Stat of the year - Printable Version

Stat of the year - 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: Stat of the year (/thread-18702.html)

Pages: 1 2

Stat of the year - BostonCard - 12-09-2019

Quote:On the season, Stanford threw 444 passes, the third-most in the Pac-12, and ran it 346 times, the second fewest.

Hat tip to RJ over at the Bootleg (I think the article is not paywalled)

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/LongFormArticle/Ten-Takeaways-From-Stanford-Footballs-2019-Season-140069322#1335708_1

BC

RE: Stat of the year - Austroturf - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 02:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
Quote:On the season, Stanford threw 444 passes, the third-most in the Pac-12, and ran it 346 times, the second fewest.

Hat tip to RJ over at the Bootleg (I think the article is not paywalled)

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/LongFormArticle/Ten-Takeaways-From-Stanford-Footballs-2019-Season-140069322#1335708_1

BC

Not surprised.

Frankly, I would be overjoyed to see these numbers flipped. We just need to be able to run the ball effectively again. That would require a seasoned O-line that is not a M*A*S*H unit and one that can get the push up-front vs. the opponent's D-line; and, of course, a running back or two capable of slicing through the subsequent holes (imagine we had Christian McCaffrey and Bryce Love on the same team in 2015 and 2016). Shawball is beautiful when executed properly (Oregon 2013). When it is failing, it is the most disheartening spectacle in college football.

O, and a solid defense would also be helpful to get the opposing offense off the field as quickly as possible. Shawball only works when you don't get into a shoot-out (a la Wazzu the last two years).

RE: Stat of the year - Phogge - 12-09-2019

Sadly the defense doesn't have enough talent. The gap was evident during Saturday's TV games.

RE: Stat of the year - BostonCard - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 02:36 PM)Austroturf Wrote: Shawball is beautiful when executed properly (Oregon 2013). When it is failing, it is the most disheartening spectacle in college football.

I agree that Shaw's offense is especially dependent on execution, and when the execution is not there, it falls especially flat. That being said, to a lesser or greater extent, all schemes are like that. I mean, no matter how great your scheme is, you still need the OL to block, the QB to deliver the ball to the receiver who needs to catch it, and the running back to hit the right hole and hold onto the ball.

BC

RE: Stat of the year - cardcrimson - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 02:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
Quote:On the season, Stanford threw 444 passes, the third-most in the Pac-12, and ran it 346 times, the second fewest.

Hat tip to RJ over at the Bootleg (I think the article is not paywalled)

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/LongFormArticle/Ten-Takeaways-From-Stanford-Footballs-2019-Season-140069322#1335708_1

BC

How about these:

On offense, Stanford finished the season averaging 1.82 points per drive, which ranked 97th in the FBS.

Stanford’s 3.7 yards per carry was third-lowest in the Pac-12 counting all games played,

Its 7.1 yards per passing attempt was ranked tenth as well.

In its final four games, Stanford allowed a whopping 57 chunk plays (runs of 10+ yards and passes of 15+ yards) to its opponents.

The Cardinal allowed 2.62 points per drive to opponents,

Allowed four straight touchdowns to close out the Oregon State game and scores in nine of ten meaningful Washington State drives,

RE: Stat of the year - BostonCard - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 02:46 PM)Phogge Wrote: Sadly the defense doesn't have enough talent. The gap was evident during Saturday's TV games.

Best case scenario:
JMF and Miezan are healthy and at least “average” ILBs; it will be an upgrade. Our outside linebackers are decent and we have some depth there. Whoever plays safety is no worse than what we have now. Booker and DWP plus a player to be named later could form a serviceable but thin line. If we even have a reversion to the mean injury-wise we’ll be in better shape. Kelly holds his own at CB, and we find somebody to play opposite him.

Worst case scenario:
Booker has a Little-like injury on game three, DWP is battling through some things all year, we’re still playing Robinson at ILB because no one healthy can beat him out, we don’t find a capable corner to play opposite of Kyu, and safety remains a mess all year.

The downside risk seems higher.

BC

RE: Stat of the year - Austroturf - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 02:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 02:36 PM)Austroturf Wrote: Shawball is beautiful when executed properly (Oregon 2013). When it is failing, it is the most disheartening spectacle in college football.

I agree that Shaw's offense is especially dependent on execution, and when the execution is not there, it falls especially flat. That being said, to a lesser or greater extent, all schemes are like that. I mean, no matter how great your scheme is, you still need the OL to block, the QB to deliver the ball to the receiver who needs to catch it, and the running back to hit the right hole and hold onto the ball.

BC

Yes, agree. My point is that we clearly don't have the personnel right now to do what Shaw has been successful at in the past. Out of desperation (evidently, pass-blocking is easier than well-choreographed run-blocking), we passed instead of running into futility. A trade-off that probably made sense given the threadbare nature of the O-line. For my part, I would love to see a Toby Gerhart reincarnation plow forward for 4 and 5 yards a pop relentlessly against an overmatched defensive front-line until one of the defenders threatens to "sub himself out". That's the Intellectual Brutality this current roster simply doesn't have.

And I liked your comment about the goalie on the Stanford women's soccer team: a bit of that attitude on the men's football team would be welcome.

RE: Stat of the year - SamuelMcF - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 02:56 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 02:46 PM)Phogge Wrote: Sadly the defense doesn't have enough talent. The gap was evident during Saturday's TV games.

Best case scenario:
JMF and Miezan are healthy and at least “average” ILBs; it will be an upgrade. Our outside linebackers are decent and we have some depth there. Whoever plays safety is no worse than what we have now. Booker and DWP plus a player to be named later could form a serviceable but thin line. If we even have a reversion to the mean injury-wise we’ll be in better shape. Kelly holds his own at CB, and we find somebody to play opposite him.

Worst case scenario:
Booker has a Little-like injury on game three, DWP is battling through some things all year, we’re still playing Robinson at ILB because no one healthy can beat him out, we don’t find a capable corner to play opposite of Kyu, and safety remains a mess all year.

The downside risk seems higher.

BC

Unfortunately this.

It can't be a coincidence that (at least so far) all transferring starters, this year and last, have been on the defensive side of the ball. Yes I agree with Phogge that the defensive talent isn't what it once was, but the talent didn't suddenly drop from top 20 to bottom 20 in a couple years...so why did their ranking? There have to be more factors. A poster on the paid forum made a convincing argument that coaching/preparation made them look way worse. For instance, in the Big Game there was a play breakdown where 3 pass rushers executed the same twist/stunt so they ended up on top of each other (obviously incorrect), and Garbers had the easiest pocket escape in the world. That shouldn't be happening in the last game of the f***ing season.

RE: Stat of the year - CTcard - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 02:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
Quote:On the season, Stanford threw 444 passes, the third-most in the Pac-12, and ran it 346 times, the second fewest.

Hat tip to RJ over at the Bootleg (I think the article is not paywalled)

While the exact numbers are slightly different, the ordinal rankings are the same as the year before: Stanford threw the third most passes (424) and the second fewest runs (384) - though in one more game.

(12-09-2019, 02:56 PM)Austroturf Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 02:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 02:36 PM)Austroturf Wrote: Shawball is beautiful when executed properly (Oregon 2013). When it is failing, it is the most disheartening spectacle in college football.

I agree that Shaw's offense is especially dependent on execution, and when the execution is not there, it falls especially flat. That being said, to a lesser or greater extent, all schemes are like that. I mean, no matter how great your scheme is, you still need the OL to block, the QB to deliver the ball to the receiver who needs to catch it, and the running back to hit the right hole and hold onto the ball.

BC

Yes, agree. My point is that we clearly don't have the personnel right now to do what Shaw has been successful at in the past. Out of desperation (evidently, pass-blocking is easier than well-choreographed run-blocking), we passed instead of running into futility. A trade-off that probably made sense given the threadbare nature of the O-line. For my part, I would love to see a Toby Gerhart reincarnation plow forward for 4 and 5 yards a pop relentlessly against an overmatched defensive front-line until one of the defenders threatens to "sub himself out". That's the Intellectual Brutality this current roster simply doesn't have.

I am very concerned that Stanford's offense has become ... nothing in particular.

By run/pass mix it seems Stanford is trying to become WSU, except without a passing game that is designed to cover all the things you want to do in an offense. WSU does attack downfield from time to time, but they have a ton of short, safe routes that essentially take the place of a typical run game. Stanford has a few, but its not a feature of the pass game.

An identity, some identity, is extremely helpful in building a program. I suspect particularly so at Stanford which will likely always have slower roster turnover and more issues of depth than most. One gets good at things by practicing them for years, i.e. working on your identity. A team is able to target the right type of talent if they know what they are going to try to do. A team is able to attract the right type of talent if they talent knows what the teams is trying to do. etc.

In past troubled years for the offense, like 2012, I could still see what Stanford was trying to do even if it wasn't succeeding at that.
In 2014 they tried to change up to a much higher volume, air raid-lite sort of offense and it didn't fit the personnel. They went back (with some stumbles, and switching to a more zone-based scheme) as McCaffrey made it abundantly clear he needed to be the feature.
In 2018 when we abandoned the run, it seemed to be the only option under the circumstances. We couldn't run block and Love was never healthy. Costello could throw and there were some good receivers (JJAW, Irwin, Smith). Unlike in 2014, it probably was the best option in the moment, but I had hoped it was a temporary adjustment until the foundation could be relaid.
2019 seems to have indicated no real intent to go back to the old foundation of a bruising, north-south run game. At least at times Stanford seemed to have some effectiveness in the run game, but outside of the UW game did not use it much. [Examples, versus UCF, UA and Colorado Stanford averaged over 5 yds/carry, but also only averaged 26 carries per game some of which were sacks and scrambles.] This despite the fact that we were suffering some significant QB issues.

Under the circumstances, I doubt that there was any scheme that would have made 2019 a very good offense. And perhaps it is true that when things are struggling it is hard to perceive an underlying plan even if there is one. Nonetheless, I am left to fear that there currently is no particular plan. Whatever-might-work-at-the-moment is not a long term building strategy.

RE: Stat of the year - Austroturf - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 03:50 PM)CTcard Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 02:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
Quote:On the season, Stanford threw 444 passes, the third-most in the Pac-12, and ran it 346 times, the second fewest.

Hat tip to RJ over at the Bootleg (I think the article is not paywalled)

While the exact numbers are slightly different, the ordinal rankings are the same as the year before: Stanford threw the third most passes (424) and the second fewest runs (384) - though in one more game.

(12-09-2019, 02:56 PM)Austroturf Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 02:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 02:36 PM)Austroturf Wrote: Shawball is beautiful when executed properly (Oregon 2013). When it is failing, it is the most disheartening spectacle in college football.

I agree that Shaw's offense is especially dependent on execution, and when the execution is not there, it falls especially flat. That being said, to a lesser or greater extent, all schemes are like that. I mean, no matter how great your scheme is, you still need the OL to block, the QB to deliver the ball to the receiver who needs to catch it, and the running back to hit the right hole and hold onto the ball.

BC

Yes, agree. My point is that we clearly don't have the personnel right now to do what Shaw has been successful at in the past. Out of desperation (evidently, pass-blocking is easier than well-choreographed run-blocking), we passed instead of running into futility. A trade-off that probably made sense given the threadbare nature of the O-line. For my part, I would love to see a Toby Gerhart reincarnation plow forward for 4 and 5 yards a pop relentlessly against an overmatched defensive front-line until one of the defenders threatens to "sub himself out". That's the Intellectual Brutality this current roster simply doesn't have.

I am very concerned that Stanford's offense has become ... nothing in particular.

By run/pass mix it seems Stanford is trying to become WSU, except without a passing game that is designed to cover all the things you want to do in an offense. WSU does attack downfield from time to time, but they have a ton of short, safe routes that essentially take the place of a typical run game. Stanford has a few, but its not a feature of the pass game.

An identity, some identity, is extremely helpful in building a program. I suspect particularly so at Stanford which will likely always have slower roster turnover and more issues of depth than most. One gets good at things by practicing them for years, i.e. working on your identity. A team is able to target the right type of talent if they know what they are going to try to do. A team is able to attract the right type of talent if they talent knows what the teams is trying to do. etc.

In past troubled years for the offense, like 2012, I could still see what Stanford was trying to do even if it wasn't succeeding at that.
In 2014 they tried to change up to a much higher volume, air raid-lite sort of offense and it didn't fit the personnel. They went back (with some stumbles, and switching to a more zone-based scheme) as McCaffrey made it abundantly clear he needed to be the feature.
In 2018 when we abandoned the run, it seemed to be the only option under the circumstances. We couldn't run block and Love was never healthy. Costello could throw and there were some good receivers (JJAW, Irwin, Smith). Unlike in 2014, it probably was the best option in the moment, but I had hoped it was a temporary adjustment until the foundation could be relaid.
2019 seems to have indicated no real intent to go back to the old foundation of a bruising, north-south run game. At least at times Stanford seemed to have some effectiveness in the run game, but outside of the UW game did not use it much. [Examples, versus UCF, UA and Colorado Stanford averaged over 5 yds/carry, but also only averaged 26 carries per game some of which were sacks and scrambles.] This despite the fact that we were suffering some significant QB issues.

Under the circumstances, I doubt that there was any scheme that would have made 2019 a very good offense. And perhaps it is true that when things are struggling it is hard to perceive an underlying plan even if there is one. Nonetheless, I am left to fear that there currently is no particular plan. Whatever-might-work-at-the-moment is not a long term building strategy.

I don't think Shaw would ever have the nerve for a true air-raid scheme. That said, the air-raid, when executed properly, is a high TOP offensive scheme, which would fit well with Shaw's basic MO. I would just like to see us get back to Intellectual Brutality with a dominant run-game. It worked, and Shaw was comfortable running it. Unfortunately, the toughness appears to be gone; and you can't be brutal if you're not tough. Who's missing? Do we have the wrong players? Maybe, but I think the onus rests on the coaches. Some intravenous EUTM (even if remotely administered) would be a good elixir for what ails the current Cardinal program.

And coaching should never be underestimated. Look at what Alex Grinch has done at Oklahoma in one year. The Sooners were perennial defensive underachievers before Grinch and now have a top 30 defense (Stanford is at 94). He took the same players plus one freshman class and accomplished this turnaround. And for those with short memories, this is the same Alex Grinch that engineered a defensive turnaround at Wazzu (beginning in 2015) and the infamous Speed-D. Maybe we should go find our own Grinch before Christmas.

RE: Stat of the year - BostonCard - 12-09-2019

There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem here. Did we not run much because we weren't good at it, or were we not good at running the football because we didn't run it much. It is worth noting that our attempts per game this year, as in last, dropped over time. In our last four games, we rushed a total of 87 times (including sacks) or 22/game, down from 31 rushes per game in August/Sept, and 34 in October. Although that included games where we were behind from the get go against Washington State and Notre Dame, it also includes games where we were competitive throughout (Big Game and Colorado).

The drop-off was less pronounced last year, and in prior years, we actually ran more as the year went on.

The question that your comments raise is to what extent the current "philosophy" if we can call it that, is out of necessity and to what extent the change, which largely coincided with Tavita becoming OC, reflects a change in philosophy. I would like to think that with a healthy offensive line and a capable running back who could give us 5 yards/carry consistently that we would shift to a run first mentality, particularly if we could get a lead and keep it. I'm afraid that with the defense we anticipate, that may be tough for at least another year.

BC

RE: Stat of the year - Goose - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 03:50 PM)CTcard Wrote: I am very concerned that Stanford's offense has become ... nothing in particular.

<snip>

Under the circumstances, I doubt that there was any scheme that would have made 2019 a very good offense. And perhaps it is true that when things are struggling it is hard to perceive an underlying plan even if there is one. Nonetheless, I am left to fear that there currently is no particular plan. Whatever-might-work-at-the-moment is not a long term building strategy.

I think that Shaw very much wanted/tried to go back to a "balanced" attack similar to what Stanford used with Gaffney and his predecessors. That was the plan. He has told us that he couldn't because 1) we were down by multiple scores early in many of the games and therefore had to pass, and 2) injuries on the OL forced freshmen to play who were just not strong enough/heavy enough to run block well. I believe the OL was a big problem. I am not convinced it was because there were three freshmen starters. I fear it is because they are just not good enough. Next year, we will know for sure about that. However, next year we do not have any "established" running back. Our two freshmen from this year didn't show much, and are both pretty small. This bodes ill for a balanced attack. Hopefully, we do get a boost from a 2020 running back admit and/or that the two freshmen step up. Otherwise, we will once again be "air raid lite", which just won't be pretty.

RE: Stat of the year - BostonCard - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 04:36 PM)Austroturf Wrote: I don't think Shaw would ever have the nerve for a true air-raid scheme. That said, the air-raid, when executed properly, is a high TOP offensive scheme, which would fit well with Shaw's basic MO.

To wit, WSU was fourth in TOP this year (30:23 sec) and they were second in the Pac-12 last year (32:14).

Strangely enough, we were second in TOP this year (32:11).

BC

RE: Stat of the year - teejers1 - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 04:44 PM)Goose Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 03:50 PM)CTcard Wrote: I am very concerned that Stanford's offense has become ... nothing in particular.

<snip>

Under the circumstances, I doubt that there was any scheme that would have made 2019 a very good offense. And perhaps it is true that when things are struggling it is hard to perceive an underlying plan even if there is one. Nonetheless, I am left to fear that there currently is no particular plan. Whatever-might-work-at-the-moment is not a long term building strategy.

I think that Shaw very much wanted/tried to go back to a "balanced" attack similar to what Stanford used with Gaffney and his predecessors. That was the plan. He has told us that he couldn't because 1) we were down by multiple scores early in many of the games and therefore had to pass, and 2) injuries on the OL forced freshmen to play who were just not strong enough/heavy enough to run block well. I believe the OL was a big problem. I am not convinced it was because there were three freshmen starters. I fear it is because they are just not good enough. Next year, we will know for sure about that. However, next year we do not have any "established" running back. Our two freshmen from this year didn't show much, and are both pretty small. This bodes ill for a balanced attack. Hopefully, we do get a boost from a 2020 running back admit and/or that the two freshmen step up. Otherwise, we will once again be "air raid lite", which just won't be pretty.

Preliminarily, if you're down 2 scores early, that does NOT mean you have to abandon the running game. That's just a non sequitur.

But more fundamentally, I disagree with the precept that "Stanford should be a power running team." That is so confining. Stanford should be a multi-dimensional offense that is good at passing and running, with the ability to emphasize either if an opponent takes away one option. I know this is simplistic and everyone (I expect) would agree with it, but the ideal offense should NOT be the Gaffney-esque pound and grind; but rather, the offenses under Willingham/Diedrick in the Rose Bowl and Seattle Bowl seasons. Those were pro-style offenses that were prolific in both the passing and running games. I'd dust off that playbook and start implementing it - of course, you need to have someone familiar with it who can help implement it. Calling the man in the booth . . .

RE: Stat of the year - SamuelMcF - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 04:53 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 04:36 PM)Austroturf Wrote: I don't think Shaw would ever have the nerve for a true air-raid scheme. That said, the air-raid, when executed properly, is a high TOP offensive scheme, which would fit well with Shaw's basic MO.

To wit, WSU was fourth in TOP this year (30:23 sec) and they were second in the Pac-12 last year (32:14).

Strangely enough, we were second in TOP this year (32:11).

BC

Opponents scored on us quickly.

No, I'm serious. That's the reason.

RE: Stat of the year - Austroturf - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 04:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Although that included games where we were behind from the get go against Washington State and Notre Dame, it also includes games where we were competitive throughout (Big Game and Colorado).

BC

We actually had an early lead in the Notre Dame game (17-7) with an offense that was primarily built on a passing attack. Whether that was sustainable or not is another question. The blocked punt midway through Q2 shifted the momentum, and we never got back on track offensively or defensively.

In the Wazzu game, we never really tried to run (even in the early going). Our drives stalled, we punted and suddenly found ourselves down three scores (19-0) at the inception of Q2. We were kind of forced to continue passing to try to catch up, which we did (25-22 early in the 3rd quarter). Then, again, the wheels came off in the second half.

RE: Stat of the year - Goose - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 03:17 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: A poster on the paid forum made a convincing argument that coaching/preparation made them look way worse.

Unfortunately, I am not on the paid forum.

Quote:For instance, in the Big Game there was a play breakdown where 3 pass rushers executed the same twist/stunt so they ended up on top of each other (obviously incorrect), and Garbers had the easiest pocket escape in the world. That shouldn't be happening in the last game of the f***ing season.

I don't believe your premises support your conclusion. The fact the players ended up in a bad position does not prove the coach made an error. The problem could equally be that one or more players misread the defense that was called. Unless you know what was called, it is not possible to know how the bad result occurred. One can equally well say that all errors are the responsibility of the coach because he recruits the players and teaches them how to play. Therefore, if they don't play well, it is the coach's fault unconditionally and the players are just pawns on a chessboard. However, that line of reasoning doesn't necessarily help in fixing the problem.

Your argument that the talent level of the defensive players hasn't changed that much over a couple of years is much weaker than the fact that the defensive coaches haven't changed at all (much to many poster's chagrin). If everything is actually held constant, our ranking can't have changed. Since our ranking did change, either our players aren't as good, our coaches aren't as good, other teams have improved more than we have, or some combination of these factors. What factors are most important is, as of yet, TBD.

RE: Stat of the year - BostonCard - 12-09-2019

Still a coaching issue. The players should, by the end of the season, be fluent enough with the scheme that those mix-ups shouldn’t happen. While the scheme may have been sound, the athletes weren’t accurately prepared to execute it, and that’s on the coaches.

BC

RE: Stat of the year - cardcrimson - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 07:02 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Still a coaching issue. The players should, by the end of the season, be fluent enough with the scheme that those mix-ups shouldn’t happen. While the scheme may have been sound, the athletes weren’t accurately prepared to execute it, and that’s on the coaches.

BC

Say it ain't so, Joe.

RE: Stat of the year - winflop - 12-09-2019

(12-09-2019, 02:36 PM)Austroturf Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 02:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
Quote:On the season, Stanford threw 444 passes, the third-most in the Pac-12, and ran it 346 times, the second fewest.

Hat tip to RJ over at the Bootleg (I think the article is not paywalled)

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/LongFormArticle/Ten-Takeaways-From-Stanford-Footballs-2019-Season-140069322#1335708_1

BC

Not surprised.

Frankly, I would be overjoyed to see these numbers flipped. We just need to be able to run the ball effectively again. That would require a seasoned O-line that is not a M*A*S*H unit and one that can get the push up-front vs. the opponent's D-line; and, of course, a running back or two capable of slicing through the subsequent holes (imagine we had Christian McCaffrey and Bryce Love on the same team in 2015 and 2016). Shawball is beautiful when executed properly (Oregon 2013). When it is failing, it is the most disheartening spectacle in college football.

O, and a solid defense would also be helpful to get the opposing offense off the field as quickly as possible. Shawball only works when you don't get into a shoot-out (a la Wazzu the last two years).

"Shawball" also only works when you're not down two scores.