The new offense - 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 new offense (/thread-23439.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 new offense (/thread-23439.html)
The new offense - cardcrimson - 09-10-2022
Herbstreit was downright giddy about the new RPO offense Shaw has put in place (funny, I thought Tavita was the Luck Director of Offense). Anyway. Different? Yes. Innovative for Stanford? Yes. Productive? Yes (excluding the four turnovers). Answers the Cardboard critics? Yes. Thoughts?
My quick take is that it will work for a game or so, but defenses will figure a way to defend it, and it won't work as well in the long term. A gimmick to get us a little production in the short term. . . .
RE: The new offense - baycommuter - 09-10-2022
It's probably the only offense that will work for Patu. And I believe Daniels ran one play of wildcat with something similar.
RE: The new offense - OutsiderFan - 09-11-2022
Didn't watch the game, and I know stats can be deceiving, but...
Stanford had: 33 first downs, 221 yards rushing, 441 total, 4 turnovers, and still scored 28 points. That suggests something decent in the making. Stanford actually had 45 rushing attempted and a +.3 YPC run differential.
It's borderline amazing a team could be so productive because the stats make clear how little big play makers Stanford has. That suggests a competently coordinated offense that needs more outside speed. Some may say most of the numbers came after Stanford trailed by a lot, but USC didn't want to give up 33 first downs and over 200 yards rushing no matter what the score was.
Put Addison on Stanford and there might have been a different winning team?
RE: The new offense - 81alum - 09-11-2022
I was impressed with the offense outside the red zone. What do others think of our red zone offense? So many turnovers make it hard to evaluate. Seeing two 1st and goals degenerate into nothing was deflating.
RE: The new offense - Maple Leaf - 09-11-2022
(09-11-2022, 06:35 AM)81alum Wrote: I was impressed with the offense outside the red zone. What do others think of our red zone offense? So many turnovers make it hard to evaluate. Seeing two 1st and goals degenerate into nothing was deflating.
Shades of last year's kal game.
lex24 - lex24 - 09-11-2022
(09-11-2022, 06:35 AM)81alum Wrote: I was impressed with the offense outside the red zone. What do others think of our red zone offense? So many turnovers make it hard to evaluate. Seeing two 1st and goals degenerate into nothing was deflating.
They got hosed on review and then the 4th down call. Fumbled. But saw some good things as well. The pass to a wide open Smith being one of them. They have to stop the turnovers. Still, offensively there was a lot to like in this game. Unfortunately the other team gets the ball.
(09-11-2022, 05:41 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Didn't watch the game, and I know stats can be deceiving, but...
Stanford had: 33 first downs, 221 yards rushing, 441 total, 4 turnovers, and still scored 28 points. That suggests something decent in the making. Stanford actually had 45 rushing attempted and a +.3 YPC run differential.
It's borderline amazing a team could be so productive because the stats make clear how little big play makers Stanford has. That suggests a competently coordinated offense that needs more outside speed. Some may say most of the numbers came after Stanford trailed by a lot, but USC didn't want to give up 33 first downs and over 200 yards rushing no matter what the score was.
Put Addison on Stanford and there might have been a different winning team?
You lost me on “I didn’t watch the game.” Hard to see how you draw conclusions when you dint see any of they are. But…..
Offensive moved the ball extremely well in first half. First drive interception. Then went 73 - int in EZ. 93. TD. 73. Fumble at 2 and 67 TD. That’s over 300 yards. Should have scored 28. They do not lack weapons. The comment that most of the yards came when the game was over is simply wrong.
And no, trading Addison would not have turned the tide. Stanford was helpless defensively. SC could do whatever it wanted.
RE: lex24 - OutsiderFan - 09-11-2022
(09-11-2022, 07:50 AM)lex24 Wrote:(09-11-2022, 06:35 AM)81alum Wrote: I was impressed with the offense outside the red zone. What do others think of our red zone offense? So many turnovers make it hard to evaluate. Seeing two 1st and goals degenerate into nothing was deflating.
They got hosed on review and then the 4th down call. Fumbled. But saw some good things as well. The pass to a wide open Smith being one of them. They have to stop the turnovers. Still, offensively there was a lot to like in this game. Unfortunately the other team gets the ball.
(09-11-2022, 05:41 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Didn't watch the game, and I know stats can be deceiving, but...
Stanford had: 33 first downs, 221 yards rushing, 441 total, 4 turnovers, and still scored 28 points. That suggests something decent in the making. Stanford actually had 45 rushing attempted and a +.3 YPC run differential.
It's borderline amazing a team could be so productive because the stats make clear how little big play makers Stanford has. That suggests a competently coordinated offense that needs more outside speed. Some may say most of the numbers came after Stanford trailed by a lot, but USC didn't want to give up 33 first downs and over 200 yards rushing no matter what the score was.
Put Addison on Stanford and there might have been a different winning team?
You lost me on “I didn’t watch the game.” Hard to see how you draw conclusions when you dint see any of they are. But…..
Offensive moved the ball extremely well in first half. First drive interception. Then went 73 - int in EZ. 93. TD. 73. Fumble at 2 and 67 TD. That’s over 300 yards. Should have scored 28. They do not lack weapons. The comment that most of the yards came when the game was over is simply wrong.
And no, trading Addison would not have turned the tide. Stanford was helpless defensively. SC could do whatever it wanted.
Whether anyone saw the game or didn't, the stats are the stats. Had Stanford scored TDs instead of turned the ball over when on the doorstep, USC fans would be talking about their defense being helpless. Because if they can't stop Stanford, how are they gonna stop better teams?
Back to the point of this thread. Just based on the numbers, Stanford's "new offense" is better than its previous one. But the defense has been the biggest problem since 2016 and nothing has been done to address it because the same guy is failing year after year to improve it.
RE: The new offense - cardcrimson - 09-11-2022
Lex, there's no point. . . .
RE: lex24 - lex24 - 09-11-2022
(09-11-2022, 09:23 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(09-11-2022, 07:50 AM)lex24 Wrote:(09-11-2022, 06:35 AM)81alum Wrote: I was impressed with the offense outside the red zone. What do others think of our red zone offense? So many turnovers make it hard to evaluate. Seeing two 1st and goals degenerate into nothing was deflating.
They got hosed on review and then the 4th down call. Fumbled. But saw some good things as well. The pass to a wide open Smith being one of them. They have to stop the turnovers. Still, offensively there was a lot to like in this game. Unfortunately the other team gets the ball.
(09-11-2022, 05:41 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Didn't watch the game, and I know stats can be deceiving, but...
Stanford had: 33 first downs, 221 yards rushing, 441 total, 4 turnovers, and still scored 28 points. That suggests something decent in the making. Stanford actually had 45 rushing attempted and a +.3 YPC run differential.
It's borderline amazing a team could be so productive because the stats make clear how little big play makers Stanford has. That suggests a competently coordinated offense that needs more outside speed. Some may say most of the numbers came after Stanford trailed by a lot, but USC didn't want to give up 33 first downs and over 200 yards rushing no matter what the score was.
Put Addison on Stanford and there might have been a different winning team?
You lost me on “I didn’t watch the game.” Hard to see how you draw conclusions when you dint see any of they are. But…..
Offensive moved the ball extremely well in first half. First drive interception. Then went 73 - int in EZ. 93. TD. 73. Fumble at 2 and 67 TD. That’s over 300 yards. Should have scored 28. They do not lack weapons. The comment that most of the yards came when the game was over is simply wrong.
And no, trading Addison would not have turned the tide. Stanford was helpless defensively. SC could do whatever it wanted.
Whether anyone saw the game or didn't, the stats are the stats. Had Stanford scored TDs instead of turned the ball over when on the doorstep, USC fans would be talking about their defense being helpless. Because if they can't stop Stanford, how are they gonna stop better teams?
Back to the point of this thread. Just based on the numbers, Stanford's "new offense" is better than its previous one. But the defense has been the biggest problem since 2016 and nothing has been done to address it because the same guy is failing year after year to improve it.
First most yardage was not made after the game was essentially over so that was wrong. Second Stanford had numerous big plays in the first half so that was wrong as well.
RE: The new offense - MarinCard - 09-11-2022
(09-11-2022, 06:35 AM)81alum Wrote: I was impressed with the offense outside the red zone. What do others think of our red zone offense? So many turnovers make it hard to evaluate. Seeing two 1st and goals degenerate into nothing was deflating.
We ran that slow mesh RPO so effectively down into the red zone… and then reverted to totally conventional handoff run game and jump balls once we got inside. Far easier for a defense to read and defend vs putting one man to a decision in the option.
RE: The new offense - TonyLima - 09-11-2022
(09-11-2022, 01:13 PM)MarinCard Wrote:(09-11-2022, 06:35 AM)81alum Wrote: I was impressed with the offense outside the red zone. What do others think of our red zone offense? So many turnovers make it hard to evaluate. Seeing two 1st and goals degenerate into nothing was deflating.
We ran that slow mesh RPO so effectively down into the red zone… and then reverted to totally conventional handoff run game and jump balls once we got inside. Far easier for a defense to read and defend vs putting one man to a decision in the option.
My thoughts exactly. On first and goal the play always seems to be run the ball into the middle of the line.