Stanford's offense last six games - 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: Stanford's offense last six games (/thread-16720.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: Stanford's offense last six games (/thread-16720.html)
Stanford's offense last six games - Hulk01 - 11-04-2018
Adjusted for opposing defenses, our adjusted yards per play (7.23 ypp by one measure, 7.43 ypp by another) over the last six games ranks 6th in the country,
Alas, we've allowed 31.3 points per game over that stretch. . .
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - Austroturf - 11-04-2018
One other sobering pair of statistics:
Our total rushing yards this year (838 in 9 games) place us 126th out of 130 FBS teams. Last year, we were 25th (2833 in 14 games).
Our total yards per carry this year (3.3) place us 120th. Last year, we were 6th (5.9)
And this is with largely the same O-line and the same stable of running backs compared to 2017.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - SamuelMcF - 11-04-2018
(11-04-2018, 09:44 AM)Austroturf Wrote: And this is with largely the same O-line and the same stable of running backs compared to 2017.
It's almost like a new OL coach and OC can have a profound effect on the offense.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - Austroturf - 11-04-2018
(11-04-2018, 09:49 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:Seems to be some causal relationship.(11-04-2018, 09:44 AM)Austroturf Wrote: And this is with largely the same O-line and the same stable of running backs compared to 2017.
It's almost like a new OL coach and OC can have a profound effect on the offense.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - 2006alum - 11-04-2018
Wow. I actually can't think of a better way to provide objective analysis re: impact of coaching. This is really damming [edit: ahem, damning (thanks Android for autocorrecting in a vain attempt to keep my language clean)], esp. since the personnel should improve year to year. It's crazy to think that we've gone from having a top Voldemort contending running back to having one of the worst running games in the entire nation, and that same Voldemort runner up is still on the field most games...
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - Hulk01 - 11-04-2018
The decline of our OL has occurred so insidiously we failed to notice. McCaffrey and a healthy Love in 2017 helped to obscure the problem, but it was there. Love's absurd runs particularly helped to obscure the fact that Stanford, relatively speaking, had a very ineffective running game. The feast was mammoth, the famines were long.
The problem started in 2014. It started with me screaming at Murphy and Caspers for false starting, two different guys for costly chop blocks, and a surge in sacks allowed. I took to keeping a file called "OL Mistakes," a number the peaked at 11 in the Washington game. The OL settled a bit in the latter part of the season, but the decline had begun.
Football Outsiders tracks this stuff obsessively, Here are our for adjusted (to the quality of the defense) yards per carry over the last five seasons:
2014: 59
2015: 41 (Mac 2)
2016: 48 (Mac 3)
2017: 74 (Love 3)
2018: 124 (Love 4)
And the pass protection numbers—our ranking for sacks allowed as a percentage of passes attempted plus sacks:
2014: 59
2015: 62
2016: 125
2017: 17
2018: 44
Adding the run ranking and pass protection and then averaging them to get an overall OL ranking, you get:
2014: 59
2015: 53
2016: 86
2017: 45
2018: 84
Some specifics for those interested:
Short yardage (converting 3rd or 4th and two yards or less)
2014: 23
2015: 12
2016: 79
2017: 49
2018: 94
Percentage of runs stopped for no gain or for a loss.
2014: 23
2015: 20
2016: 9
2017: 105
2018: 120
A mammoth leap last year, continuing this year.
This is not the Tunnel Workers Union and we are not the Home of Intellectual Brutality--and haven't been for years. And if we have an OL coaching or recruiting problem, of both, that isn't new either, imo.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - barrister7 - 11-04-2018
(11-04-2018, 11:05 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: The decline of our OL has occurred so insidiously we failed to notice. McCaffrey and a healthy Love in 2017 helped to obscure the problem, but it was there. Love's absurd runs particularly helped to obscure the fact that Stanford, relatively speaking, had a very ineffective running game. The feast was mammoth, the famines were long.
The problem started in 2014. It started with me screaming at Murphy and Caspers for false starting, two different guys for costly chop blocks, and a surge in sacks allowed. I took to keeping a file called "OL Mistakes," a number the peaked at 11 in the Washington game. The OL settled a bit in the latter part of the season, but the decline had begun.
Football Outsiders tracks this stuff obsessively, Here are our for adjusted (to the quality of the defense) yards per carry over the last five seasons:
2014: 59
2015: 41 (Mac 2)
2016: 48 (Mac 3)
2017: 74 (Love 3)
2018: 124 (Love 4)
And the pass protection numbers—our ranking for sacks allowed as a percentage of passes attempted plus sacks:
2014: 59
2015: 62
2016: 125
2017: 17
2018: 44
Adding the run ranking and pass protection and then averaging them to get an overall OL ranking, you get:
2014: 59
2015: 53
2016: 86
2017: 45
2018: 84
Some specifics for those interested:
Short yardage (converting 3rd or 4th and two yards or less)
2014: 23
2015: 12
2016: 79
2017: 49
2018: 94
Percentage of runs stopped for no gain or for a loss.
2014: 23
2015: 20
2016: 9
2017: 105
2018: 120
A mammoth leap last year, continuing this year.
This is not the Tunnel Workers Union and we are not the Home of Intellectual Brutality--and haven't been for years. And if we have an OL coaching or recruiting problem, of both, that isn't new either, imo.
Great analysis, Hulk. However, I do not understand the percentage of runs stopped in the last two years. 120 per cent? The clear message that this relates to the OL coaching is quite clear. Many of us criticized Bloomgren but the change in the offensive line is dramatic.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - Beeg_Dawg - 11-04-2018
(11-04-2018, 11:05 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: The decline of our OL has occurred so insidiously we failed to notice. McCaffrey and a healthy Love in 2017 helped to obscure the problem, but it was there. Love's absurd runs particularly helped to obscure the fact that Stanford, relatively speaking, had a very ineffective running game. The feast was mammoth, the famines were long.
The problem started in 2014. It started with me screaming at Murphy and Caspers for false starting, two different guys for costly chop blocks, and a surge in sacks allowed. I took to keeping a file called "OL Mistakes," a number the peaked at 11 in the Washington game. The OL settled a bit in the latter part of the season, but the decline had begun.
Football Outsiders tracks this stuff obsessively, Here are our for adjusted (to the quality of the defense) yards per carry over the last five seasons:
2014: 59
2015: 41 (Mac 2)
2016: 48 (Mac 3)
2017: 74 (Love 3)
2018: 124 (Love 4)
And the pass protection numbers—our ranking for sacks allowed as a percentage of passes attempted plus sacks:
2014: 59
2015: 62
2016: 125
2017: 17
2018: 44
Adding the run ranking and pass protection and then averaging them to get an overall OL ranking, you get:
2014: 59
2015: 53
2016: 86
2017: 45
2018: 84
Some specifics for those interested:
Short yardage (converting 3rd or 4th and two yards or less)
2014: 23
2015: 12
2016: 79
2017: 49
2018: 94
Percentage of runs stopped for no gain or for a loss.
2014: 23
2015: 20
2016: 9
2017: 105
2018: 120
A mammoth leap last year, continuing this year.
This is not the Tunnel Workers Union and we are not the Home of Intellectual Brutality--and haven't been for years. And if we have an OL coaching or recruiting problem, of both, that isn't new either, imo.
FWLIW, this tracks my limited subjective view of our OL. Gradual erosion since 2012, leading to a full blown mudslide this year. On paper, I felt like this was going to be a good to great OL. Very disappointing performance this year, especially in run blocking.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - Hulk01 - 11-04-2018
Oops--
The "percentage of runs stopped for. . ." stat is our ranking in that stat, not our percentage.
But it's so bad it might as well be 120%.
And I'll now add my firm opinion that Mike Bloomgren seems like a nice and well-spoken guy, but he is responsible for the last four years and shares responsibility for this year's OL. He chose and developed them.
His Rice team just lost to a UTEP team that had lost 20 consecutive games. His team's average margin of loss is six points worse than last year's Rice team. I am not confident he is a very good coach. And he left us with far too few recruits in his last two classes, perhaps what will be his biggest and worst legacy.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - Goose - 11-04-2018
(11-04-2018, 11:05 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: The decline of our OL has occurred so insidiously we failed to notice. McCaffrey and a healthy Love in 2017 helped to obscure the problem, but it was there. Love's absurd runs particularly helped to obscure the fact that Stanford, relatively speaking, had a very ineffective running game. The feast was mammoth, the famines were long.Very true. We have people on this board blaming this coach or that coach, but the problem has been years in the making. What we seem to lack on the OL (IMnSHO) is at least in part, leadership and a killer instinct. These guys are big enough and athletic enough, at least on paper. They just don't move people. It is not that they occasionally don't move people. They basically never move people. The few effective runs we have seen this year are almost all due to the defense making a mistake and going the wrong way (or something similar). It is not because we made a big hole, it is because the defense vacated the hole.
The problem started in 2014. It started with me screaming at Murphy and Caspers for false starting, two different guys for costly chop blocks, and a surge in sacks allowed. I took to keeping a file called "OL Mistakes," a number the peaked at 11 in the Washington game. The OL settled a bit in the latter part of the season, but the decline had begun.
<snip>
This is not the Tunnel Workers Union and we are not the Home of Intellectual Brutality--and haven't been for years. And if we have an OL coaching or recruiting problem, of both, that isn't new either, imo.
The TWU had an ethos and an internally based leadership structure that set expectations and ensured they were met. Who is doing that today? It seems no one is. Our team's OL plays soft. Our opponents know it and revel in it after so many years of getting pushed around. We can't be the team Shaw wants us to be until this is fixed. Period.
Yes, coaching matters. However, I don't think it can explain our lack of results on the OL. If we had a bunch of questionable bodies who were too small and too slow, then our only hope would be some kind of a coaching miracle to solve the problem. That is not the case. We have guys that are big enough and fast enough that they should at least some of the time win the battle in the trenches on running plays. We don't see this.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - Austroturf - 11-04-2018
(11-04-2018, 12:10 PM)Goose Wrote: Very true. We have people on this board blaming this coach or that coach, but the problem has been years in the making. What we seem to lack on the OL (IMnSHO) is at least in part, leadership and a killer instinct. These guys are big enough and athletic enough, at least on paper. They just don't move people. It is not that they occasionally don't move people. They basically never move people. The few effective runs we have seen this year are almost all due to the defense making a mistake and going the wrong way (or something similar). It is not because we made a big hole, it is because the defense vacated the hole.
The TWU had an ethos and an internally based leadership structure that set expectations and ensured they were met. Who is doing that today? It seems no one is. Our team's OL plays soft. Our opponents know it and revel in it after so many years of getting pushed around. We can't be the team Shaw wants us to be until this is fixed. Period.
Yes, coaching matters. However, I don't think it can explain our lack of results on the OL. If we had a bunch of questionable bodies who were too small and too slow, then our only hope would be some kind of a coaching miracle to solve the problem. That is not the case. We have guys that are big enough and fast enough that they should at least some of the time win the battle in the trenches on running plays. We don't see this.
I agree with your assessment. But if we agree that we have, on paper, the right recruits on the OL, who is responsible for instilling the "Intellectual Brutality" that was the hallmark of our best years (2010-2013)? That has to come from the head coach through his staff. It's a cultural thing; and in my view, the lack of this "killer instinct" (as you call it) is part of the main problem. I have always maintained that Shaw's football culture has many virtues; but meanness and toughness are not among them. Harbaugh may have been a hothead, but his best teams were built to fight it out. A lot of that has disappeared in the eight years since his departure.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - Goose - 11-04-2018
(11-04-2018, 01:08 PM)Austroturf Wrote:I think there are many ways to be tough. Who is responsible for instilling the "Intellectual Brutality" into the OL? Generally, it is the OL itself. The TWU was not something the coaches created. It was created by the players. The coaches can and should facilitate the generation of such a culture, but, let's face it, how a player plays is mostly the player. De Castro didn't become totally focused on football be cause the coaches made him do so. That was who he wanted to be. In the past, the older players passed the attitude down. Somewhere, that got lost. How we get it back is anyone's guess. Unfortunately, I don't think you can coach that. It has to come from within. It may be that some of the "crazy" 3-star players we used to get had more of that. Whatever the case, I think that is where we are.(11-04-2018, 12:10 PM)Goose Wrote: Very true. We have people on this board blaming this coach or that coach, but the problem has been years in the making. What we seem to lack on the OL (IMnSHO) is at least in part, leadership and a killer instinct. These guys are big enough and athletic enough, at least on paper. They just don't move people. It is not that they occasionally don't move people. They basically never move people. The few effective runs we have seen this year are almost all due to the defense making a mistake and going the wrong way (or something similar). It is not because we made a big hole, it is because the defense vacated the hole.
The TWU had an ethos and an internally based leadership structure that set expectations and ensured they were met. Who is doing that today? It seems no one is. Our team's OL plays soft. Our opponents know it and revel in it after so many years of getting pushed around. We can't be the team Shaw wants us to be until this is fixed. Period.
Yes, coaching matters. However, I don't think it can explain our lack of results on the OL. If we had a bunch of questionable bodies who were too small and too slow, then our only hope would be some kind of a coaching miracle to solve the problem. That is not the case. We have guys that are big enough and fast enough that they should at least some of the time win the battle in the trenches on running plays. We don't see this.
I agree with your assessment. But if we agree that we have, on paper, the right recruits on the OL, who is responsible for instilling the "Intellectual Brutality" that was the hallmark of our best years (2010-2013)? That has to come from the head coach through his staff. It's a cultural thing; and in my view, the lack of this "killer instinct" (as you call it) is part of the main problem. I have always maintained that Shaw's football culture has many virtues; but meanness and toughness are not among them. Harbaugh may have been a hothead, but his best teams were built to fight it out. A lot of that has disappeared in the eight years since his departure.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - Hulk01 - 11-04-2018
I don't see it as Shaw's role to establish the killer mentality. He's got a dozen hats to wear and the killer hat isn't a good look in many settings
And players motivate each other; on field leadership really matters. I played for one immensely talented defense that had no on field leadership--none--and a far less talented one that had a vocal leader at every position group: DL, LB, and DB. The second defense was at least as effective as the first, and played harder, play after play.
But yes: We've gotta get this group going. We are not moving guys from Point A to Point B, period.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - Spiny_Norman - 11-05-2018
I posted this in a separate thread three weeks ago but this seems like a good place to bring it back into the conversation relevant to recent OL performance.
I think the OL situation has been exacerbated by program losses.
Casey Tucker - grad transfer to ASU
Jack Dreyer - medical retirement
Austin Maihen - medical retirement
Clark Yarborough - medical retirement
Reilly Gibbons - signed but never enrolled; transferred to South Florida
But this is particularly telling:
In 2015, Stanford signed 4 O Linemen - Nick Wilson, Dreyer, Maihen and Brian Chaffin. I don't think any of them have started a game for Stanford (though Chaffin does play on short yardage situations).
In 2016, Stanford signed 5 O Linemen. Out of that group, we find one solid starter (Herbig) and a part-time player (Hamilton). No game contribution from Yarborough, Henry Hattis or Dylan Powell.
That's 9 players across two recruiting classes with one starter and one contributor. Leaves a big hole.
I'll add that Casey Tucker started as a redshirt frosh on a Rose Bowl team alongside an all conference tackle (Kyle Murphy) and an all conference guard who also won the Outland Trophy (Josh Garnett). Since 2015, he faded to a backup role at Stanford. I would really like to learn more about his story which may be insightful to the decline of the overall OL performance.
My final $0.02 - the current Stanford OL could use a little Garnett-type nastiness. But that won't come from the coaches.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - CTcard - 11-05-2018
(11-04-2018, 11:05 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: The decline of our OL has occurred so insidiously we failed to notice. ..
The problem started in 2014. It started with me screaming at Murphy and Caspers for false starting, two different guys for costly chop blocks, and a surge in sacks allowed.
...
Football Outsiders tracks this stuff obsessively, Here are our for adjusted (to the quality of the defense) yards per carry over the last five seasons:
2014: 59
2015: 41 (Mac 2)
2016: 48 (Mac 3)
2017: 74 (Love 3)
2018: 124 (Love 4)
And the pass protection numbers—our ranking for sacks allowed as a percentage of passes attempted plus sacks:
2014: 59
2015: 62
2016: 125
2017: 17
2018: 44
Hulk,
You and I have had several back and forths on this forum discussing the several year decline in the OL. While I think it is quite clear that I agree with the overall thrust of your comments here, there are enough caveats to the details that it makes a difference in an overall analysis.
First of all, a few words on the numbers. It looks like you put these together a week ago or so, yes? The current ranking for Adjusted Line Yards is 126th and Sack Rate 39. So, pass blocking on they way up, rushing down. Adjusted Line Yards is not really yds/carry as they adjust heavily to try to factor out the quality of the RB. That seems an over-adjustment to me, but as far as I know there is no way to say whether it "works" or not.
But, none of the broad points depend upon the numbers to that level of detail.
One problem with the statement "The probelm started in 2014" is that we don't have similar numbers before 2014 - this is how far back the FootballOutsiders OL stat data base goes. My general memory is that Stanford never looked particularly great in related FootballOutsiders rushing numbers, so it is not at all clear that 2014 was worse than previously.
Over the years, there have been various areas of strength and weakness coming and going. That complicates the analysis of the OL progresssion, and makes it clear it's not just one thing.
In 2014 the offense generally could move the ball but consistently made critical mistakes that cost points and games (presumably much related to your screaming). The running game suffered, but not that terribly considering that the RBs were lesser that year - at least until McCaffrey started playing. One big problem is that the coaching staff thought they could be an all-passing team and the team just wasn't good at that.
In 2015 the offense was great if overly slow paced. It was #2 in the country in pts/drive; #1 among Power 5 teams. McCaffrey helped the OL look good, but despite some somewhat middling rankings on FootballOutsiders I don't really have serious complaints about OL performance in 2015.
In 2016 the yds/carry of the RBs actually went up versus 2015. The total was down, primarily because instead of Hogan running we had Burns and Chryst getting sacked (note the terrible pass protection ranking you list), but McCaffrey averaged 6.34 yds/carry in 2016 vs 5.99 in 2015 despite being injured and having much less support from the pass game. The OL did have problems in 2016, but primarily in awful pass protection.
In 2017 the pass protection got better (Hall in particular was a new man). However, the run game turned into either a stuff or a homerun by Love, with relatively little inbetween. It was almost as if after 2016 Bloomgren was determined to improve the pass protection and practiced nothing but that ever.
Of course in 2018 the trend has continued. The pass protection hasn't always been great, but by and large pretty good considering the circumstances. The run game, by contrast, is gone. Somehow, Stanford is one of the very worst running teams in the country. Compounding that problem is that the coaching staff apparently did not see this coming and still at this point we're improvising the offense (with generally positive results in the passing game - but the TOs and negative plays that come with it).
There's also personnel issues. It's too much for right now, but I would note that before this year, the poorer years of OL performance seemed to be closely tied with an inexperienced line, or some relatively clear talent issues. While various problems have been building for some time, this year really does stand out for having lots of experience plus lots of apparently individually capable players not coming together and performing adequately.
In summary, the complete collapse this year is related to a slide, but the specific problems in run blocking have only been building for a couple of years.
RE: Stanford's offense last six games - Hulk01 - 11-06-2018
Excellent summary CT. There have been some undisclosed injury issues on the OL this year (there almost always are) that have handicapped us even more.