[Langdude]

We're debating who should be our next OC when sports reporters are getting killed courageously doing their job figuring out depth chart projections? Shame on us for such thoughtless conjecturing. Shame.

-m.

[Langdude]

We're debating who should be our next OC when sports reporters are getting killed courageously doing their job figuring out depth chart projections? Shame on us for such thoughtless conjecturing. Shame.

-m.

[Spiny_Norman]

Nice compliment for Bloomgren from Sam Schwartzstein, the center on the first Shaw team in 2011.

No one is more deserving of the head job @RiceFootball than @mbloom11 . Unbelievable coach with patience of a saint and passion for helping players be the best versions of themselves. Pulled me out of a pit and helped show me how I can be a contributor.

[Spiny_Norman]

Nice compliment for Bloomgren from Sam Schwartzstein, the center on the first Shaw team in 2011.

No one is more deserving of the head job @RiceFootball than @mbloom11 . Unbelievable coach with patience of a saint and passion for helping players be the best versions of themselves. Pulled me out of a pit and helped show me how I can be a contributor.

[CTcard]

We're debating who should be our next OC when sports reporters are getting killed courageously doing their job figuring out depth chart projections? Shame on us for such thoughtless conjecturing. Shame.

-m.

You got a nice meme going.

[CTcard]

We're debating who should be our next OC when sports reporters are getting killed courageously doing their job figuring out depth chart projections? Shame on us for such thoughtless conjecturing. Shame.

-m.

You got a nice meme going.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=stanfan95118 link=topic=18293.msg217134#msg217134 date=1512501560]
[quote author=gocard14 link=topic=18293.msg217132#msg217132 date=1512501005]
I dont know who the most highly regarded Oline coaches are, but I imagine that Stanford is a plum job for most of them given our style and recruiting.

As for OC, it’s a tougher call. I would prefer that Shaw bring in someone with new ideas to mesh with our offense a la Troy Walters or Helfrich, but doubt we could get either.

I also wouldn’t be surprised to see an NFL name like Bill Lazor (interim OC in Cincinnati who will likely soon be jobless), Mike Munchack (Steelers Oline coach, former head coach), or John Defillipo (QB coach in philly, former browns and SJ state OC)

Why would Walters not want to come home to Stanford?

Regardless of who is hired, I am interested to see if the O line spits remain the same in the short yardage package. In some cases I like it, but penetration from the edges needs to be addressed
[/quote]

Perhaps he is under consideration as a head coach somewhere.

BC
[/quote]

Walters interviewed for the UCF HC job but they hired Josh Heupel today. Heupel has already hired a DC but no word on an OC.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=stanfan95118 link=topic=18293.msg217134#msg217134 date=1512501560]
[quote author=gocard14 link=topic=18293.msg217132#msg217132 date=1512501005]
I dont know who the most highly regarded Oline coaches are, but I imagine that Stanford is a plum job for most of them given our style and recruiting.

As for OC, it’s a tougher call. I would prefer that Shaw bring in someone with new ideas to mesh with our offense a la Troy Walters or Helfrich, but doubt we could get either.

I also wouldn’t be surprised to see an NFL name like Bill Lazor (interim OC in Cincinnati who will likely soon be jobless), Mike Munchack (Steelers Oline coach, former head coach), or John Defillipo (QB coach in philly, former browns and SJ state OC)

Why would Walters not want to come home to Stanford?

Regardless of who is hired, I am interested to see if the O line spits remain the same in the short yardage package. In some cases I like it, but penetration from the edges needs to be addressed
[/quote]

Perhaps he is under consideration as a head coach somewhere.

BC
[/quote]

Walters interviewed for the UCF HC job but they hired Josh Heupel today. Heupel has already hired a DC but no word on an OC.

[YA_TITTLE]

Good luck Bloomgren. Please take Tavita Pritchard with you!

[YA_TITTLE]

Good luck Bloomgren. Please take Tavita Pritchard with you!

[stupac2]

Nice compliment for Bloomgren from Sam Schwartzstein, the center on the first Shaw team in 2011.

No one is more deserving of the head job @RiceFootball than @mbloom11 . Unbelievable coach with patience of a saint and passion for helping players be the best versions of themselves. Pulled me out of a pit and helped show me how I can be a contributor.

It's always interesting to me how the things we fans see from coaches (like in-game adjustments or playcalling or whatever) are often some of the least important things they do, but since it's all we see they become all-important. In some regards a program might be better off having coaches who, though perhaps not the most creative playcallers, are great at getting young men to believe in themselves and each other. Sounds like Bloomgren had that gift, and I think it's something that Shaw prizes (as he should).

[stupac2]

Nice compliment for Bloomgren from Sam Schwartzstein, the center on the first Shaw team in 2011.

No one is more deserving of the head job @RiceFootball than @mbloom11 . Unbelievable coach with patience of a saint and passion for helping players be the best versions of themselves. Pulled me out of a pit and helped show me how I can be a contributor.

It's always interesting to me how the things we fans see from coaches (like in-game adjustments or playcalling or whatever) are often some of the least important things they do, but since it's all we see they become all-important. In some regards a program might be better off having coaches who, though perhaps not the most creative playcallers, are great at getting young men to believe in themselves and each other. Sounds like Bloomgren had that gift, and I think it's something that Shaw prizes (as he should).

[murky]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18293.msg217157#msg217157 date=1512506447]
Nice compliment for Bloomgren from Sam Schwartzstein, the center on the first Shaw team in 2011.

No one is more deserving of the head job @RiceFootball than @mbloom11 . Unbelievable coach with patience of a saint and passion for helping players be the best versions of themselves. Pulled me out of a pit and helped show me how I can be a contributor.

It's always interesting to me how the things we fans see from coaches (like in-game adjustments or playcalling or whatever) are often some of the least important things they do, but since it's all we see they become all-important. In some regards a program might be better off having coaches who, though perhaps not the most creative playcallers, are great at getting young men to believe in themselves and each other. Sounds like Bloomgren had that gift, and I think it's something that Shaw prizes (as he should).
[/quote]

I often have similar thoughts.

[murky]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18293.msg217157#msg217157 date=1512506447]
Nice compliment for Bloomgren from Sam Schwartzstein, the center on the first Shaw team in 2011.

No one is more deserving of the head job @RiceFootball than @mbloom11 . Unbelievable coach with patience of a saint and passion for helping players be the best versions of themselves. Pulled me out of a pit and helped show me how I can be a contributor.

It's always interesting to me how the things we fans see from coaches (like in-game adjustments or playcalling or whatever) are often some of the least important things they do, but since it's all we see they become all-important. In some regards a program might be better off having coaches who, though perhaps not the most creative playcallers, are great at getting young men to believe in themselves and each other. Sounds like Bloomgren had that gift, and I think it's something that Shaw prizes (as he should).
[/quote]

I often have similar thoughts.

[djones]

would like to see Jeff Davidson hired

[djones]

would like to see Jeff Davidson hired

[CTcard]

Going 'round the horn on the Bloomgren thread ...


Congratulations to Bloomgren. It's good for Stanford because we really want to have a program successful enough that our coordinators get hired as head coaches.
I am less sure that it will be good for Stanford because the next OC will necessarily be better, but we will see.

The Schwartzstein tribute is moving and hints at a great job by the coach. It's a little tougher to have that kind of one-on-one involvement when you are the head guy so it may not be directly relevant to his success in this next endeavor, but still a great compliment to the man.

Rice is a tough place to build a career. I wonder if Bailiff had any interest from other programs after going 10-3 in year two or after three strong years 2012-14?

As for his replacement as OC, I suspect the best candidate for the job is somebody not on the radar as posted here. Think about our past successful coordinators, while they weren't unknowns in the football world but weren't on typical fans' wish lists (with the caveat that Stanford fans certainly knew of the guys who were internal hires).
Fangio - Mason - Anderson
Roman (was he ever exactly OC?) - Pep Hamilton

My general thought is somebody with NFL experience would be good - but it depends far more on the detailed abilities of the individual.

A successful OC at Stanford will have to be able to either convince Shaw or agree with Shaw about what our approach should be. If that were Walters or Helfrich, that would either mean a lot of convincing or running something drastically different from what they have done most recently. It certainly could be possible, but it would be a big change on one side or the other. As for Husak, I have heard only positive things about the guy, but as far as coaching experience goes I think his entire resume is a single year as a graduate assistant at Stanford. I tend to think that the job involves enough skills that you have to have some kind of relevant experience to be good at it.

In thinking about what our approach should be, it is worth noting that our offenses have often been good to very good, but have indeed suffered from meltdowns - winflop's "mercurial" I would presume.
That up and down nature of our offense covers both season to season variation, and at least this year, within a season. Right now, our offense ranks #19 in the country in yds/play, #24 #17 in pts/drive, #16 in FEI, and #29 in S&P+. Those aren't spectacular rankings, but probably better than most here would guess. Those averages include the hideous outputs vs. OSU, WSU, and SDSU.
Personally, I would like to see a continuation of our focus on a run-first, run-power game but coupled to better counters when things go off the rails. That might also mean some simplification so that the offense doesn't take such a hit with inexperienced QBs and OLs.

My gut feeling is that if we were to do an internal hire for OC, it would be more likely to be Ron Gould than Pritchard. Gould has a lot more experience, has been a head coach, and doesn't seem either too young or too old (52 I think). But that is purely a guess.

[CTcard]

Going 'round the horn on the Bloomgren thread ...


Congratulations to Bloomgren. It's good for Stanford because we really want to have a program successful enough that our coordinators get hired as head coaches.
I am less sure that it will be good for Stanford because the next OC will necessarily be better, but we will see.

The Schwartzstein tribute is moving and hints at a great job by the coach. It's a little tougher to have that kind of one-on-one involvement when you are the head guy so it may not be directly relevant to his success in this next endeavor, but still a great compliment to the man.

Rice is a tough place to build a career. I wonder if Bailiff had any interest from other programs after going 10-3 in year two or after three strong years 2012-14?

As for his replacement as OC, I suspect the best candidate for the job is somebody not on the radar as posted here. Think about our past successful coordinators, while they weren't unknowns in the football world but weren't on typical fans' wish lists (with the caveat that Stanford fans certainly knew of the guys who were internal hires).
Fangio - Mason - Anderson
Roman (was he ever exactly OC?) - Pep Hamilton

My general thought is somebody with NFL experience would be good - but it depends far more on the detailed abilities of the individual.

A successful OC at Stanford will have to be able to either convince Shaw or agree with Shaw about what our approach should be. If that were Walters or Helfrich, that would either mean a lot of convincing or running something drastically different from what they have done most recently. It certainly could be possible, but it would be a big change on one side or the other. As for Husak, I have heard only positive things about the guy, but as far as coaching experience goes I think his entire resume is a single year as a graduate assistant at Stanford. I tend to think that the job involves enough skills that you have to have some kind of relevant experience to be good at it.

In thinking about what our approach should be, it is worth noting that our offenses have often been good to very good, but have indeed suffered from meltdowns - winflop's "mercurial" I would presume.
That up and down nature of our offense covers both season to season variation, and at least this year, within a season. Right now, our offense ranks #19 in the country in yds/play, #24 #17 in pts/drive, #16 in FEI, and #29 in S&P+. Those aren't spectacular rankings, but probably better than most here would guess. Those averages include the hideous outputs vs. OSU, WSU, and SDSU.
Personally, I would like to see a continuation of our focus on a run-first, run-power game but coupled to better counters when things go off the rails. That might also mean some simplification so that the offense doesn't take such a hit with inexperienced QBs and OLs.

My gut feeling is that if we were to do an internal hire for OC, it would be more likely to be Ron Gould than Pritchard. Gould has a lot more experience, has been a head coach, and doesn't seem either too young or too old (52 I think). But that is purely a guess.

[CTcard]

would like to see Jeff Davidson hired

Seems like the kind of resume I would like to see for the job.
Any idea if he has any ties at all to anyone at Stanford?

[CTcard]

would like to see Jeff Davidson hired

Seems like the kind of resume I would like to see for the job.
Any idea if he has any ties at all to anyone at Stanford?

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18293.msg217157#msg217157 date=1512506447]
Nice compliment for Bloomgren from Sam Schwartzstein, the center on the first Shaw team in 2011.

No one is more deserving of the head job @RiceFootball than @mbloom11 . Unbelievable coach with patience of a saint and passion for helping players be the best versions of themselves. Pulled me out of a pit and helped show me how I can be a contributor.

It's always interesting to me how the things we fans see from coaches (like in-game adjustments or playcalling or whatever) are often some of the least important things they do, but since it's all we see they become all-important. In some regards a program might be better off having coaches who, though perhaps not the most creative playcallers, are great at getting young men to believe in themselves and each other. Sounds like Bloomgren had that gift, and I think it's something that Shaw prizes (as he should).
[/quote]

Agreed.  I think we will miss Bloomgren the OL coach, even if some people won't miss Bloomgren, the suffix in Shaw-vita-gren.  I will also note that OL recruiting under Bloomgren landed: Peat, Murphy, Little and Sarell.  That's 4 5* players plus a bunch of 4* OLinemen.  Plus this year we had 1 first team OL (Hebrig), 1 second teamer (Bright), and the rest of the OL were at least HM.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18293.msg217157#msg217157 date=1512506447]
Nice compliment for Bloomgren from Sam Schwartzstein, the center on the first Shaw team in 2011.

No one is more deserving of the head job @RiceFootball than @mbloom11 . Unbelievable coach with patience of a saint and passion for helping players be the best versions of themselves. Pulled me out of a pit and helped show me how I can be a contributor.

It's always interesting to me how the things we fans see from coaches (like in-game adjustments or playcalling or whatever) are often some of the least important things they do, but since it's all we see they become all-important. In some regards a program might be better off having coaches who, though perhaps not the most creative playcallers, are great at getting young men to believe in themselves and each other. Sounds like Bloomgren had that gift, and I think it's something that Shaw prizes (as he should).
[/quote]

Agreed.  I think we will miss Bloomgren the OL coach, even if some people won't miss Bloomgren, the suffix in Shaw-vita-gren.  I will also note that OL recruiting under Bloomgren landed: Peat, Murphy, Little and Sarell.  That's 4 5* players plus a bunch of 4* OLinemen.  Plus this year we had 1 first team OL (Hebrig), 1 second teamer (Bright), and the rest of the OL were at least HM.

BC

[winflop]

[quote author=GoodGrief link=topic=18293.msg217111#msg217111 date=1512495748]
Todd Husak for OC! Or at least some sort of Offense Special Advisor so he can lend his perspective to our team instead of wasting it on the general public.

Husak might not want to coach, it's a much more demanding gig than the media.
[/quote]

People forget that Husak has a VERY lucrative day job at CBRE and has been VERY successful at it.

One name I don't see being banded about is Mike Sanford - current HC at Western Kentucky, former OC at Boise State under Peterson and former Stanford coach. Not sure if he'd consider it a step down.

Been reported elsewhere that UCF's spread offense is not sympatico with Stanford, but not clear if that was Frost's offense or Walters'

[winflop]

[quote author=GoodGrief link=topic=18293.msg217111#msg217111 date=1512495748]
Todd Husak for OC! Or at least some sort of Offense Special Advisor so he can lend his perspective to our team instead of wasting it on the general public.

Husak might not want to coach, it's a much more demanding gig than the media.
[/quote]

People forget that Husak has a VERY lucrative day job at CBRE and has been VERY successful at it.

One name I don't see being banded about is Mike Sanford - current HC at Western Kentucky, former OC at Boise State under Peterson and former Stanford coach. Not sure if he'd consider it a step down.

Been reported elsewhere that UCF's spread offense is not sympatico with Stanford, but not clear if that was Frost's offense or Walters'

[82lsju]

[quote author=djones link=topic=18293.msg217185#msg217185 date=1512509660]
would like to see Jeff Davidson hired

Seems like the kind of resume I would like to see for the job.
Any idea if he has any ties at all to anyone at Stanford?
[/quote]

see more about him here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Davidson

[82lsju]

[quote author=djones link=topic=18293.msg217185#msg217185 date=1512509660]
would like to see Jeff Davidson hired

Seems like the kind of resume I would like to see for the job.
Any idea if he has any ties at all to anyone at Stanford?
[/quote]

see more about him here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Davidson

[DC 86]

One name I don't see being banded about is Mike Sanford - current HC at Western Kentucky, former OC at Boise State under Peterson and former Stanford coach. Not sure if he'd consider it a step down.

Sanford was the OC at Notre Dame when he took the Western Kentucky job. And Western Kentucky has a good program which launched Taggart's career which has culminated in the FSU job. Can't think of many FBS head coaches who step down to a co-ordinator position.

[DC 86]

One name I don't see being banded about is Mike Sanford - current HC at Western Kentucky, former OC at Boise State under Peterson and former Stanford coach. Not sure if he'd consider it a step down.

Sanford was the OC at Notre Dame when he took the Western Kentucky job. And Western Kentucky has a good program which launched Taggart's career which has culminated in the FSU job. Can't think of many FBS head coaches who step down to a co-ordinator position.

[teejers1]

CTC, just out of curiosity, where does Stanford's O rank in PPG?  YPG?

I realize you picked the O stats you think are most insightful, and that you don't like PPG and YPG because they are too dependent on pace of play, which Stanford doesn't emphasize (to put it mildly). 

So let me ask you this:  do you think with Stanford's personnel, that a ranking of #24 is about where it should be?  (I took the PPDrive number from your post).

It seems to me that Stanford has an excellent O-line, the most explosive RB in the country, an incredible set of tight ends, and at least serviceable WRs.  With Costello Stanford had a good (at least) QB.  It seems to me that with that talent level, #24 is underperforming. 

What do you think?

P.S.  Yes, Stanford had a different QB for part of the season.  But that raises other questions whose answers may point to the same problem.

[teejers1]

CTC, just out of curiosity, where does Stanford's O rank in PPG?  YPG?

I realize you picked the O stats you think are most insightful, and that you don't like PPG and YPG because they are too dependent on pace of play, which Stanford doesn't emphasize (to put it mildly). 

So let me ask you this:  do you think with Stanford's personnel, that a ranking of #24 is about where it should be?  (I took the PPDrive number from your post).

It seems to me that Stanford has an excellent O-line, the most explosive RB in the country, an incredible set of tight ends, and at least serviceable WRs.  With Costello Stanford had a good (at least) QB.  It seems to me that with that talent level, #24 is underperforming. 

What do you think?

P.S.  Yes, Stanford had a different QB for part of the season.  But that raises other questions whose answers may point to the same problem.

[BostonCard]

Per BCFToys, we average 2.78 points per drive, which is good for 17th in the country.  OUr offensive FEI is 16th in the country.  Top-20 is pretty good, and doesn't seem to me to be underperforming given that we are starting a redshirt freshman QB, and a true freshman left tackle.  I think Costello is a decent QB, but his numbers suggest he is not yet a good (top-25) QB.

By pass efficiency rating (138.9), he ranks 44th in the country (7th in the Pac-12)
By completion percentage 59.2%, he is 52nd in the country (9th in the conference)
By yards per attempt (7.5), he ranks 51st in the country (8th in the conference)

Basically, by the numbers, he is a second quartile (just above average) FBS QB, and a 3rd quartile Pac-12 QB.  Of course, he is a redshirt freshman, and our offense is geared towards more experienced players; our experience with both Andrew Luck and Kevin Hogan is that QB's improve substantially from their RS freshman to their RS sophomore years (though that did not happen with Chryst from his RS sophomore to his RS junior years), so being an average quarterback is not necessarily a problem in our offense. But it is not the quality QB you would expect to be leading a top-20 offense.

None of those stats depend on number of times thrown, so they are immune to pace of play or run/pass mix considerations.

BC

[BostonCard]

Per BCFToys, we average 2.78 points per drive, which is good for 17th in the country.  OUr offensive FEI is 16th in the country.  Top-20 is pretty good, and doesn't seem to me to be underperforming given that we are starting a redshirt freshman QB, and a true freshman left tackle.  I think Costello is a decent QB, but his numbers suggest he is not yet a good (top-25) QB.

By pass efficiency rating (138.9), he ranks 44th in the country (7th in the Pac-12)
By completion percentage 59.2%, he is 52nd in the country (9th in the conference)
By yards per attempt (7.5), he ranks 51st in the country (8th in the conference)

Basically, by the numbers, he is a second quartile (just above average) FBS QB, and a 3rd quartile Pac-12 QB.  Of course, he is a redshirt freshman, and our offense is geared towards more experienced players; our experience with both Andrew Luck and Kevin Hogan is that QB's improve substantially from their RS freshman to their RS sophomore years (though that did not happen with Chryst from his RS sophomore to his RS junior years), so being an average quarterback is not necessarily a problem in our offense. But it is not the quality QB you would expect to be leading a top-20 offense.

None of those stats depend on number of times thrown, so they are immune to pace of play or run/pass mix considerations.

BC

[CTcard]

CTC, just out of curiosity, where does Stanford's O rank in PPG?  YPG?

These are very easy things to look up.

Many people here like cfbstats.com. Type that into a browser, click on "National", then either "Scoring Offense" or "Total Offense". Give it a try, you might find the site interesting.

Stanford is #39 in scoring per game.
Stanford is #76 in yards per game.

So let me ask you this:  do you think with Stanford's personnel, that a ranking of #24 is about where it should be?  (I took the PPDrive number from your post).

It seems to me that Stanford has an excellent O-line, the most explosive RB in the country, an incredible set of tight ends, and at least serviceable WRs.  With Costello Stanford had a good (at least) QB.  It seems to me that with that talent level, #24 is underperforming. 

What do you think?

First off, my apologies. I misquoted Stanford's ranking in scoring points per drive. Stanford ranks #17, not #24.
Sorry.

I am generally more interested in what Stanford's offense is, rather than what it should be.
As far as I am concerned, Stanford's offense and defense should both be the best in the country. But neither is.

The point of those numbers was to point out that on average, Stanford's offense is better than what I think most people perceive - though of course it is difficult to tell what most people perceive.

As for the overall performance.
- I think Stanford's offense is pretty good when it is working properly. It's had some absolutely excellent years, and it has performed pretty well most of this season.
- I think Stanford's offense is ... fragile. It is more susceptible to terrible performances than I think are most offenses that are roughly equivalent on average.
- I am not entirely sure why that is the case. I suspect two things. First that the complexity of Stanford's offense causes fragility: a great thing when handled properly but hard for inexperienced QBs and OLs to do so consistently. Secondly, I don't think Stanford has developed a great counter-game. For example, if teams stack the box and Stanford can still at least kind of run the ball, we're deadly in combining a competent run game with quick strikes. But, when teams stack the box and shut the run, we're not so good at attacking the vacated linebacker/safety positions to keep the ball moving.
- As to personnel generally, it's mixed. The OL is okay, but not the dominant group we saw circa 2011, or 2015. The WRs are not particularly dangerous and only a few conference teams would trade their group for ours. The QB play (even Costello) has been uneven - with some difficulty figuring out how much is "talent" versus development.
Taken all together, a top-20ish offense is about what one can expect.
However, the meltdowns are killers.


And, maybe relevant and maybe not, the defense by most measures is less good (by a lot) than the offense this season. (Of course on per game stats, the defense is helped by Stanford's pace.)
#86 yds/play    (#72 yds/game)
#57 pts/drive  (#29 pts/game)
#62 in Defense FEI
#54 in Defense S&P+

I had thought the defense would be considerably better than the offense this year. The backfield was supposed to be all-star, we lost only two full time starters (Thomas and Lloyd), and seemed to have tons of depth everywhere but the DL.
I was wrong.

[CTcard]

CTC, just out of curiosity, where does Stanford's O rank in PPG?  YPG?

These are very easy things to look up.

Many people here like cfbstats.com. Type that into a browser, click on "National", then either "Scoring Offense" or "Total Offense". Give it a try, you might find the site interesting.

Stanford is #39 in scoring per game.
Stanford is #76 in yards per game.

So let me ask you this:  do you think with Stanford's personnel, that a ranking of #24 is about where it should be?  (I took the PPDrive number from your post).

It seems to me that Stanford has an excellent O-line, the most explosive RB in the country, an incredible set of tight ends, and at least serviceable WRs.  With Costello Stanford had a good (at least) QB.  It seems to me that with that talent level, #24 is underperforming. 

What do you think?

First off, my apologies. I misquoted Stanford's ranking in scoring points per drive. Stanford ranks #17, not #24.
Sorry.

I am generally more interested in what Stanford's offense is, rather than what it should be.
As far as I am concerned, Stanford's offense and defense should both be the best in the country. But neither is.

The point of those numbers was to point out that on average, Stanford's offense is better than what I think most people perceive - though of course it is difficult to tell what most people perceive.

As for the overall performance.
- I think Stanford's offense is pretty good when it is working properly. It's had some absolutely excellent years, and it has performed pretty well most of this season.
- I think Stanford's offense is ... fragile. It is more susceptible to terrible performances than I think are most offenses that are roughly equivalent on average.
- I am not entirely sure why that is the case. I suspect two things. First that the complexity of Stanford's offense causes fragility: a great thing when handled properly but hard for inexperienced QBs and OLs to do so consistently. Secondly, I don't think Stanford has developed a great counter-game. For example, if teams stack the box and Stanford can still at least kind of run the ball, we're deadly in combining a competent run game with quick strikes. But, when teams stack the box and shut the run, we're not so good at attacking the vacated linebacker/safety positions to keep the ball moving.
- As to personnel generally, it's mixed. The OL is okay, but not the dominant group we saw circa 2011, or 2015. The WRs are not particularly dangerous and only a few conference teams would trade their group for ours. The QB play (even Costello) has been uneven - with some difficulty figuring out how much is "talent" versus development.
Taken all together, a top-20ish offense is about what one can expect.
However, the meltdowns are killers.


And, maybe relevant and maybe not, the defense by most measures is less good (by a lot) than the offense this season. (Of course on per game stats, the defense is helped by Stanford's pace.)
#86 yds/play    (#72 yds/game)
#57 pts/drive  (#29 pts/game)
#62 in Defense FEI
#54 in Defense S&P+

I had thought the defense would be considerably better than the offense this year. The backfield was supposed to be all-star, we lost only two full time starters (Thomas and Lloyd), and seemed to have tons of depth everywhere but the DL.
I was wrong.

[Stymie]

PLEASE!!!

If so, if we ever play Rice again, we'll be playing the scout team in the early 3rd 1/4 and resting our studs.

[Stymie]

PLEASE!!!

If so, if we ever play Rice again, we'll be playing the scout team in the early 3rd 1/4 and resting our studs.

[stupac2]

- I think Stanford's offense is ... fragile. It is more susceptible to terrible performances than I think are most offenses that are roughly equivalent on average.

I wonder how true this is, I think this perception might just be because we follow Stanford closely and so are more aware of the various ups and downs. It's not like other offenses are immune to this, just off the top of my head Ohio State had at least one major derp game this year, I doubt they're alone.

It looks like bcf toys has a game log of efficiency ratings, if I have time when I have excel I'll give estimating this a go.

[stupac2]

- I think Stanford's offense is ... fragile. It is more susceptible to terrible performances than I think are most offenses that are roughly equivalent on average.

I wonder how true this is, I think this perception might just be because we follow Stanford closely and so are more aware of the various ups and downs. It's not like other offenses are immune to this, just off the top of my head Ohio State had at least one major derp game this year, I doubt they're alone.

It looks like bcf toys has a game log of efficiency ratings, if I have time when I have excel I'll give estimating this a go.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18293.msg217226#msg217226 date=1512520982]- I think Stanford's offense is ... fragile. It is more susceptible to terrible performances than I think are most offenses that are roughly equivalent on average.

I wonder how true this is, I think this perception might just be because we follow Stanford closely and so are more aware of the various ups and downs. It's not like other offenses are immune to this, just off the top of my head Ohio State had at least one major derp game this year, I doubt they're alone.

It looks like bcf toys has a game log of efficiency ratings, if I have time when I have excel I'll give estimating this a go.
[/quote]

I have to admit I was wondering that as I was writing.

I believe that awhile back, WIM looked at season to season consistency and noted Stanford was not. 

Here are a few comparisons for down games from roughly similar offenses for this season.


Stanford, #19 in yds/play.
Bad Games = OSU 222 yds, 3.70 yds/play; WSU 198 yds, 4.21 yds/play; SDSU 254 yds, 5.91 yds/play

[SDSU actually shows some limitations of yds/play. 5.91 is alright, but we had so few plays because of so few first downs that we never "averaged out" Love's two brobdingnagian runs. We had games with worse yds/play, but no other worse offensive performances overall.]

tOSU, #9 in yds/play
Bad Games = Oklahoma 350 yds, 5.07 yds/play; Michigan 350 yds, 5.56 yds/play; Iowa 371 yds, 5.80 yds/play

UW, #20 in yds/play;
Bad Games = ASU 230 yds, 3.77 yds/play, Stanford 325 yds, 5.80 yds/play; Cal 377 yds, 4.71 yds/play

$C, #15 in yds/play
Bad Games = WSU 327 yds, 5.64 yds/play; Cal 356 yds, 4.68 yds/play; und 336 yds, 5.01 yds/play


It's not at all complete, but Stanford's stinkers stand out in that group.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18293.msg217226#msg217226 date=1512520982]- I think Stanford's offense is ... fragile. It is more susceptible to terrible performances than I think are most offenses that are roughly equivalent on average.

I wonder how true this is, I think this perception might just be because we follow Stanford closely and so are more aware of the various ups and downs. It's not like other offenses are immune to this, just off the top of my head Ohio State had at least one major derp game this year, I doubt they're alone.

It looks like bcf toys has a game log of efficiency ratings, if I have time when I have excel I'll give estimating this a go.
[/quote]

I have to admit I was wondering that as I was writing.

I believe that awhile back, WIM looked at season to season consistency and noted Stanford was not. 

Here are a few comparisons for down games from roughly similar offenses for this season.


Stanford, #19 in yds/play.
Bad Games = OSU 222 yds, 3.70 yds/play; WSU 198 yds, 4.21 yds/play; SDSU 254 yds, 5.91 yds/play

[SDSU actually shows some limitations of yds/play. 5.91 is alright, but we had so few plays because of so few first downs that we never "averaged out" Love's two brobdingnagian runs. We had games with worse yds/play, but no other worse offensive performances overall.]

tOSU, #9 in yds/play
Bad Games = Oklahoma 350 yds, 5.07 yds/play; Michigan 350 yds, 5.56 yds/play; Iowa 371 yds, 5.80 yds/play

UW, #20 in yds/play;
Bad Games = ASU 230 yds, 3.77 yds/play, Stanford 325 yds, 5.80 yds/play; Cal 377 yds, 4.71 yds/play

$C, #15 in yds/play
Bad Games = WSU 327 yds, 5.64 yds/play; Cal 356 yds, 4.68 yds/play; und 336 yds, 5.01 yds/play


It's not at all complete, but Stanford's stinkers stand out in that group.