The CardBoard
Stanford football and TFLs allowed - 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 football and TFLs allowed (/thread-25169.html)


Stanford football and TFLs allowed - needle - 10-06-2024

Arguably the defining niche statistic this season for Stanford football has been the number of tackles for loss allowed.

Heading into the game against Virginia Tech, Stanford tied with Kal to rank No. 129 out of 133 FBS teams in TFLs allowed, giving up 8.25 a game, on average. Well, that average increased after this past Saturday against Virginia Tech, as Stanford gave up 12 TFLs, according to somewhat reliable LiveStats.

I checked, and among teams giving up at least 7 TFLs per game before Saturday, there were some decent-to-pretty-good teams like Colorado, Kal, Illinois, Kentucky and, coincidentally, Virginia Tech. But, unsurprisingly, none of them have good offenses as measured by yards per play. The data source I used for yards per play included games from this past Saturday, and only Virginia Tech ranked in the top 70 in yards per play.

So far this year, Stanford ranks No. 121 in yards per play, per the site TeamRankings.com. 

As bad as last year was, Stanford finished the season ranked No. 104th in yards per play. Last year, Stanford ranked No. 122 in TFLs allowed, with 7.5 per game.

In Shaw's last year, 2022, an undeniably crummy team ranked No. 70 in TFLs allowed, giving up 5.75 per game.

I believe that the data suggests poor offensive line play but, because I believe that the O-line *should be* and *actually is* better in 2024 compared to 2023, the answer has to include a.) poor and possibly deteriorating QB play and b.) flaws in the offensive gameplans. I glibly posted once that this data suggests TT is in over his head. What do other people think?

UPDATE: After the Virginia Tech loss, Stanford ranks No. 132 out of 133 FBS teams in TFLs allowed with 9 per game. In dead last is South Carolina, giving up 9.2 per game. Only one other team, Houston, is giving up more than 8 per game.

RE: Stanford football and TFLs allowed - Goose - 10-06-2024

(10-06-2024, 06:03 AM)needle Wrote:  I believe that the data suggests poor offensive line play but, because I believe that the O-line *should be* and *actually is* better in 2024 compared to 2023, the answer has to include a.) poor and possibly deteriorating QB play and b.) flaws in the offensive gameplans. I glibly posted once that this data suggests TT is in over his head. What do other people think?
IMO the increase in TFLs is twofold. First, TT is trying to run the ball more. Last year, we didn't run the ball much at all because we established early on that we couldn't. Shaw's did the same in his last few years. Shaw had a QB who could get the ball out quickly and was accurate so that approach kind of worked. TT realized that he absolutely needed a running game. The passing game just wasn't and isn't anywhere near good enough to dominate the game on its own. Our run games this year is "better" than last year, arguably because the OL is "better". However, the fact is the OL isn't that much better. The defense often gets into the backfield and gets the TFL. Our QBs sometimes hold the ball too long and then belatedly try to run. This results in a TFL. However, IMO that factor isn't any worse than it was last year.

TT is also an aggressive play caller and often calls slowly developing run plays that rely on misdirection/overpursuit. We generally aren't fooling anybody with these plays. The defense gets so much penetration the play is destroyed before it starts, thus the TFL. TT is IMO going to keep doing that because he believes you can't win if you limit your playbook to the few plays you actually run "well". You need to learn to execute the other plays well too. He probably feels he has no other choice. In one sense he is in "over his head" in that he can't find running plays to call that don't risk excessive TFL and yet "work". IMO probably such plays do not exist. He so far has elected to stay the course. He could cut down TFLs by calling the game differently, but in his opinion the result in terms of winning would be worse, not better. Some might say that is stubborn. Where have I head that before?

RE: Stanford football and TFLs allowed - needle - 10-06-2024

(10-06-2024, 08:44 AM)Goose Wrote:  
(10-06-2024, 06:03 AM)needle Wrote:  I believe that the data suggests poor offensive line play but, because I believe that the O-line *should be* and *actually is* better in 2024 compared to 2023, the answer has to include a.) poor and possibly deteriorating QB play and b.) flaws in the offensive gameplans. I glibly posted once that this data suggests TT is in over his head. What do other people think?
IMO the increase in TFLs is twofold. First, TT is trying to run the ball more. Last year, we didn't run the ball much at all because we established early on that we couldn't. Shaw's did the same in his last few years. Shaw had a QB who could get the ball out quickly and was accurate so that approach kind of worked. TT realized that he absolutely needed a running game. The passing game just wasn't and isn't anywhere near good enough to dominate the game on its own. Our run games this year is "better" than last year, arguably because the OL is "better". However, the fact is the OL isn't that much better. The defense often gets into the backfield and gets the TFL. Our QBs sometimes hold the ball too long and then belatedly try to run. This results in a TFL. However, IMO that factor isn't any worse than it was last year.

TT is also an aggressive play caller and often calls slowly developing run plays that rely on misdirection/overpursuit. We generally aren't fooling anybody with these plays. The defense gets so much penetration the play is destroyed before it starts, thus the TFL. TT is IMO going to keep doing that because he believes you can't win if you limit your playbook to the few plays you actually run "well". You need to learn to execute the other plays well too. He probably feels he has no other choice. In one sense he is in "over his head" in that he can't find running plays to call that don't risk excessive TFL and yet "work". IMO probably such plays do not exist. He so far has elected to stay the course. He could cut down TFLs by calling the game differently, but in his opinion the result in terms of winning would be worse, not better. Some might say that is stubborn. Where have I head that before?

I definitely remember feeling like the Syracuse game had significantly fewer reverse/misdirection running plays than previous games. Maybe TT turns to misdirection when he feels like the offense/O-line is likely outmatched physically or based on the opponent's defensive tendencies.

Interestingly, while Va. Tech ranks in the top 25 in TFLs, Notre Dame, Stanford's next opponent, is outside the top 100.

RE: Stanford football and TFLs allowed - Goose - 10-06-2024

(10-06-2024, 09:10 AM)needle Wrote:  I definitely remember feeling like the Syracuse game had significantly fewer reverse/misdirection running plays than previous games. Maybe TT turns to misdirection when he feels like the offense/O-line is likely outmatched physically or based on the opponent's defensive tendencies.
I think you are correct. Syracuse has a statistically "bad" run defense. Stanford committed to running against them and it "worked". No need for trickery. FWIW I think Syracuse absolutely did NOT expect that. I do think TT responds both to the opponents known tendencies  and to what he sees on the field (which may be different). Empirically he tends to call sweeps and reverses when the OL isn't getting much push or making any holes. Unfortunately if the DL is frequently getting penetration there isn't much you can do.

RE: Stanford football and TFLs allowed - SamuelMcF - 10-06-2024

(10-06-2024, 06:03 AM)needle Wrote:  I believe that the data suggests poor offensive line play but, because I believe that the O-line *should be* and *actually is* better in 2024 compared to 2023, the answer has to include a.) poor and possibly deteriorating QB play and b.) flaws in the offensive gameplans. I glibly posted once that this data suggests TT is in over his head. What do other people think?

Run blocking has been very very very bad, bottom 10 nationally. No improvement from similarly near-bottom-of-barrel performance last year.

Pass protection, however, "*actually is* better" indeed - slightly above middle of the pack nationally, which is a GINORMOUS improvement from last year's also near-bottom-of-barrel performance. They are no longer a large part of the problem here.