Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - 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: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? (/thread-6542.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: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? (/thread-6542.html)
Pages:
1
2
Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - OutsiderFan - 01-04-2014
Five years ago, nobody, except maybe Harbaugh and Shaw, ever would have thought it possible for Stanford to have four consecutive 11 win seasons, play in four and win two BCS bowl games.Â
My question is what is Stanford Football's ceiling? Can the program raise its performance one more notch and win 13 games in a season, which is likely what it will take to get to the CFB Final Four?
It seems to me based on the consistency of the defense since 2010, and especially it's improvement over the last two seasons, the answer is yes. And it seems that with an elite QB, the answer is yes, based on 2010 and 2011. But marrying dominant defense with great offense in the same season is really tough. Stanford isn't going to be able to have the great secondary talent in enough numbers to be a program like Michigan State, who can rise up and field a defense dominant enough against the run and pass to win 13 games with pretty vanilla offense, altough it should be noted, even MSU had to have a dynamic passing game to do it (passed very well against Ohio St. & Stanford to win). Even as far as Stanford goes, it won 11 regular season games only with a productive passing attack. Moreover, in every BCS bowl, the team that has passed more effectively has won. Not going to change in the NCG either. The evidence screams Stanford has to get more from its offense, and in particular, it has to have the ability to throw for 250+ yards when the run isn't working, to win 13 games.
Look at Stanford's last five losses:
At UW - by 7 without an offensive TD
At N.D. - by 7 without an offensive TD
At Utah - scored 21 but only allowed 27
At U.S.C. - scored 17 but only allowed 20
MSU - scored 20 but only allowed 24
To me, it all points toward a need to develop an offensive system that is more dynamic and unpredictable. Before the Rose Bowl, MSU DC Pat Narduzzi basically said we know what they are going to do and we like it because it doesn't threaten the whole field. I just assumed Stanford's coaches wouldn't be crazy enough to do exactly what he expected and would find a way to consistently threaten more than a 10 yard line on the field. They didn't. Then I heard Bob Stoops (former DC) interviewed talking about OU's win against Alabama. He said "the days of being able to line up and play in a phone booth are over, and I knew that in 1999 when I took this job, so I hired Mike Leach." And this is coming from a guy who can consistently land 4 and 5 star recruits to play any way he wants.
I'm not going to say there is no place for Stanford's run-first, physical style, but between consistently threatening a larger area of the field, using more play action passing, changing the QB's release points, more ball faking, motions, "backwards play calling," changing tempo in games, and more sophisticated passing concepts, there is a lot of room for Stanford to improve on offense, simply by having a more dynamic system underpinning the physical, run-first mentality. Even MSU proved the effectiveness of running with tempo in the Rose Bowl in a pro set using a FB.
The biggest problem is the west coast offense verbiage. It takes a long time to get plays called using that style, and that makes it near impossible to change tempo. It also takes a long time to learn, which limits how soon the most gifted players can play.Â
But the greater question is how much will David Shaw be willing to evolve and go out of his comfort zone to improve? How badly does he want to win vs. how comfortable does he want to be? To me, the single biggest thing Shaw could do to demonstrate his desire to win is bring in a new offensive coordinator with some ideas for evolving Stanford's offense. Bloomgren is an OL coach and Pritchard has never known anything but what Stanford does, so it's hard to imagine either one being capable of catalyzing some real creative evolution in Stanford's offense.
Given there is no power back on the roster now, and the strength of the 2014 offense will be the WRs, and Barry Sanders (and maybe even Christian McCaffrey) in space, it seems now is the time to bring in a new offensive coordinator in an effort to make Stanford's offense more difficult to defend. To me, any big game in which you are held to 11 first downs and 13 offensive points is prima facie evidence that changes are needed to get Stanford Football to the next level. To be sure, changing might not do it, but not changing seems more than likely to guarantee similar results in the future, and would be a way of saying "we are happy with not ever being able to win 13 games." Of course, if everyone is fine with never winning 13 games, there is no need to change. It just seems to me Stanford doesn't ever settle.Â
What do Cardboarders think?
Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - OutsiderFan - 01-04-2014
Five years ago, nobody, except maybe Harbaugh and Shaw, ever would have thought it possible for Stanford to have four consecutive 11 win seasons, play in four and win two BCS bowl games.Â
My question is what is Stanford Football's ceiling? Can the program raise its performance one more notch and win 13 games in a season, which is likely what it will take to get to the CFB Final Four?
It seems to me based on the consistency of the defense since 2010, and especially it's improvement over the last two seasons, the answer is yes. And it seems that with an elite QB, the answer is yes, based on 2010 and 2011. But marrying dominant defense with great offense in the same season is really tough. Stanford isn't going to be able to have the great secondary talent in enough numbers to be a program like Michigan State, who can rise up and field a defense dominant enough against the run and pass to win 13 games with pretty vanilla offense, altough it should be noted, even MSU had to have a dynamic passing game to do it (passed very well against Ohio St. & Stanford to win). Even as far as Stanford goes, it won 11 regular season games only with a productive passing attack. Moreover, in every BCS bowl, the team that has passed more effectively has won. Not going to change in the NCG either. The evidence screams Stanford has to get more from its offense, and in particular, it has to have the ability to throw for 250+ yards when the run isn't working, to win 13 games.
Look at Stanford's last five losses:
At UW - by 7 without an offensive TD
At N.D. - by 7 without an offensive TD
At Utah - scored 21 but only allowed 27
At U.S.C. - scored 17 but only allowed 20
MSU - scored 20 but only allowed 24
To me, it all points toward a need to develop an offensive system that is more dynamic and unpredictable. Before the Rose Bowl, MSU DC Pat Narduzzi basically said we know what they are going to do and we like it because it doesn't threaten the whole field. I just assumed Stanford's coaches wouldn't be crazy enough to do exactly what he expected and would find a way to consistently threaten more than a 10 yard line on the field. They didn't. Then I heard Bob Stoops (former DC) interviewed talking about OU's win against Alabama. He said "the days of being able to line up and play in a phone booth are over, and I knew that in 1999 when I took this job, so I hired Mike Leach." And this is coming from a guy who can consistently land 4 and 5 star recruits to play any way he wants.
I'm not going to say there is no place for Stanford's run-first, physical style, but between consistently threatening a larger area of the field, using more play action passing, changing the QB's release points, more ball faking, motions, "backwards play calling," changing tempo in games, and more sophisticated passing concepts, there is a lot of room for Stanford to improve on offense, simply by having a more dynamic system underpinning the physical, run-first mentality. Even MSU proved the effectiveness of running with tempo in the Rose Bowl in a pro set using a FB.
The biggest problem is the west coast offense verbiage. It takes a long time to get plays called using that style, and that makes it near impossible to change tempo. It also takes a long time to learn, which limits how soon the most gifted players can play.Â
But the greater question is how much will David Shaw be willing to evolve and go out of his comfort zone to improve? How badly does he want to win vs. how comfortable does he want to be? To me, the single biggest thing Shaw could do to demonstrate his desire to win is bring in a new offensive coordinator with some ideas for evolving Stanford's offense. Bloomgren is an OL coach and Pritchard has never known anything but what Stanford does, so it's hard to imagine either one being capable of catalyzing some real creative evolution in Stanford's offense.
Given there is no power back on the roster now, and the strength of the 2014 offense will be the WRs, and Barry Sanders (and maybe even Christian McCaffrey) in space, it seems now is the time to bring in a new offensive coordinator in an effort to make Stanford's offense more difficult to defend. To me, any big game in which you are held to 11 first downs and 13 offensive points is prima facie evidence that changes are needed to get Stanford Football to the next level. To be sure, changing might not do it, but not changing seems more than likely to guarantee similar results in the future, and would be a way of saying "we are happy with not ever being able to win 13 games." Of course, if everyone is fine with never winning 13 games, there is no need to change. It just seems to me Stanford doesn't ever settle.Â
What do Cardboarders think?
Re: Can Stanford football get to the summit? - StanFan88 - 01-04-2014
I agree 100% that a new OC is needed.
Re: Can Stanford football get to the summit? - StanFan88 - 01-04-2014
I agree 100% that a new OC is needed.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - dabigv13 - 01-04-2014
First, can Stanford get to the college football playoffs? Obviously yes. Three of the past four seasons we've finished in the top 4 by some metric at the end of the regular season. And at that point there's a lot of random chance that will dictate if we can win a NCG.
That being said, there is still plenty of room for improvement to increase our chances of winning a NCG and I agree that the majority of it is on offense. I think the Orange Bowl offense demonstrated that we can have a dynamic offense that is powerful as well. I would like to see a return to the line shifts and variations out of a single set that we saw then, and I don't think the absence of Luck means that's impossible. Good pass catching tight ends are more critical, so hopefully we can develop them. One viewpoint is that Shaw was forced into a predictable offense because of his personnel. I think the jury is still out on that, but I suspect that plenty of offensive coordinators could figure out a way of getting Cajuste, Young, Sanders etc. the ball in space more often than we did.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - dabigv13 - 01-04-2014
First, can Stanford get to the college football playoffs? Obviously yes. Three of the past four seasons we've finished in the top 4 by some metric at the end of the regular season. And at that point there's a lot of random chance that will dictate if we can win a NCG.
That being said, there is still plenty of room for improvement to increase our chances of winning a NCG and I agree that the majority of it is on offense. I think the Orange Bowl offense demonstrated that we can have a dynamic offense that is powerful as well. I would like to see a return to the line shifts and variations out of a single set that we saw then, and I don't think the absence of Luck means that's impossible. Good pass catching tight ends are more critical, so hopefully we can develop them. One viewpoint is that Shaw was forced into a predictable offense because of his personnel. I think the jury is still out on that, but I suspect that plenty of offensive coordinators could figure out a way of getting Cajuste, Young, Sanders etc. the ball in space more often than we did.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - Extra Point - 01-04-2014
(01-04-2014, 06:49 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:But the greater question is how much will David Shaw be willing to evolve and go out of his comfort zone to improve? How badly does he want to win vs. how comfortable does he want to be? To me, the single biggest thing Shaw could do to demonstrate his desire to win is bring in a new offensive coordinator with some ideas for evolving Stanford's offense. Bloomgren is an OL coach and Pritchard has never known anything but what Stanford does, so it's hard to imagine either one being capable of catalyzing some real creative evolution in Stanford's offense.
I think the staff has done an excellent job of adapting the offense to the skills and abilities of the players. The offense has changed dramatically every year that Shaw has been at the helm without firing anyone. You can expect to see changes next year as well.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - Extra Point - 01-04-2014
(01-04-2014, 06:49 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:But the greater question is how much will David Shaw be willing to evolve and go out of his comfort zone to improve? How badly does he want to win vs. how comfortable does he want to be? To me, the single biggest thing Shaw could do to demonstrate his desire to win is bring in a new offensive coordinator with some ideas for evolving Stanford's offense. Bloomgren is an OL coach and Pritchard has never known anything but what Stanford does, so it's hard to imagine either one being capable of catalyzing some real creative evolution in Stanford's offense.
I think the staff has done an excellent job of adapting the offense to the skills and abilities of the players. The offense has changed dramatically every year that Shaw has been at the helm without firing anyone. You can expect to see changes next year as well.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - stupac2 - 01-04-2014
(01-04-2014, 09:17 AM)Extra Point link Wrote:I think the staff has done an excellent job of adapting the offense to the skills and abilities of the players. The offense has changed dramatically every year that Shaw has been at the helm without firing anyone. You can expect to see changes next year as well.
Yeah, I think some people are overreacting to a small sample size here. Clearly the staff thought that the game plan that had won us tough games all year long would work against MSU, but it didn't work well enough. But can we really say that we don't threaten the whole field based on a season-long look? We attack the edges with our backs plenty, we run Hogan out of the pocket plenty, and we throw the ball all over the place. The thing that offense was missing was the intermediate-range passing attack, and while we don't really know why that was missing, if we take it for granted that the coaches would prefer to have one but thought there were good reasons why we couldn't do it, then it obviously limits us to where we were.
But, seriously, can anyone say that we haven't changed our offensive identity a bunch of times now? Maybe it's not as drastic as what some coaches do year-to-year, but we've gone from "feed Toby the ball" to "power running, but let Luck fling it to his TEs and WRs off play action" to "power running, QB running, and short-but-high-percentage throws to TEs" to "power running, and long-but-low-percentage throws to WRs". Reverses, sweeps, and wildcat have always been featured to various degrees.
Besides Shaw's first year, the offense has changed its emphasis pretty heavily to suit personnel. Maybe it's not exactly what we'd do, but it's clear it's being done. I'm not sure that we can conclude that Bloomgren is in over his head after his first year doing this.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - stupac2 - 01-04-2014
(01-04-2014, 09:17 AM)Extra Point link Wrote:I think the staff has done an excellent job of adapting the offense to the skills and abilities of the players. The offense has changed dramatically every year that Shaw has been at the helm without firing anyone. You can expect to see changes next year as well.
Yeah, I think some people are overreacting to a small sample size here. Clearly the staff thought that the game plan that had won us tough games all year long would work against MSU, but it didn't work well enough. But can we really say that we don't threaten the whole field based on a season-long look? We attack the edges with our backs plenty, we run Hogan out of the pocket plenty, and we throw the ball all over the place. The thing that offense was missing was the intermediate-range passing attack, and while we don't really know why that was missing, if we take it for granted that the coaches would prefer to have one but thought there were good reasons why we couldn't do it, then it obviously limits us to where we were.
But, seriously, can anyone say that we haven't changed our offensive identity a bunch of times now? Maybe it's not as drastic as what some coaches do year-to-year, but we've gone from "feed Toby the ball" to "power running, but let Luck fling it to his TEs and WRs off play action" to "power running, QB running, and short-but-high-percentage throws to TEs" to "power running, and long-but-low-percentage throws to WRs". Reverses, sweeps, and wildcat have always been featured to various degrees.
Besides Shaw's first year, the offense has changed its emphasis pretty heavily to suit personnel. Maybe it's not exactly what we'd do, but it's clear it's being done. I'm not sure that we can conclude that Bloomgren is in over his head after his first year doing this.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - washingtonismoney - 01-04-2014
Yeah, Shaw's had four distinct offenses through three quarterbacks. He's not someone who's unwilling to change. And it's a bit odd to go from a limited number of close losses and extrapolate the lessons from that. You could perform the same analysis on Oregon's last three losses and determine that its offense could use an overhaul using that method.
Still, it is fair to ask: if you want Stanford to be an elite team in 2014, then surely the offense must improve to the same degree (if not more) that the defense regresses. What's the best way to go about that? You have uncertainty in the running game with a lot of returning personnel in the passing game. That suggests more of an emphasis on passing in 2014. If we're to pass more, we probably can't get away with the ALL DEEP THROWS EVERYTHING approach. And we should probably focus more intently on getting the right players out there -- the wide receiver rotation was quite strange this year. Those are my main issues.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - washingtonismoney - 01-04-2014
Yeah, Shaw's had four distinct offenses through three quarterbacks. He's not someone who's unwilling to change. And it's a bit odd to go from a limited number of close losses and extrapolate the lessons from that. You could perform the same analysis on Oregon's last three losses and determine that its offense could use an overhaul using that method.
Still, it is fair to ask: if you want Stanford to be an elite team in 2014, then surely the offense must improve to the same degree (if not more) that the defense regresses. What's the best way to go about that? You have uncertainty in the running game with a lot of returning personnel in the passing game. That suggests more of an emphasis on passing in 2014. If we're to pass more, we probably can't get away with the ALL DEEP THROWS EVERYTHING approach. And we should probably focus more intently on getting the right players out there -- the wide receiver rotation was quite strange this year. Those are my main issues.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - Hulk01 - 01-04-2014
In the years ahead, we can can win the NCG if we have an outstanding QB and good-enough receivers and assuming that we maintain a high level at our other 18 positions.Â
The arrows are up. Not every piece is in place but we are searching for them.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - Hulk01 - 01-04-2014
In the years ahead, we can can win the NCG if we have an outstanding QB and good-enough receivers and assuming that we maintain a high level at our other 18 positions.Â
The arrows are up. Not every piece is in place but we are searching for them.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - Kathy - 01-04-2014
(01-04-2014, 10:27 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Still, it is fair to ask: if you want Stanford to be an elite team in 2014, then surely the offense must improve to the same degree (if not more) that the defense regresses.
Why let the defense regress? You need elite schemes on both sides of the ball.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - Kathy - 01-04-2014
(01-04-2014, 10:27 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Still, it is fair to ask: if you want Stanford to be an elite team in 2014, then surely the offense must improve to the same degree (if not more) that the defense regresses.
Why let the defense regress? You need elite schemes on both sides of the ball.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - jeffvdgo - 01-04-2014
(01-04-2014, 09:44 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:The thing that offense was missing was the intermediate-range passing attack, and while we don't really know why that was missing, if we take it for granted that the coaches would prefer to have one but thought there were good reasons why we couldn't do it, then it obviously limits us to where we were.
The intermediate passing game has been a weak point all year. With a month to study only one opponent, the coaching staff had to know MSU would come in with a stop the run/force the pass game plan. Maybe Shaw thought MSU wouldn't be able to execute the plan against our oline, but by the second half it was abundantly clear MSU's plan was working. So...knowing all that, the coaching staff must have really believed Hogan and/or the receiver core couldn't get it done. It's perplexing really - this team had one weak spot: intermediate passing. Of course MSU is going to play to that weakness. Stanford at the very least should have had some passing plays ready to go that can get you a 3rd and long or a execute a 2 minute drill if the run game is stuffed. The final drive was telling - 1:30 to gain 9 yards. I'm leaning toward coaching on this one and agree with the OP about a new OC to add some balance and unpredictability to the play calling.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - jeffvdgo - 01-04-2014
(01-04-2014, 09:44 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:The thing that offense was missing was the intermediate-range passing attack, and while we don't really know why that was missing, if we take it for granted that the coaches would prefer to have one but thought there were good reasons why we couldn't do it, then it obviously limits us to where we were.
The intermediate passing game has been a weak point all year. With a month to study only one opponent, the coaching staff had to know MSU would come in with a stop the run/force the pass game plan. Maybe Shaw thought MSU wouldn't be able to execute the plan against our oline, but by the second half it was abundantly clear MSU's plan was working. So...knowing all that, the coaching staff must have really believed Hogan and/or the receiver core couldn't get it done. It's perplexing really - this team had one weak spot: intermediate passing. Of course MSU is going to play to that weakness. Stanford at the very least should have had some passing plays ready to go that can get you a 3rd and long or a execute a 2 minute drill if the run game is stuffed. The final drive was telling - 1:30 to gain 9 yards. I'm leaning toward coaching on this one and agree with the OP about a new OC to add some balance and unpredictability to the play calling.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - washingtonismoney - 01-04-2014
(01-04-2014, 10:40 AM)Kathy link Wrote:Why let the defense regress? You need elite schemes on both sides of the ball.
Who said anything about letting the scheme regress? No, from a personnel standpoint, if you're losing Shayne Skov, Trent Murphy, Josh Mauro, Ben Gardner -- plus probably/possibly Ed Reynolds, Henry Anderson and A.J. Tarpley -- you're going to regress. Inevitable. There's little projected proven depth on the defensive line or defensive backfield. The only position I feel really good about is linebacker, at the moment. So the defense will surely be worse in 2014, even with excellent player development.
Re: Can Stanford Football get to the summit? - washingtonismoney - 01-04-2014
(01-04-2014, 10:40 AM)Kathy link Wrote:Why let the defense regress? You need elite schemes on both sides of the ball.
Who said anything about letting the scheme regress? No, from a personnel standpoint, if you're losing Shayne Skov, Trent Murphy, Josh Mauro, Ben Gardner -- plus probably/possibly Ed Reynolds, Henry Anderson and A.J. Tarpley -- you're going to regress. Inevitable. There's little projected proven depth on the defensive line or defensive backfield. The only position I feel really good about is linebacker, at the moment. So the defense will surely be worse in 2014, even with excellent player development.