Offensive "Issues" - 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: Offensive "Issues" (/thread-18247.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: Offensive "Issues" (/thread-18247.html)
Offensive "Issues" - Goose - 09-29-2019
While we certainly have some problems with our defense, the performance of the offense has been poor in many ways that were not really predicted. While our injury problems on the OL are well known, the line play has actually been better than many here predicted. The area where I believe we have really fallen flat is wide receivers. Certainly, all the elements of the offense affect each other, but the basic problem we have is that our wide receivers don't get open.
It is true that both KJ and Mills have missed open receivers. KJ did so at least twice against NU. It is also probably true that Shawvita is not willing to run many slow developing pass plays because the OL may not be able to hold the blocks long enough. However, unlike 2018, we do have a running game that is good enough to take some pressure off the passing game. The problem I see is that there aren't many instances of a wide receiver running free in the opponents secondary. Against Oregon, we ran lots of short stuff that didn't work well. Oregon showed how to defeat our passing game. Double Parkinson and play everybody else straight up. They aren't good enough to beat you. KJ being unable to throw long didn't help, but there weren't any guys open most of the time. OSU had a very poor secondary, so we did get a few opportunities, but not as many as one would expect.
As I see it, in 2018 our receivers didn't get open much either. However JJ was athletic enough and big enough to box out the defender and catch the ball. Irwin ran such good patterns he could beat single coverage, although sometimes the patterns took a while to develop. Irwin also wasn't small, so he could also fight for the ball. Kaden Smith was able out-body lots of linebackers. OSB was a good "third receiver" last year. He didn't get open much, but when he did, it was usually for a big gain. The main point is that you couldn't double one guy and shut down the passing game. The other guys were good enough to beat you if you relied on that approach.
This year the receivers aren't as big, but were supposed to compensate by being fast. Haven't seen that happen. Yes, KJ hasn't been perfect, but he hasn't had much to work with. We may potentially have better YAK this year, but that matters only if you get open to begin with to receive the ball. We aren't. We can't run bubble screens every play. The question was asked on this board regarding why we were recruiting wide receivers like mad when we had so many. I think we may now know why.
There may be reasons, such as bad route selection by the play calling, that our receivers aren't getting open. However, sometimes your athlete just has to beat their athlete. I haven't seen that happening. I would like to be convinced otherwise, but I think our real downfall this year is that we have a #3 receiver (OSB) and not much else playing wide-out.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - martyup - 09-29-2019
I think Wilson has played well.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - SF_Cardinal_Fan - 09-29-2019
JJ Arcega Whiteside is a tough act to follow, that's for sure.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - OutsiderFan - 09-29-2019
If you watch all 22 vids, you know Stanford’s passing offense is terribly conceived. The route concepts are very easy to defend.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - Goose - 09-29-2019
(09-29-2019, 06:16 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: If you watch all 22 vids, you know Stanford’s passing offense is terribly conceived. The route concepts are very easy to defend.
That may be, but unfortunately we don't know if the receivers would get open if the offense was "better conceived". I would like to hear your opinion of what we should be doing instead, and why that would work better?
RE: Offensive "Issues" - OutsiderFan - 09-30-2019
This topic of offensive issues and specifically about the passing game, involves so many things. Recognition of defense, route concepts, blocking schemes, timing, ability to effectively marry the run game with the pass game by passing out of run actions, moving the QB's launch spot, etc.
The OC's job is to put up points, yes, but a very key part of that is keeping defenses off balance and creating conflicts for them that make them have to think, or pay no matter what they decide. That can be done with well-conceived offenses led by coaches who inspire execution. It's not easy to coordinate all aspects, but it is pretty clear whoever is responsible for Stanford's offense isn't doing it very well.
Stanford is last in the Pac-12 in:
Total Offense
Yards Per Play
Passing Offense
Yards Per Attempt
Scoring Offense
Stanford is #9 in Yards Per Carry and 3rd Down Conversions.
Stanford is the only team in the conference without a play over 50 yards.
All the evidence demonstrates the Offensive Coordinator (or whoever is in charge of the offense) needs to be replaced.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - cardcrimson - 09-30-2019
(09-30-2019, 06:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: This topic of offensive issues and specifically about the passing game, involves so many things. Recognition of defense, route concepts, blocking schemes, timing, ability to effectively marry the run game with the pass game by passing out of run actions, moving the QB's launch spot, etc.
The OC's job is to put up points, yes, but a very key part of that is keeping defenses off balance and creating conflicts for them that make them have to think, or pay no matter what they decide. That can be done with well-conceived offenses led by coaches who inspire execution. It's not easy to coordinate all aspects, but it is pretty clear whoever is responsible for Stanford's offense isn't doing it very well.
Stanford is last in the Pac-12 in:
Total Offense
Yards Per Play
Passing Offense
Yards Per Attempt
Scoring Offense
Stanford is #9 in Yards Per Carry and 3rd Down Conversions.
Stanford is the only team in the conference without a play over 50 yards.
All the evidence demonstrates the Offensive Coordinator (or whoever is in charge of the offense) needs to be replaced.
Come on, look at the national level. There are 13 teams worse than Stanford in total yards per game, and we're better than 45 others in passing yards per game. 45! As for rushing yards and points per game, we're better than 18 and 17 other teams, respectively.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - CardinalSagehen - 09-30-2019
It’s generally right that our WRs haven’t been getting separation. It’s also true that OSU does not have a good pass defense.
But what I saw on Saturday was OSB wide open twice on the same 15-yard our pattern - once in the first quarter and once as the critical first play on our final drive. I also saw that he had a step on a bomb and Mills made him slow down, allowing the DB to play the ball.
I saw Michael Wilson getting open downfield, not just on back shoulder throws. Fehoko was open on a slant, too.
We kept throwing all those bubble screens and HB screens on Saturday because they were *working*. We converted multiple third downs with them and scored a TD. So while I do agree that WR play and passing scheme has been a real problem, I saw the arrow pointing up on Saturday, in the sense that whatever we were doing in the passing game was generally effective. If we had not turtled, we probably would have scored 38 points, despite playing at our typically glacial pace.
Back to your point, it’s obviously going to take more and better against the Huskies...
RE: Offensive "Issues" - Goose - 09-30-2019
(09-30-2019, 06:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: All the evidence demonstrates the Offensive Coordinator (or whoever is in charge of the offense) needs to be replaced.
OF, you evidence doesn't support that conclusion. What your evidence shows is that Stanford is performing poorly with respect to other teams in the conference on offense given the current sample of games. You then conclude that since it is the OC's job to make it perform well, he should be replaced if it is not doing so. There are lots of problems with that conclusion.
First of all, it assumes that relative performance in these statistics is the only possible way to evaluate an OC. Clearly, they aren't the only way. These statistics are also based on a small sample (1/3) of one season. They are also highly skewed by poor performance in one area, the passing game. Total offense and long gains are hard to come by if you can't complete some deep passes. Second, it assumes that some hypothetical replacement would perform better. That being counterfactual speculation, there is no way to know. It may be that with the players we have, this is as good as it gets. It may also be that that problem could not be avoided, as the guys we have are as good a we could get. We just can't know.
It is real tempting to look at the problem and say that coaching is the cause. In fact, it may be the cause. However, many teams change coaches and the "problem" either remains or gets worse. It is often difficult to know exactly what the "problem" is. However, your evidence doesn't show that coaching is the problem. There is no demonstration of causality. You just don't like what you see. You may be right, but it is subjective. Eventually, it may come down to "This isn't working. We have to change something." Are we there yet? IMHO, no.
My explanation of the problem is that we have not yet found receivers who can get open. Wilson is a sophomore. He hasn't yet demonstrated he needs to be double covered or he will kill you. He is also one guy. We also have problems on the OL due to inexperience. I am not privy to why we are doing what we are doing on offense. OF thinks we have a scheme problem. We may, but it also may be the receivers really limit the scheme and just aren't very good.
I do believe that in 2018 Shavita was surprised at how ineffective our running game was. That is shown by their initial "stubborn" attempts to run when it just wasn't working. What worries me is that they didn't recognize this problem before the season started. They had all spring and summer to figure it out. They didn't figure it out and had to scramble to find an alternative. They finally did. It wasn't optimal that it took so long into the season, and it wasn't optimal in that it required a somewhat risky approach (throwing into coverage), but it was probably the best we could do. However, it was clearly true they didn't expect that situation. That is a demonstrable shortcoming that it was reasonable to expect a good staff to avoid.
I worry that this year we have the same problem in reverse. We can run a bit, but we can't get receivers open. Did Shavita know this at the start of the year? Maybe. They can't say "Yes, we can't pass effectively. Our receivers just aren't up to it." in public, even if they know that to be true. Is their some similar kluge available to overcome this problem? We have tried "dink and dunk", and so far, it hasn't worked. OF doesn't like the scheme, but maybe Shavita knows already that we can't execute any other. Is it really true that we just "aren't executing", or are we not capable of executing? Like OF, I don't like what I see. Unlike OF, I am not convinced the OC is the problem. He may be, but it also may be that we have a big hole at WR that we knew about but couldn't avoid.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - cardcrimson - 09-30-2019
(09-30-2019, 08:39 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-30-2019, 06:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: All the evidence demonstrates the Offensive Coordinator (or whoever is in charge of the offense) needs to be replaced.
They are also highly skewed by poor performance in one area, the passing game. . . .
I worry that this year we have the same problem in reverse. We can run a bit, but we can't get receivers open.
Goose, would make sense except our running game is 112th in the country (out of 130) in rushing yards per game. Total offense is 117th! Oddly, passing is 85th. If we can't run very well and can't pass, either, then who bears the responsibility? The players cause they can't get open or open holes?
RE: Offensive "Issues" - Spiny_Norman - 09-30-2019
Maybe a lesson from another team. Italics are mine.
Quote:Radical Makeover of the Month: LSU. If Bill Belichick became a standup comedian, it might be less surprising than the Tigers’ metamorphosis from a low-wattage offensive team to the national leader in scoring. LSU’s points per game is up more than 25 from last year and more than 30 from the previous year. The Tigers are second nationally in passing yards per game, after the following rankings in that category the previous five seasons: 67th, 84th, 101st, 106th and 116th. The addition of Joe Brady as passing game coordinator, the continued progression of quarterback Joe Burrow and the willingness of Ed Orgeron to get outside of his hidebound comfort zone are combining to work wonders in Baton Rouge.
https://sports.yahoo.com/forde-yard-dash-10-key-college-football-developments-ahead-of-october-041810867.html
RE: Offensive "Issues" - BostonCard - 09-30-2019
(09-29-2019, 06:16 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: If you watch all 22 vids, you know Stanford’s passing offense is terribly conceived. The route concepts are very easy to defend.
Where do you get the all-22s?
BC
RE: Offensive "Issues" - cardcrimson - 09-30-2019
(09-30-2019, 10:46 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Maybe a lesson from another team. Italics are mine.
Quote:Radical Makeover of the Month: LSU. If Bill Belichick became a standup comedian, it might be less surprising than the Tigers’ metamorphosis from a low-wattage offensive team to the national leader in scoring. LSU’s points per game is up more than 25 from last year and more than 30 from the previous year. The Tigers are second nationally in passing yards per game, after the following rankings in that category the previous five seasons: 67th, 84th, 101st, 106th and 116th. The addition of Joe Brady as passing game coordinator, the continued progression of quarterback Joe Burrow and the willingness of Ed Orgeron to get outside of his hidebound comfort zone are combining to work wonders in Baton Rouge.
https://sports.yahoo.com/forde-yard-dash-10-key-college-football-developments-ahead-of-october-041810867.html
Not surprising that WSU leads the country in passing yards per game. Very surprising that LSU and Alabama are second and third. Oklahoma is fourth with Alabama's cast off QB.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - Phogge - 09-30-2019
KJ played better in the no huddle the last part of 2018.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - OutsiderFan - 09-30-2019
(09-30-2019, 10:49 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-29-2019, 06:16 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: If you watch all 22 vids, you know Stanford’s passing offense is terribly conceived. The route concepts are very easy to defend.
Where do you get the all-22s?
BC
I see all 22 vids on YouTube for NFL analysis. Haven't ever seen it for Stanford that I can recall.
NFL video viewing has reinforced my views of Stanford's offense, beyond just what my eyes have seen from it and the grim stats. There are many concepts I just don't see Stanford using, that aren't rocket science, but even if they were, Stanford athletes should be able to handle.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - ADPinWDC - 09-30-2019
A lousy playbook is my favorite diagnosis... more than inept WRs or poor route running (execution).
-- Fewer plays with a guy in motion or misdirection.
-- Easy to cover route combos, even if King Kong is your Tight End.
The first TD on ORST was a well-DESIGNED play, well executed.
The problem is not the QB.
WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD FOR MUIR? To Pressure Shaw to change the OffCo? [Not to fire Shaw; not that]
A) We get hammered by UW, say 38 to 13, sitting at 2-4, looking up at a 4-8 season, maybe? [UCF, U$C were real bad].
or B) We limp to 3-6, looking at WAST, Big Game, NDAM from 2-3 now. Enough?
or C) Shaw suffers his first Big Game loss, and it's in PA and we sink to 5-7 or worse.
And Stanford's Offense remains in the Cellar. Does he say, "We are on the way to better execution." ?
"We did not have a healthy O-Line, and we could not play OUR BRAND (!) of Football." What is that brand, now?
... MAKEOVER. Do we start losing student-athletes, as with the Basketball Team?
This is a 12-step process perhaps to overcome addiction to conventional thinking (?), and the first step is to ADMIT THERE IS A PROBLEM.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - Goose - 09-30-2019
(09-30-2019, 10:44 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(09-30-2019, 08:39 AM)Goose Wrote: They are also highly skewed by poor performance in one area, the passing game. . . .
I worry that this year we have the same problem in reverse. We can run a bit, but we can't get receivers open.
Goose, would make sense except our running game is 112th in the country (out of 130) in rushing yards per game. Total offense is 117th! Oddly, passing is 85th. If we can't run very well and can't pass, either, then who bears the responsibility? The players cause they can't get open or open holes?
Equally oddly, we are also 85th in yards per rushing attempt. https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/yards-per-rush-attempt
I think you have to be very careful making any arguments based on yards per game, rushing or passing. The game situation dictates what one can do. We were so far behind in two of our games that running basically was off the table. If you don't attempt to run, you aren't going to get many rushing yards per game. That makes our rushing attack look much worse than it is. Conversely, yards per attempt can make a rushing game look better than it is if you have so few rushes that the value is not statistically significant. I think you have to agree that we are running the ball better this year than last. As I said, we can run the ball "a bit". We aren't great, but we are better than last year.
You ask "If you can't run and you can't pass, who bears the responsibility?". Ultimately, the coaches bear the responsibility to get players who can execute and devise a plan to win games. However, in any given case, it may be that the players just don't play as well as they "should". You can't answer this question from the data presented here. Probably the only fair answer is a lot of both, but it is hard to use that answer to make a remediation plan.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - CTcard - 09-30-2019
A few things about our offense.
- At this point I am adjusting my analysis of the primary issues facing the pass game. While there have clearly been some issues from the receivers not getting open, and not making plays when they have had the chance, I now think the primary issue is QB play.
The pass game has been ... passable for two stretches this season: the first half vs Northwestern (particularly after the second drive) and vs Oregon State. I think that first half is the only time KJ has been healthy, and the OSU result is a combination of OSU defense being bad and Mills starting to get comfortable. [Note - while OSU's pass defense is poor, Stanford put up better efficiency numbers than any other opponent they have faced so far.]
- While the pass game was much better vs OSU, the run game was even worse. I don't understand that, given OSU's run defense isn't particularly good and our own improved pass game should have helped out the run game, at least on a per carry basis.
- While imperfect in many ways, and against a generally poor defense, that was a really good performance by Mills. That was Stanford's second highest rating passing game (PER) since Hogan left. Next Shaw has to come around and trust him, we need a run game working at the same time, and he'll have to do it against a more credible defense - but it was an encouraging performance by Mills.
- It's sort of just a technical point, but since it was mentioned in the thread, I would point out that in general comparing Stanford's offense to others' by yards per game is not very meaningful given Stanford's tendency to play slow-down and sit on leads. Though yes, that doesn't change the fact that Stanford's offense has been horrendous this season no matter the measure.
RE: Offensive "Issues" - Beeg_Dawg - 09-30-2019
(09-30-2019, 10:44 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(09-30-2019, 08:39 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-30-2019, 06:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: All the evidence demonstrates the Offensive Coordinator (or whoever is in charge of the offense) needs to be replaced.
They are also highly skewed by poor performance in one area, the passing game. . . .
I worry that this year we have the same problem in reverse. We can run a bit, but we can't get receivers open.
Goose, would make sense except our running game is 112th in the country (out of 130) in rushing yards per game. Total offense is 117th! Oddly, passing is 85th. If we can't run very well and can't pass, either, then who bears the responsibility? The players cause they can't get open or open holes?
These numbers are Tevenesque. A return to the bad old days? Where is Ted Leland when you need him!
RE: Offensive "Issues" - BostonCard - 10-01-2019
(09-30-2019, 06:19 PM)CTcard Wrote: A few things about our offense.
- At this point I am adjusting my analysis of the primary issues facing the pass game. While there have clearly been some issues from the receivers not getting open, and not making plays when they have had the chance, I now think the primary issue is QB play.
The pass game has been ... passable for two stretches this season: the first half vs Northwestern (particularly after the second drive) and vs Oregon State. I think that first half is the only time KJ has been healthy, and the OSU result is a combination of OSU defense being bad and Mills starting to get comfortable. [Note - while OSU's pass defense is poor, Stanford put up better efficiency numbers than any other opponent they have faced so far.]
- While the pass game was much better vs OSU, the run game was even worse. I don't understand that, given OSU's run defense isn't particularly good and our own improved pass game should have helped out the run game, at least on a per carry basis.
- While imperfect in many ways, and against a generally poor defense, that was a really good performance by Mills. That was Stanford's second highest rating passing game (PER) since Hogan left. Next Shaw has to come around and trust him, we need a run game working at the same time, and he'll have to do it against a more credible defense - but it was an encouraging performance by Mills.
- It's sort of just a technical point, but since it was mentioned in the thread, I would point out that in general comparing Stanford's offense to others' by yards per game is not very meaningful given Stanford's tendency to play slow-down and sit on leads. Though yes, that doesn't change the fact that Stanford's offense has been horrendous this season no matter the measure.
I miss Steve Durrett’s RPR analysis (and, Steve D’s broader presence in the discussion). I don’t expect that such analysis would show our offense or defense in that much of a better light, but it would account form things like opponent quality and our number 1 (per Sagarin) SOS.
BC