers capable of making plays. Absent having those, maybe you do keep running into a wall, because as Darrel Royal famously said, when you pass three things can happen, and two are bad. It's actually four things can happen, and three are bad, because Royal wasn't factoring QB sacks.
Speaking of passing... one of my assumptions about how this year Stanford would have an improved passing offense was Kevin Carberry probably being better at teaching pass protection than Bloomgren. Lo and behold, David Shaw went out of his way to praise Carberry in his presser for the pass protection, as Shaw said it was the most blitzing he's seen in a game in his 12 years coaching at Stanford. Now if they can just run some more varied passing routes...
It's not like we beat SDSU with surprise (beyond the mere shock of people here watching us pass for 300+ yards). But pretty much all our passes were out of clear pass formations with three and four receivers and a single back in the backfield, and while I may not be remembering fully, I don't think we ran a single play action pass. In other words, we still won with execution rather than surprise; it's just that the execution was in the passing game rather than the running game.
BC
RE: The evolution of David Shaw - cardcrimson - 09-01-2018
(09-01-2018, 10:36 AM)BostonCard Wrote: It's not like we beat SDSU with surprise (beyond the mere shock of people here watching us pass for 300+ yards). But pretty much all our passes were out of clear pass formations with three and four receivers and a single back in the backfield, and while I may not be remembering fully, I don't think we ran a single play action pass. In other words, we still won with execution rather than surprise; it's just that the execution was in the passing game rather than the running game.
BC
Yeah, in the post game presser, Shaw was asked how he felt about our running game's execution. He replied that he'd be in favor of it. . . .
RE: The evolution of David Shaw - CowboyIndian - 09-01-2018
(09-01-2018, 11:16 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Yeah, in the post game presser, Shaw was asked how he felt about our running game's execution. He replied that he'd be in favor of it. . . .
F...John McKay!
RE: The evolution of David Shaw - d4cohn - 09-01-2018
(09-01-2018, 08:33 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: This is what I love about fan message boards. Fans like me criticize coaches for being too stubborn to abandon game plans or ineffective players when they clearly aren't working, and then some other fans criticize those fans saying "it's about execution and you've never coached, so how do you know," blah, blah, blah. Then, later down the road, something happens that demonstrates the fans who were being critical of coaches and catching flack for it, were spot on, because said coaches actually demonstrate a proof that those criticizing, were actually correct. It happens all the time in all sports.
I agree with the premise that Shaw started prioritizing the passing game a little late when SDSU seemingly perpetually stayed Cover 0, but I honestly think player development and reps (along with showing as little as possible on film) had as much to do with it in preparation for USC and rest of the season than only stubbornness alone. Your "it's about execution and you've never coached, so how do you know," frankly, feels like a straw man argument. I am not going to be critical today because I know Shaw was trying to use this game for development. It has nothing to do with execution, nor trusting Shaw because he is the coach, and we as fans have never coached.
RE: The evolution of David Shaw - fullmetal - 09-01-2018
It took a whole first half of ineffective repetition to figure out that they'd have to trust Costello and receiving corps to win this game. SDSU wasn't bluffing about dying on the hill of stopping the Voldemort contender from breaking out. To Shawvita's credit, what other coaching staff would have abandoned Love as the centerpiece of the offense? It was very effective, and Stanford beat the spread.
As for not showing one's hand, I guess Stanford showed U$C that they were not afraid to air it out. That is sort of tipping the hand I suppsoe...maybe this coaching staff is ready to unleash a power forward passing attack.
RE: The evolution of David Shaw - Mick - 09-01-2018
(09-01-2018, 09:09 AM)winflop Wrote: I wonder if maybe our new OC had something to do with the change? Maybe, just maybe, the fanboy hero was a better choice than I thought.
He ought to be. He should certainly know what doesn't work...:D