The CardBoard
Ogres, elephants and monsters: The Stanford O-Line - 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: Ogres, elephants and monsters: The Stanford O-Line (/thread-7665.html)


Ogres, elephants and monsters: The Stanford O-Line - Trevmiesterj - 09-02-2014

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2014/09/02/college-football-stanford-cardinal-offensive-line/14979515/

A surprisingly fine piece on the Stanford Offensive line from an unlikely source in the USA Today.  The tie in to the NFL coaching community is especially impressive.





Re: Ogres, elephants and monsters: The Stanford O-Line - CornFed - 09-02-2014

That was a very enjoyable article.  I am glad we have a head coach who says something is "neat"; meaning it is good.  And we have an offensive coordinator who describes the progress of the linemen as "dang good".

And I really like Shaw's explicit confidence about next year.  These are exciting times, indeed, to be a Stanford football fan.

Re: Ogres, elephants and monsters: The Stanford O-Line - Hank 91 - 09-02-2014

Here's a quote that jumped out:

Quote:"You face them, and the biggest struggle a lot of times is getting guys lined up," Ulbrich says. "Guys have never even seen those formations, let alone those styles of runs. I think the uniqueness and the fact that they're different from what we see week to week is a brobdingnagian advantage for them."

What's interesting is that those same words could've been used to describe the Oregon offense back in 2008 or 2009. I remember watching Oregon when Jeremiah Masoli was the quarterback there, when they were running all those misdirections and fakes in the backfield. It was like nothing I had seen before. As that offense evolved, the main gimmick was the brobdingnagian variety of formations -- again, like nothing I had seen before.

Now with Stanford, what's old is new again.

Re: Ogres, elephants and monsters: The Stanford O-Line - 81alum - 09-03-2014

(09-02-2014, 11:54 PM)Hank 91 link Wrote:Here's a quote that jumped out:

Quote:"You face them, and the biggest struggle a lot of times is getting guys lined up," Ulbrich says. "Guys have never even seen those formations, let alone those styles of runs. I think the uniqueness and the fact that they're different from what we see week to week is a brobdingnagian advantage for them."

What's interesting is that those same words could've been used to describe the Oregon offense back in 2008 or 2009. I remember watching Oregon when Jeremiah Masoli was the quarterback there, when they were running all those misdirections and fakes in the backfield. It was like nothing I had seen before. As that offense evolved, the main gimmick was the brobdingnagian variety of formations -- again, like nothing I had seen before.

Now with Stanford, what's old is new again.
Hank, exactly right.  And it is also exactly how Shaughnessy did it in 1940, or Walsh in 1977.  From week to week, your defensive players get better and better at defending cookie cutter offenses;  at the same time, your opponent's defenses are playing your style of offense for the first time in the year.  It is as if every week is the first week of the season for your opponent's defenses.

By the way, this is also why I suspect that UCLA did so much better against us in the 2012 CCG than they did the week before.   

Re: Ogres, elephants and monsters: The Stanford O-Line - CTcard - 09-03-2014

(09-02-2014, 11:54 PM)Hank 91 link Wrote:Here's a quote that jumped out:

Quote:"You face them, and the biggest struggle a lot of times is getting guys lined up," Ulbrich says. "Guys have never even seen those formations, let alone those styles of runs. I think the uniqueness and the fact that they're different from what we see week to week is a brobdingnagian advantage for them."

What's interesting is that those same words could've been used to describe the Oregon offense back in 2008 or 2009. I remember watching Oregon when Jeremiah Masoli was the quarterback there, when they were running all those misdirections and fakes in the backfield. It was like nothing I had seen before. As that offense evolved, the main gimmick was the brobdingnagian variety of formations -- again, like nothing I had seen before.

It's quite possible I have reading comprehension issues (or other issues), but as I read your note I think it is not really true.

In many ways, beyond tempo, the Stanford offense and the Oregon offense have been antitheses of each other.

The Oregon offense, at least under Chip Kelly (OC in 2007, HC in 2009) has aimed to simplify all pre-snap decisions and changes in order to promote speed. They really have very few formations and even plays. While overall, they use a lot of personnel most years, they don't do it on a situational basis but rather series to series and with an eye towards having interchangeable players who can come in and do the same things as the guy being replaced.

Oregon seems to run only one formation: the QB in the shotgun, one back almost beside the QB, four receivers - sometimes the fourth (who usually is more or less a traditional TE) is in tight to the line sometimes split off.
Oregon runs a true read-option play a very high percentage of the time. Even when they don't the play is usually based upon a read-option look but the motion to the back is purely play-action to roll into the pocket for passing. All those misdirections and fakes are the options available to the QB, and more or less they are there every time.

The decision making for Oregon is largely post-snap, i.e. the plays generally start the same and depending on what the defense tries to take away, the QB reacts to attack something else. Obviously requires a QB who can make quick, intuitive decisions.

Oregon's opponents have seen the formations and plays coming at them, but they are not always ready when the snap comes and Oregon has usually been great at the in-play adjustments particularly against an off-balance defense.



Stanford on the other hand runs a ton of formations: from empty backfield shotgun/five wide, to zero-receiver ogre, to one-back zone read, to two back standard pro-set, to three in the backfield power-set, etc. etc. Those different formations are associated with different personnel groupings, often with players who have specialized at something. One of the main goals is to get a personnel advantage for a particular play or a particular situation - be it more big guys blocking at the point of attack than big guys defending, or more fast receivers than fast cover guys, etc.

That requires several things. First of all, substitutions of these differing personnel - which by rule means allowing the defense time to also substitute. Then huddling to keep everyone on the same page and into the same formation. The QB is asked to do more pre-snap reads and adjusting of the calls (including blocking assignments and formation - not just the specific play). Generally, the QB is asked to do less post-snap reads, though we do run a read-option run with Hogan fairly often.

So Stanford's opponents have generally not seen the plays and formations coming at them very often. Sometimes that doesn't matter, and of course sometimes those personnel and formation adjustments tip off what play is called which helps the defense if it is physically prepared to handle what's coming at them. But sometimes it works quite well.


----------
Yeah, not everything is opposite between the two. Stanford likes to run the read option from time to time, Oregon actually runs a power-look out of the read-option quite often and uses more of a traditional TE than most spread teams. But still, on balance, the two teams take opposite approaches to the inherent trade-offs in running an offense, which is one thing that has made the games between the two so fascinating.

Some relevant viewing:
2009: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB7r5-qOvvI
2010 lowlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG1FAGwL3Zg
{ or Oregon O vs Stanford D: } https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6AkjMXYy7g
2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYrxlrrkECI
2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv4yWeOyins
2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jxu6sSDjaA