10-23-2016, 12:37 PM
I'd like to see Chryst get a legit start before writing off the entire season.
Time for the KJ Costello era to start
I'd like to see Chryst get a legit start before writing off the entire season.
10-23-2016, 01:37 PM
(10-23-2016, 12:37 PM)HisKneeWasDown link Wrote:I'd like to see Chryst get a legit start before writing off the entire season.
I totally agree with this. Chryst has admittedly not been impressive in his appearances so far, but sheesh, who could be if you are only getting #2 reps during the week and get three plays to "show your stuff". He should be given the commitment from Shaw that he will get the reverse of the arrangement he has had with Burns so far this season. He should be told that the rest of the season is his to create his future.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
(10-23-2016, 12:37 PM)HisKneeWasDown link Wrote:I'd like to see Chryst get a legit start before writing off the entire season.
I totally agree with this. Chryst has admittedly not been impressive in his appearances so far, but sheesh, who could be if you are only getting #2 reps during the week and get three plays to "show your stuff". He should be given the commitment from Shaw that he will get the reverse of the arrangement he has had with Burns so far this season. He should be told that the rest of the season is his to create his future.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
10-23-2016, 03:36 PM
(10-23-2016, 08:05 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=15965.msg176878#msg176878 date=1477197679]This season is a waste and we may not even attain bowl eligibility
...What? I know that Colorado has historically been pretty bad, but my understanding is that we've probably played the 7 best teams we're going to face this year, and we're 4-3. There's no way we lose to Rice at home, so we just need to beat one of the dreadful Arizona/OSU/Oregon combo. If we don't improve our offense then we'll have a tough time at ×ÉÉ, but it wouldn't take a whole lot for us to win out.
[/quote]
The thing is, we need to score to win. We need to get into at least FG range to score 3. Conrad was automatic until he fell in love with the posts. Our defense is very good, but can we hold Oregon and Cal to 10?Â
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(10-23-2016, 08:05 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=15965.msg176878#msg176878 date=1477197679]This season is a waste and we may not even attain bowl eligibility
...What? I know that Colorado has historically been pretty bad, but my understanding is that we've probably played the 7 best teams we're going to face this year, and we're 4-3. There's no way we lose to Rice at home, so we just need to beat one of the dreadful Arizona/OSU/Oregon combo. If we don't improve our offense then we'll have a tough time at ×ÉÉ, but it wouldn't take a whole lot for us to win out.
[/quote]
The thing is, we need to score to win. We need to get into at least FG range to score 3. Conrad was automatic until he fell in love with the posts. Our defense is very good, but can we hold Oregon and Cal to 10?Â
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
10-23-2016, 10:40 PM
Costello looked impressive during the Fall scrimmage - perhaps more than the two ahead of him.
To me it seems like Burns is a bit slower to react. He probably does the best job reading the defense and calling the right play. I have assumed that may have been why he has started vs. Chryst. But he doesn't seem to adjust, move around, and make his reads very quickly once the play begins. Perhaps he's gun shy because of the porous offense line play or that's just his ability.
I think they have to give Chryst a shot at starting and running the offense - not just running. If that doesn't work out after a couple of games - then I think you burn Costello's red shirt and bring him in.
To me it seems like Burns is a bit slower to react. He probably does the best job reading the defense and calling the right play. I have assumed that may have been why he has started vs. Chryst. But he doesn't seem to adjust, move around, and make his reads very quickly once the play begins. Perhaps he's gun shy because of the porous offense line play or that's just his ability.
I think they have to give Chryst a shot at starting and running the offense - not just running. If that doesn't work out after a couple of games - then I think you burn Costello's red shirt and bring him in.
Costello looked impressive during the Fall scrimmage - perhaps more than the two ahead of him.
To me it seems like Burns is a bit slower to react. He probably does the best job reading the defense and calling the right play. I have assumed that may have been why he has started vs. Chryst. But he doesn't seem to adjust, move around, and make his reads very quickly once the play begins. Perhaps he's gun shy because of the porous offense line play or that's just his ability.
I think they have to give Chryst a shot at starting and running the offense - not just running. If that doesn't work out after a couple of games - then I think you burn Costello's red shirt and bring him in.
To me it seems like Burns is a bit slower to react. He probably does the best job reading the defense and calling the right play. I have assumed that may have been why he has started vs. Chryst. But he doesn't seem to adjust, move around, and make his reads very quickly once the play begins. Perhaps he's gun shy because of the porous offense line play or that's just his ability.
I think they have to give Chryst a shot at starting and running the offense - not just running. If that doesn't work out after a couple of games - then I think you burn Costello's red shirt and bring him in.
10-24-2016, 12:26 AM
The play calling delays started with Harballs and Roman and carried over to their 49er days. Taking timeouts is inexcusable.
Can SU hold Cal to 10 points? No way.
Can SU hold Cal to 10 points? No way.
10-24-2016, 08:21 AM
(10-24-2016, 12:26 AM)Phogge link Wrote:The play calling delays started with Harballs and Roman and carried over to their 49er days. Taking timeouts is inexcusable.
Can SU hold ×ÉÉ to 10 points? No way.
But we don't have to, every defense we play from here on out will be among the bottom half of those we've played, usually by a significant margin.
Here are the rankings in terms of yards per play of the teams on our schedule, I'll bold the remaining games:
11t: Colorado
11t: Washington
22: UCLA
47: USC
57: KSU
61: ND
64: OSU
81: WSU
95: Cal
110: Oregon
114: Arizona
128: Rice
So only OSU (who is otherwise dreadful) is among the top half of the country. Aside from them we're playing only woeful teams. The fact is that we've played a pretty tough slate with no patsies AND have a bunch of new starters AND have a bunch of injuries. It's definitely frustrating to watch Burns repeatedly throw inside against inside leverage and make other boneheaded mistakes, but it's not like we're losing to Rice. We're losing to pretty good teams! (WSU aside, I'm not sure what happened with that game.)
(10-24-2016, 12:26 AM)Phogge link Wrote:The play calling delays started with Harballs and Roman and carried over to their 49er days. Taking timeouts is inexcusable.
Can SU hold ×ÉÉ to 10 points? No way.
But we don't have to, every defense we play from here on out will be among the bottom half of those we've played, usually by a significant margin.
Here are the rankings in terms of yards per play of the teams on our schedule, I'll bold the remaining games:
11t: Colorado
11t: Washington
22: UCLA
47: USC
57: KSU
61: ND
64: OSU
81: WSU
95: Cal
110: Oregon
114: Arizona
128: Rice
So only OSU (who is otherwise dreadful) is among the top half of the country. Aside from them we're playing only woeful teams. The fact is that we've played a pretty tough slate with no patsies AND have a bunch of new starters AND have a bunch of injuries. It's definitely frustrating to watch Burns repeatedly throw inside against inside leverage and make other boneheaded mistakes, but it's not like we're losing to Rice. We're losing to pretty good teams! (WSU aside, I'm not sure what happened with that game.)
10-24-2016, 08:58 AM
(10-22-2016, 06:03 PM)somnambule link Wrote:...The list of highly-regarded QBs coming out of high school who just don't seem to develop in our "system" is getting pretty long: Nunes, Nottingham, Burns, Chryst. Even Hogan had a lot of questions about technique and lack of improvement throughout his career here (at least to my untrained eye, Hogan seemed like a great example of QB instincts that can't be taught rather than the product of great coaching). This goes beyond a specific player or the normal "hit rate" in recruiting. Yes, I realize it's still a very small sample size but none of these guys other than Hogan were even serviceable, much less average, D1 QBs. We aren't talking about a high bar here. And I'm willing to bet it's not because the players aren't trying hard enough. No way that many athletes who can get into Stanford aren't putting in what it takes to succeed.
...
But the QB development issue seems to be systemic. Maybe it's the complexity of the system or maybe it's the coaching. Maybe it's an issue with identifying the right fit for the system in recruiting. Maybe it's a combination or something else altogether. Whatever it is, that needs attention beyond just trying a different QB (although that seems needed for the near term as well).
The jump for QBs from one level to the next, from high school to college, from college to pros, is probably the highest for any position in any sport. The jump from high school to Stanford's playbook is probably the highest in all of college football. Given this dynamic, it seems foolish to skip a year for recruiting QBs. And it's probably a bad idea to take another project QB.
We should remember that no less a coach than Nick Saban had to go through 3? classes of QBs to find a starter this year.
(10-22-2016, 06:03 PM)somnambule link Wrote:...The list of highly-regarded QBs coming out of high school who just don't seem to develop in our "system" is getting pretty long: Nunes, Nottingham, Burns, Chryst. Even Hogan had a lot of questions about technique and lack of improvement throughout his career here (at least to my untrained eye, Hogan seemed like a great example of QB instincts that can't be taught rather than the product of great coaching). This goes beyond a specific player or the normal "hit rate" in recruiting. Yes, I realize it's still a very small sample size but none of these guys other than Hogan were even serviceable, much less average, D1 QBs. We aren't talking about a high bar here. And I'm willing to bet it's not because the players aren't trying hard enough. No way that many athletes who can get into Stanford aren't putting in what it takes to succeed.
...
But the QB development issue seems to be systemic. Maybe it's the complexity of the system or maybe it's the coaching. Maybe it's an issue with identifying the right fit for the system in recruiting. Maybe it's a combination or something else altogether. Whatever it is, that needs attention beyond just trying a different QB (although that seems needed for the near term as well).
The jump for QBs from one level to the next, from high school to college, from college to pros, is probably the highest for any position in any sport. The jump from high school to Stanford's playbook is probably the highest in all of college football. Given this dynamic, it seems foolish to skip a year for recruiting QBs. And it's probably a bad idea to take another project QB.
We should remember that no less a coach than Nick Saban had to go through 3? classes of QBs to find a starter this year.
10-24-2016, 09:34 AM
(10-24-2016, 08:21 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Phogge link=topic=15965.msg176982#msg176982 date=1477293972]
The play calling delays started with Harballs and Roman and carried over to their 49er days. Taking timeouts is inexcusable.
Can SU hold ×ÉÉ to 10 points? No way.
But we don't have to, every defense we play from here on out will be among the bottom half of those we've played, usually by a significant margin.
Here are the rankings in terms of yards per play of the teams on our schedule, I'll bold the remaining games:
11t: Colorado
11t: Washington
22: UCLA
47: Under Stanford Control (again)
57: KSU
61: ND
64: OSU
81: WSU
95: ×ÉÉ
110: Oregon
114: Arizona
128: Rice
So only OSU (who is otherwise dreadful) is among the top half of the country. Aside from them we're playing only woeful teams. The fact is that we've played a pretty tough slate with no patsies AND have a bunch of new starters AND have a bunch of injuries. It's definitely frustrating to watch Burns repeatedly throw inside against inside leverage and make other boneheaded mistakes, but it's not like we're losing to Rice. We're losing to pretty good teams! (WSU aside, I'm not sure what happened with that game.)
[/quote]
Well, #81 WSU held us to one meaningless touchdown on offense, so while I am not entirely pessimistic about our offense going forward, I am not overly optimistic either.
BC
(10-24-2016, 08:21 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Phogge link=topic=15965.msg176982#msg176982 date=1477293972]
The play calling delays started with Harballs and Roman and carried over to their 49er days. Taking timeouts is inexcusable.
Can SU hold ×ÉÉ to 10 points? No way.
But we don't have to, every defense we play from here on out will be among the bottom half of those we've played, usually by a significant margin.
Here are the rankings in terms of yards per play of the teams on our schedule, I'll bold the remaining games:
11t: Colorado
11t: Washington
22: UCLA
47: Under Stanford Control (again)
57: KSU
61: ND
64: OSU
81: WSU
95: ×ÉÉ
110: Oregon
114: Arizona
128: Rice
So only OSU (who is otherwise dreadful) is among the top half of the country. Aside from them we're playing only woeful teams. The fact is that we've played a pretty tough slate with no patsies AND have a bunch of new starters AND have a bunch of injuries. It's definitely frustrating to watch Burns repeatedly throw inside against inside leverage and make other boneheaded mistakes, but it's not like we're losing to Rice. We're losing to pretty good teams! (WSU aside, I'm not sure what happened with that game.)
[/quote]
Well, #81 WSU held us to one meaningless touchdown on offense, so while I am not entirely pessimistic about our offense going forward, I am not overly optimistic either.
BC
10-24-2016, 09:48 AM
To be fair, against WSU we had neither Love nor McCaffrey at 100%. I think if we had the version of Love that showed up against ND (or the version of McCaffrey from KSU/USC) we would've been a lot more competitive, but who really knows?
10-24-2016, 10:22 AM
I think the real issue is that a seriously hard look needs to be taken at Stanford's offensive philosophy. Great coaches adapt, and while Alabama might still be winning with Stanford's offense, the fact is it isn't. Nick Saban used to decry teams playing the way Alabama does now. The no huddle, spread, run pass-option offense Alabama now employs has simplified its offense to the point a True Frosh can start at QB.Â
Stanford's offense should allow a True Frosh to play if he is the most talented QB on the roster, particularly half-way into the season, and with all the virtual reality stuff they are using. If the offense is too complicated to allow the best talents to play early, it needs to be simplified because what good does complication do, when the offense is utterly hapless unless it has an overall #1 NFL drafted QB or a 5th year Senior in his 4th year as a starter, and multiple NFL draft picks on the OL? That combination will rarely be seen on a college football team. Even Alabama rarely has that.
Stanford doesn't need to turn into Cal, Oregon, or Washington State on offense, but it needs to bring in some offensive minds who can reduce the level of complexity to increase execution proficiency and make the offense much more difficult to defend, so it can score points with much greater ease, while preserving its ability to control the ball.
Stanford's offense should allow a True Frosh to play if he is the most talented QB on the roster, particularly half-way into the season, and with all the virtual reality stuff they are using. If the offense is too complicated to allow the best talents to play early, it needs to be simplified because what good does complication do, when the offense is utterly hapless unless it has an overall #1 NFL drafted QB or a 5th year Senior in his 4th year as a starter, and multiple NFL draft picks on the OL? That combination will rarely be seen on a college football team. Even Alabama rarely has that.
Stanford doesn't need to turn into Cal, Oregon, or Washington State on offense, but it needs to bring in some offensive minds who can reduce the level of complexity to increase execution proficiency and make the offense much more difficult to defend, so it can score points with much greater ease, while preserving its ability to control the ball.
I think the real issue is that a seriously hard look needs to be taken at Stanford's offensive philosophy. Great coaches adapt, and while Alabama might still be winning with Stanford's offense, the fact is it isn't. Nick Saban used to decry teams playing the way Alabama does now. The no huddle, spread, run pass-option offense Alabama now employs has simplified its offense to the point a True Frosh can start at QB.Â
Stanford's offense should allow a True Frosh to play if he is the most talented QB on the roster, particularly half-way into the season, and with all the virtual reality stuff they are using. If the offense is too complicated to allow the best talents to play early, it needs to be simplified because what good does complication do, when the offense is utterly hapless unless it has an overall #1 NFL drafted QB or a 5th year Senior in his 4th year as a starter, and multiple NFL draft picks on the OL? That combination will rarely be seen on a college football team. Even Alabama rarely has that.
Stanford doesn't need to turn into Cal, Oregon, or Washington State on offense, but it needs to bring in some offensive minds who can reduce the level of complexity to increase execution proficiency and make the offense much more difficult to defend, so it can score points with much greater ease, while preserving its ability to control the ball.
Stanford's offense should allow a True Frosh to play if he is the most talented QB on the roster, particularly half-way into the season, and with all the virtual reality stuff they are using. If the offense is too complicated to allow the best talents to play early, it needs to be simplified because what good does complication do, when the offense is utterly hapless unless it has an overall #1 NFL drafted QB or a 5th year Senior in his 4th year as a starter, and multiple NFL draft picks on the OL? That combination will rarely be seen on a college football team. Even Alabama rarely has that.
Stanford doesn't need to turn into Cal, Oregon, or Washington State on offense, but it needs to bring in some offensive minds who can reduce the level of complexity to increase execution proficiency and make the offense much more difficult to defend, so it can score points with much greater ease, while preserving its ability to control the ball.
10-24-2016, 10:55 AM
(10-24-2016, 10:22 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Stanford doesn't need to turn into ×ÉÉ, Oregon, or Washington State on offense, but it needs to bring in some offensive minds who can reduce the level of complexity to increase execution proficiency and make the offense much more difficult to defend, so it can score points with much greater ease, while preserving its ability to control the ball.
It's so easy! An uncomplicated offense that scores lots of points and controls the clock, how hard could it be.
I trust Shaw to get us on track. Maybe a new offensive philosophy is warranted, but I think he can figure that out better than us fans. The fact is he has been pretty versatile this year with his play calling to try and get things going, but it hasn't worked out. Maybe our personnel just isn't up to snuff, and maybe there is something with the offensive philosophy that isn't ideal for the players we have, but who is to say they would be any more successful in the simple, high scoring but also ball controlling offense you propose.
(10-24-2016, 10:22 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Stanford doesn't need to turn into ×ÉÉ, Oregon, or Washington State on offense, but it needs to bring in some offensive minds who can reduce the level of complexity to increase execution proficiency and make the offense much more difficult to defend, so it can score points with much greater ease, while preserving its ability to control the ball.
It's so easy! An uncomplicated offense that scores lots of points and controls the clock, how hard could it be.
I trust Shaw to get us on track. Maybe a new offensive philosophy is warranted, but I think he can figure that out better than us fans. The fact is he has been pretty versatile this year with his play calling to try and get things going, but it hasn't worked out. Maybe our personnel just isn't up to snuff, and maybe there is something with the offensive philosophy that isn't ideal for the players we have, but who is to say they would be any more successful in the simple, high scoring but also ball controlling offense you propose.
10-24-2016, 11:03 AM
The thing I keep coming back to is the first two games. We weren't playing world-beater defenses, but they were pretty good. And we put up over 3 points per drive! This offensive scheme with this personnel can definitely succeed, the question is why we stopped. Did Burns regress? Did defenses adapt with more tape? Did KSU and USC just not have the personnel to stop us? (I really doubt that one.) Is it mostly injuries?
Yes, our offense has been horrible since those first two games. And if we had played Rice and UC Davis for them then it wouldn't be meaningful. But we played good teams, so something clearly changed since then.
Yes, our offense has been horrible since those first two games. And if we had played Rice and UC Davis for them then it wouldn't be meaningful. But we played good teams, so something clearly changed since then.
The thing I keep coming back to is the first two games. We weren't playing world-beater defenses, but they were pretty good. And we put up over 3 points per drive! This offensive scheme with this personnel can definitely succeed, the question is why we stopped. Did Burns regress? Did defenses adapt with more tape? Did KSU and USC just not have the personnel to stop us? (I really doubt that one.) Is it mostly injuries?
Yes, our offense has been horrible since those first two games. And if we had played Rice and UC Davis for them then it wouldn't be meaningful. But we played good teams, so something clearly changed since then.
Yes, our offense has been horrible since those first two games. And if we had played Rice and UC Davis for them then it wouldn't be meaningful. But we played good teams, so something clearly changed since then.
10-24-2016, 11:11 AM
I say we get Mike Sanford back. There's no coaching job security there and Shaw must be a better boss than Purple Man.
I say we get Mike Sanford back. There's no coaching job security there and Shaw must be a better boss than Purple Man.
10-24-2016, 11:30 AM
(10-24-2016, 11:03 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:The thing I keep coming back to is the first two games. We weren't playing world-beater defenses, but they were pretty good. And we put up over 3 points per drive! This offensive scheme with this personnel can definitely succeed, the question is why we stopped. Did Burns regress? Did defenses adapt with more tape? Did KSU and Under Stanford Control (again) just not have the personnel to stop us? (I really doubt that one.) Is it mostly injuries?The first two games were, I believe, the only two games in which we had our planned offensive line all starting and all healthy. At least that is what I took from Shaw's press conference.
Yes, our offense has been horrible since those first two games. And if we had played Rice and UC Davis for them then it wouldn't be meaningful. But we played good teams, so something clearly changed since then.
(10-24-2016, 11:03 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:The thing I keep coming back to is the first two games. We weren't playing world-beater defenses, but they were pretty good. And we put up over 3 points per drive! This offensive scheme with this personnel can definitely succeed, the question is why we stopped. Did Burns regress? Did defenses adapt with more tape? Did KSU and Under Stanford Control (again) just not have the personnel to stop us? (I really doubt that one.) Is it mostly injuries?The first two games were, I believe, the only two games in which we had our planned offensive line all starting and all healthy. At least that is what I took from Shaw's press conference.
Yes, our offense has been horrible since those first two games. And if we had played Rice and UC Davis for them then it wouldn't be meaningful. But we played good teams, so something clearly changed since then.
10-24-2016, 11:34 AM
(10-24-2016, 11:30 AM)81alum link Wrote:The first two games were, I believe, the only two games in which we had our planned offensive line all starting and all healthy. At least that is what I took from Shaw's press conference.
I mean, I've suspected since WSU that McCaffrey and some members of the OL were injured in that game but we didn't hear about it, so Shaw confirming the OL part isn't a big surprise. It's definitely frustrating that we're going through this, but since this is by far the most banged up we've been under Shaw (and probably also under Harbaugh) I have a hard time getting toooooo worked up about it. But this last game wasn't really that, which is probably why Shaw was so angry about it.
(10-24-2016, 11:30 AM)81alum link Wrote:The first two games were, I believe, the only two games in which we had our planned offensive line all starting and all healthy. At least that is what I took from Shaw's press conference.
I mean, I've suspected since WSU that McCaffrey and some members of the OL were injured in that game but we didn't hear about it, so Shaw confirming the OL part isn't a big surprise. It's definitely frustrating that we're going through this, but since this is by far the most banged up we've been under Shaw (and probably also under Harbaugh) I have a hard time getting toooooo worked up about it. But this last game wasn't really that, which is probably why Shaw was so angry about it.
10-24-2016, 12:04 PM
Has anyone taken the time to breakdown what is wrong with Stanford's offense, with still and video footage online anywhere? I haven't watched many game replays and haven't really taken any time to study it so can't comment too intelligently as to what is happening, but I do know Burns struggles to read defenses and too often doesn't see open receivers.
Has anyone taken the time to breakdown what is wrong with Stanford's offense, with still and video footage online anywhere? I haven't watched many game replays and haven't really taken any time to study it so can't comment too intelligently as to what is happening, but I do know Burns struggles to read defenses and too often doesn't see open receivers.
10-24-2016, 12:39 PM
I agree that the problem is multidimensional and NOT all due to the play of the quarterback, coaching or playbook.
In effect isn't the playbook "simplified" before every game with the coaches identifying the plays they think will be effective, then practicing those all week? So are we unable to identify the proper set of plays in advance of the game, or is the team simply unable to execute the plays properly. If you can't make the blocks, run the patterns or make the throws then you are going to have a pretty miserable offense. I see us as a team that blocks poorly most of the time. On pass plays, even when the tackles make their blocks, the middle gets forced back towards the QB so he has now where to to step up away from the outside rush. When we try a bubble screen, the player assigned as the blocker often misses his block or ends up making a block in the back causing a penalty. It used to be that our back could count on making 2 or 3 yards before any contact, now they end up making first contact behind the line of scrimmage. Outside of Irwin and Schultz it seems like our other receivers have regressed in terms of their routes. Burns is obviously feeling lots of pressure to be the man and make a play to keep drives alive, and at this point, he does not seem to be capable of that, but more often makes big mistakes.
It seems to me that most of our past teams have executed the same play sets very effectively under the same coaches. Now they don't seem capable of doing it. I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc. Unfortunately the rest of the team has to do their part. Our execution is so poor I am not sure any play set can be run effectively.Â
I am at a loss to understand why our offensive guys simply don't seem to be able to run a play effectively often enough to have an effective offense. Talent? Coaching? Scheme doesn't fit the players? if yes, what scheme would?
No matter who is quarterback, the other 10 guys have to do their part.
In effect isn't the playbook "simplified" before every game with the coaches identifying the plays they think will be effective, then practicing those all week? So are we unable to identify the proper set of plays in advance of the game, or is the team simply unable to execute the plays properly. If you can't make the blocks, run the patterns or make the throws then you are going to have a pretty miserable offense. I see us as a team that blocks poorly most of the time. On pass plays, even when the tackles make their blocks, the middle gets forced back towards the QB so he has now where to to step up away from the outside rush. When we try a bubble screen, the player assigned as the blocker often misses his block or ends up making a block in the back causing a penalty. It used to be that our back could count on making 2 or 3 yards before any contact, now they end up making first contact behind the line of scrimmage. Outside of Irwin and Schultz it seems like our other receivers have regressed in terms of their routes. Burns is obviously feeling lots of pressure to be the man and make a play to keep drives alive, and at this point, he does not seem to be capable of that, but more often makes big mistakes.
It seems to me that most of our past teams have executed the same play sets very effectively under the same coaches. Now they don't seem capable of doing it. I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc. Unfortunately the rest of the team has to do their part. Our execution is so poor I am not sure any play set can be run effectively.Â
I am at a loss to understand why our offensive guys simply don't seem to be able to run a play effectively often enough to have an effective offense. Talent? Coaching? Scheme doesn't fit the players? if yes, what scheme would?
No matter who is quarterback, the other 10 guys have to do their part.
I agree that the problem is multidimensional and NOT all due to the play of the quarterback, coaching or playbook.
In effect isn't the playbook "simplified" before every game with the coaches identifying the plays they think will be effective, then practicing those all week? So are we unable to identify the proper set of plays in advance of the game, or is the team simply unable to execute the plays properly. If you can't make the blocks, run the patterns or make the throws then you are going to have a pretty miserable offense. I see us as a team that blocks poorly most of the time. On pass plays, even when the tackles make their blocks, the middle gets forced back towards the QB so he has now where to to step up away from the outside rush. When we try a bubble screen, the player assigned as the blocker often misses his block or ends up making a block in the back causing a penalty. It used to be that our back could count on making 2 or 3 yards before any contact, now they end up making first contact behind the line of scrimmage. Outside of Irwin and Schultz it seems like our other receivers have regressed in terms of their routes. Burns is obviously feeling lots of pressure to be the man and make a play to keep drives alive, and at this point, he does not seem to be capable of that, but more often makes big mistakes.
It seems to me that most of our past teams have executed the same play sets very effectively under the same coaches. Now they don't seem capable of doing it. I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc. Unfortunately the rest of the team has to do their part. Our execution is so poor I am not sure any play set can be run effectively.Â
I am at a loss to understand why our offensive guys simply don't seem to be able to run a play effectively often enough to have an effective offense. Talent? Coaching? Scheme doesn't fit the players? if yes, what scheme would?
No matter who is quarterback, the other 10 guys have to do their part.
In effect isn't the playbook "simplified" before every game with the coaches identifying the plays they think will be effective, then practicing those all week? So are we unable to identify the proper set of plays in advance of the game, or is the team simply unable to execute the plays properly. If you can't make the blocks, run the patterns or make the throws then you are going to have a pretty miserable offense. I see us as a team that blocks poorly most of the time. On pass plays, even when the tackles make their blocks, the middle gets forced back towards the QB so he has now where to to step up away from the outside rush. When we try a bubble screen, the player assigned as the blocker often misses his block or ends up making a block in the back causing a penalty. It used to be that our back could count on making 2 or 3 yards before any contact, now they end up making first contact behind the line of scrimmage. Outside of Irwin and Schultz it seems like our other receivers have regressed in terms of their routes. Burns is obviously feeling lots of pressure to be the man and make a play to keep drives alive, and at this point, he does not seem to be capable of that, but more often makes big mistakes.
It seems to me that most of our past teams have executed the same play sets very effectively under the same coaches. Now they don't seem capable of doing it. I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc. Unfortunately the rest of the team has to do their part. Our execution is so poor I am not sure any play set can be run effectively.Â
I am at a loss to understand why our offensive guys simply don't seem to be able to run a play effectively often enough to have an effective offense. Talent? Coaching? Scheme doesn't fit the players? if yes, what scheme would?
No matter who is quarterback, the other 10 guys have to do their part.
10-24-2016, 12:53 PM
(10-24-2016, 12:39 PM)GK3 link Wrote:I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc.ÂThis has been an absolute mystery to me why this is not done consistently, given both of their talents. Swing passes to backs like Love and CMac should be deadly alternatives to running in the box. Those are basically running plays that put the back in space. Why not have both Love and CMac in, with one in position for an inside run and one moving out for a swing pass, and have Burns choose based on how the box is stacked. Is Burns capable of throwing swing passes?
(10-24-2016, 12:39 PM)GK3 link Wrote:I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc.ÂThis has been an absolute mystery to me why this is not done consistently, given both of their talents. Swing passes to backs like Love and CMac should be deadly alternatives to running in the box. Those are basically running plays that put the back in space. Why not have both Love and CMac in, with one in position for an inside run and one moving out for a swing pass, and have Burns choose based on how the box is stacked. Is Burns capable of throwing swing passes?
10-24-2016, 01:06 PM
Swing passes can be hard given the precision required (depth of field precision) and the outsized consequences of a missed swing pass (which is usually a fumble that the defense recovers or runs back for a touchdown). If we can't trust Burns downfield, a swing pass could be bad. I like tosses and option pitches to start...
Swing passes can be hard given the precision required (depth of field precision) and the outsized consequences of a missed swing pass (which is usually a fumble that the defense recovers or runs back for a touchdown). If we can't trust Burns downfield, a swing pass could be bad. I like tosses and option pitches to start...
10-24-2016, 02:22 PM
(10-24-2016, 12:04 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Has anyone taken the time to breakdown what is wrong with Stanford's offense, with still and video footage online anywhere? I haven't watched many game replays and haven't really taken any time to study it so can't comment too intelligently as to what is happening, but I do know Burns struggles to read defenses and too often doesn't see open receivers.
RJ Abetya on the Bootleg site has done so for a number games. They are usually behind the paywall, but if you value that type of content, it may be worth paying for. Here, for example is the breakdown of Burns' first half against Notre Dame.
http://www.scout.com/college/stanford/st...oon-is-now
BC
(10-24-2016, 12:04 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Has anyone taken the time to breakdown what is wrong with Stanford's offense, with still and video footage online anywhere? I haven't watched many game replays and haven't really taken any time to study it so can't comment too intelligently as to what is happening, but I do know Burns struggles to read defenses and too often doesn't see open receivers.
RJ Abetya on the Bootleg site has done so for a number games. They are usually behind the paywall, but if you value that type of content, it may be worth paying for. Here, for example is the breakdown of Burns' first half against Notre Dame.
http://www.scout.com/college/stanford/st...oon-is-now
BC
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »