[BostonCard]

Thanks teejers for the clarification.  Perhaps one of the sources of disagreement we are having stems from me not quite understanding what kind of offense you want (other than "a different one").  You pan running between the tackles, but you are not necessarily calling for more passing... so you want more stretch plays and sweeps?  The problem with those is not that it doesn't get the most dynamic player into space; it's that the blockers are probably not dynamic enough to set the edge for him.

Now, if you are calling for more passing to the running back, that's something I could support.  However, I would caution that given that McCaffrey was our leading receiver in 2015, and tied for most receptions last year, this is not a coaching staff that shies away from throwing to a dynamic back.  The lack of throws to Love is disappointing and puzzling, but I submit that the lack of reason immediately apparent to the fandom should not be taken to mean that it is due to coaching incompetence.  The sample size is small, but with Love's 5 catches, he only gained 33 yards (and I'm not sure how many times he was targeted), so throwing to him in space may not have been the panacea you expect.  Love certainly was dynamic with his two catches versus UCF two years ago.  And/but, that was UCF pre-Frost, a team that would wind up winless, it was before defenses keyed in on Love, and it was out of the wide receiver position, where McCaffrey attracted attention.  Going forward, given the success Scarlett saw against TCU, I think we may see Scarlett being brought in more, both as a blocker in pass protection, and as a potential receiver on the wheel.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks teejers for the clarification.  Perhaps one of the sources of disagreement we are having stems from me not quite understanding what kind of offense you want (other than "a different one").  You pan running between the tackles, but you are not necessarily calling for more passing... so you want more stretch plays and sweeps?  The problem with those is not that it doesn't get the most dynamic player into space; it's that the blockers are probably not dynamic enough to set the edge for him.

Now, if you are calling for more passing to the running back, that's something I could support.  However, I would caution that given that McCaffrey was our leading receiver in 2015, and tied for most receptions last year, this is not a coaching staff that shies away from throwing to a dynamic back.  The lack of throws to Love is disappointing and puzzling, but I submit that the lack of reason immediately apparent to the fandom should not be taken to mean that it is due to coaching incompetence.  The sample size is small, but with Love's 5 catches, he only gained 33 yards (and I'm not sure how many times he was targeted), so throwing to him in space may not have been the panacea you expect.  Love certainly was dynamic with his two catches versus UCF two years ago.  And/but, that was UCF pre-Frost, a team that would wind up winless, it was before defenses keyed in on Love, and it was out of the wide receiver position, where McCaffrey attracted attention.  Going forward, given the success Scarlett saw against TCU, I think we may see Scarlett being brought in more, both as a blocker in pass protection, and as a potential receiver on the wheel.

BC

[martyup]

I found our "stuff rate" this season rather frustrating as well.  However, when our blocking worked and Love broke off a big run it was a thing of beauty.  I think that poor execution in blocking caused plays to get stuffed rather than poor play calling.  I would have liked to see more QB keeps on read option runs.  I also would have like to see more passes to our RBs.  The thing is, I don't know our players well enough to second guess the Stanford coaching staff.  I trust that coach Shaw wants to win game as much, and surely more, than any of us on this board.  Since he is in a better position to know how to utilize his players to win games than we are, and I believe that he is a very good football coach, I will continue to support him and the decisions he makes.  Now, let's just get some better talent on our team who can properly execute the plays called.  ;)

[martyup]

I found our "stuff rate" this season rather frustrating as well.  However, when our blocking worked and Love broke off a big run it was a thing of beauty.  I think that poor execution in blocking caused plays to get stuffed rather than poor play calling.  I would have liked to see more QB keeps on read option runs.  I also would have like to see more passes to our RBs.  The thing is, I don't know our players well enough to second guess the Stanford coaching staff.  I trust that coach Shaw wants to win game as much, and surely more, than any of us on this board.  Since he is in a better position to know how to utilize his players to win games than we are, and I believe that he is a very good football coach, I will continue to support him and the decisions he makes.  Now, let's just get some better talent on our team who can properly execute the plays called.  ;)

[BostonCard]

Interesting to compare our stuff rate of 21.8% to a decent (top 30) rate of 17%.  That comes out to a difference of 4.8 runs out of 100 (23 times over the course of the season or about 1.7 times more per game).  In exchange, we had 35 runs of 20 or more yards (about 2.5 times per game), and 26 of 30+ yards per game (about 1.9 per game), and 17 of 40+ yards per game (1.2 per game).  To the extent it is a trade-off, it seems like it may have been worth it.

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting to compare our stuff rate of 21.8% to a decent (top 30) rate of 17%.  That comes out to a difference of 4.8 runs out of 100 (23 times over the course of the season or about 1.7 times more per game).  In exchange, we had 35 runs of 20 or more yards (about 2.5 times per game), and 26 of 30+ yards per game (about 1.9 per game), and 17 of 40+ yards per game (1.2 per game).  To the extent it is a trade-off, it seems like it may have been worth it.

BC

[Mick]

Stanford substitutes massively, trying to optimize the the personnel for each play.
The hope is to overpower the D with bigger stronger blockers on power-run plays and overwhelm the defense with receivers on pass plays, etc. The hope is to catch the defense with personnel they cannot match up with either for a given play or overall because some personnel sets the defense just doesn't have.
So, yes, Stanford tends to run out of the no-receiver sets and tends to pass out of the empty backfield sets.

It's a different approach - much more the traditional NFL approach that features match-ups over tricking the defense. I am not sure that it is inherently better or worse, but it certainly has its trade-offs.

Is that why we have so many delay of game calls?

[Mick]

Stanford substitutes massively, trying to optimize the the personnel for each play.
The hope is to overpower the D with bigger stronger blockers on power-run plays and overwhelm the defense with receivers on pass plays, etc. The hope is to catch the defense with personnel they cannot match up with either for a given play or overall because some personnel sets the defense just doesn't have.
So, yes, Stanford tends to run out of the no-receiver sets and tends to pass out of the empty backfield sets.

It's a different approach - much more the traditional NFL approach that features match-ups over tricking the defense. I am not sure that it is inherently better or worse, but it certainly has its trade-offs.

Is that why we have so many delay of game calls?

[Goose]

I think that poor execution in blocking caused plays to get stuffed rather than poor play calling.

Certainly that was true some of the time. However, there were many cases where the defense guessed right and beat us to the spot. You can't block a guy that is already past you. We had that problem against WSU, where the defense would move to an alignment we couldn't block or would run blitz into the point of attack and we would be one man short. Sometimes the issue was that we didn't properly identify our blocking assignments, and sometimes it was just more of them than there were of us. On some plays, a guy is unblocked by design, because we think we can get by him before he can matter. If that guy guesses right, that may not happen and he makes the tackle. The USC game with Scarlett comes to mind there. Not 1st down, but same issue.
The problems against WSU are potentially serious, in that it would seem we got beat by scheme, not just execution. We didn't look real good on the OL during that game, especially compared to say the UW game. Maybe we just didn't play well, but maybe they have got something figured out. Hopefully next year they can't execute it with their losses to the NFL.

[Goose]

I think that poor execution in blocking caused plays to get stuffed rather than poor play calling.

Certainly that was true some of the time. However, there were many cases where the defense guessed right and beat us to the spot. You can't block a guy that is already past you. We had that problem against WSU, where the defense would move to an alignment we couldn't block or would run blitz into the point of attack and we would be one man short. Sometimes the issue was that we didn't properly identify our blocking assignments, and sometimes it was just more of them than there were of us. On some plays, a guy is unblocked by design, because we think we can get by him before he can matter. If that guy guesses right, that may not happen and he makes the tackle. The USC game with Scarlett comes to mind there. Not 1st down, but same issue.
The problems against WSU are potentially serious, in that it would seem we got beat by scheme, not just execution. We didn't look real good on the OL during that game, especially compared to say the UW game. Maybe we just didn't play well, but maybe they have got something figured out. Hopefully next year they can't execute it with their losses to the NFL.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=18454.msg220190#msg220190 date=1515041275]
I think that poor execution in blocking caused plays to get stuffed rather than poor play calling.

Certainly that was true some of the time. However, there were many cases where the defense guessed right and beat us to the spot. You can't block a guy that is already past you. We had that problem against WSU, where the defense would move to an alignment we couldn't block or would run blitz into the point of attack and we would be one man short. Sometimes the issue was that we didn't properly identify our blocking assignments, and sometimes it was just more of them than there were of us. On some plays, a guy is unblocked by design, because we think we can get by him before he can matter. If that guy guesses right, that may not happen and he makes the tackle. The U$C game with Scarlett comes to mind there. Not 1st down, but same issue.
The problems against WSU are potentially serious, in that it would seem we got beat by scheme, not just execution. We didn't look real good on the OL during that game, especially compared to say the UW game. Maybe we just didn't play well, but maybe they have got something figured out. Hopefully next year they can't execute it with their losses to the NFL.
[/quote]

Wazzu seems to have us pretty well figured out. The last two years they have held us to three offensive touchdowns, one of which was in garbage time. They had us pretty much frustrated in 2015, also, until we found we could counter them by having Hogan run the ball. So I'm not sure having Hercules and a few others leave will make that much difference.
The Huskies have put up 86 against them in the last two years, so I don't think their defense is an immovable object.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=18454.msg220190#msg220190 date=1515041275]
I think that poor execution in blocking caused plays to get stuffed rather than poor play calling.

Certainly that was true some of the time. However, there were many cases where the defense guessed right and beat us to the spot. You can't block a guy that is already past you. We had that problem against WSU, where the defense would move to an alignment we couldn't block or would run blitz into the point of attack and we would be one man short. Sometimes the issue was that we didn't properly identify our blocking assignments, and sometimes it was just more of them than there were of us. On some plays, a guy is unblocked by design, because we think we can get by him before he can matter. If that guy guesses right, that may not happen and he makes the tackle. The U$C game with Scarlett comes to mind there. Not 1st down, but same issue.
The problems against WSU are potentially serious, in that it would seem we got beat by scheme, not just execution. We didn't look real good on the OL during that game, especially compared to say the UW game. Maybe we just didn't play well, but maybe they have got something figured out. Hopefully next year they can't execute it with their losses to the NFL.
[/quote]

Wazzu seems to have us pretty well figured out. The last two years they have held us to three offensive touchdowns, one of which was in garbage time. They had us pretty much frustrated in 2015, also, until we found we could counter them by having Hogan run the ball. So I'm not sure having Hercules and a few others leave will make that much difference.
The Huskies have put up 86 against them in the last two years, so I don't think their defense is an immovable object.

[Hulk01]

My point was that Chip Kelly and Steve Frost's offenses may appear more creative, unpredictable and interesting to some Stanford fans only because they don't see Kelly and Frost teams every week of every football season.  Once you see those offense play even two games, the repetition really sets in and they're not particularly interesting or creative to watch at at all. 

This is another way of suggesting that our offense may uninteresting and predictable to some Stanford fans because those fans have seen this Stanford offense run over 10,000 plays.  It's like watching The Big Short or Pretty Woman 15 times.  What once made you look in wonder now makes you yawn.

[Hulk01]

My point was that Chip Kelly and Steve Frost's offenses may appear more creative, unpredictable and interesting to some Stanford fans only because they don't see Kelly and Frost teams every week of every football season.  Once you see those offense play even two games, the repetition really sets in and they're not particularly interesting or creative to watch at at all. 

This is another way of suggesting that our offense may uninteresting and predictable to some Stanford fans because those fans have seen this Stanford offense run over 10,000 plays.  It's like watching The Big Short or Pretty Woman 15 times.  What once made you look in wonder now makes you yawn.

[lex24]

Let me respond to one comment - that running Love between the tackles was not the most prudent way to get him in space. Love averaged almost 9 yards a carry.  He set a Stanford rushing record. He had more 50 yard runs than almost every FBS team. And almost all was between the tackles.  Pretty successful. 

They did run wide some, albeit not a lot. But I don’t think when they did they were particularly successfull.  Which makes me wonder about the o-lines effectiveness pulling and blocking in space. The latter being one possible reason that the screen game was abysmal.

So I think running Love between the tackles WAS the best way this year to get him in space. Because if he got to the second level, a big play was usually coming. And the numbers are hard to argue with.

Having said that, improving the outside running game and improving the screen game (bubble and conventional) should be on the agenda come spring. I think whoever coaches the oline should have that on his plate.

I respectfully have no clue what you're referring to on being "defensive."  FTR, the Chip Kelly reference was not even in response to your post, but in response to Hulk saying Chip's offense is predictable but no one complains about that (or they might if it didn't succeed, as happened in NFL).  My respectful suggestion is that such a statement is a red herring because no one is talking about that.

I respectfully suggest that what Nick Saban does at Alabama is also a red herring, and certainly not something Stanford should aspire to . . . unless and until Stanford fills its two-deep with the number of 5*s Saban does at 'Bama.  But in the hypothetical world of Stanford playing 'Bama, how do you think the Cardinal would fare with Shaw's signature "this is what we do, try and stop us" approach?  Yeah, I don't think very well, either.  But that's okay - Swinney and Clemson couldn't do jack, either . . . but at least they tried.

Lastly, BC, I respectfully submit that I have not called for more pass plays on first down, per se (though I do think running the ball 60+% of the time is generally a bad idea - I'd go into more detail, but don't want to offend CI, Hulk, and others, who have heard the commentary numerous times).  So I'll just say this:  I respectfully have suggested that running Love between the tackles via pitchout or straight handoff is not the most prudent way to get the most dynamic player room in space.  And contrary to others, I found Stanford ranked 105 out of 130 teams on "stuff rate" to be rather alarming, and entirely consistent with what our eyes told us about repeatedly giving the ball to the RB between the tackles.

[lex24]

Let me respond to one comment - that running Love between the tackles was not the most prudent way to get him in space. Love averaged almost 9 yards a carry.  He set a Stanford rushing record. He had more 50 yard runs than almost every FBS team. And almost all was between the tackles.  Pretty successful. 

They did run wide some, albeit not a lot. But I don’t think when they did they were particularly successfull.  Which makes me wonder about the o-lines effectiveness pulling and blocking in space. The latter being one possible reason that the screen game was abysmal.

So I think running Love between the tackles WAS the best way this year to get him in space. Because if he got to the second level, a big play was usually coming. And the numbers are hard to argue with.

Having said that, improving the outside running game and improving the screen game (bubble and conventional) should be on the agenda come spring. I think whoever coaches the oline should have that on his plate.

I respectfully have no clue what you're referring to on being "defensive."  FTR, the Chip Kelly reference was not even in response to your post, but in response to Hulk saying Chip's offense is predictable but no one complains about that (or they might if it didn't succeed, as happened in NFL).  My respectful suggestion is that such a statement is a red herring because no one is talking about that.

I respectfully suggest that what Nick Saban does at Alabama is also a red herring, and certainly not something Stanford should aspire to . . . unless and until Stanford fills its two-deep with the number of 5*s Saban does at 'Bama.  But in the hypothetical world of Stanford playing 'Bama, how do you think the Cardinal would fare with Shaw's signature "this is what we do, try and stop us" approach?  Yeah, I don't think very well, either.  But that's okay - Swinney and Clemson couldn't do jack, either . . . but at least they tried.

Lastly, BC, I respectfully submit that I have not called for more pass plays on first down, per se (though I do think running the ball 60+% of the time is generally a bad idea - I'd go into more detail, but don't want to offend CI, Hulk, and others, who have heard the commentary numerous times).  So I'll just say this:  I respectfully have suggested that running Love between the tackles via pitchout or straight handoff is not the most prudent way to get the most dynamic player room in space.  And contrary to others, I found Stanford ranked 105 out of 130 teams on "stuff rate" to be rather alarming, and entirely consistent with what our eyes told us about repeatedly giving the ball to the RB between the tackles.

[Hulk01]

We ran a lot of what you can call "intended sweeps"--stretch plays with Love, with the possibility that the optimum choice would be to run wide. 

But it rarely was an attractive option--from the get go.  That's because our effective-but-slow wide receivers allow defenses to play their corner backs up at the LOS in press or near-press coverage, and they create obvious obstacles.  At they very least, opposing corners are required to turn the play inside. 

And because the stretch play is slow developing, opposing safeties are able to come up and help stop the wide play, too.  (K State's Deontay Burnett is a vivid example, going back to Mac._

Add to those problems the increased speed of so many of today's defensive ends (glorified/former outside linebackers) and outside linebackers (safeties in speed and often in background), and you can see why it's not just Stanford that doesn't run many sweeps.  It takes so long to get to the edge.  By the time you get there, there's a crowd waiting.

And at its best, the Green Bay sweep was really a classic four yards and a cloud of dust play.  It wasn't interesting or unpredictable, but it was usually good for four yards.  The good old, and slower, days.

[Hulk01]

We ran a lot of what you can call "intended sweeps"--stretch plays with Love, with the possibility that the optimum choice would be to run wide. 

But it rarely was an attractive option--from the get go.  That's because our effective-but-slow wide receivers allow defenses to play their corner backs up at the LOS in press or near-press coverage, and they create obvious obstacles.  At they very least, opposing corners are required to turn the play inside. 

And because the stretch play is slow developing, opposing safeties are able to come up and help stop the wide play, too.  (K State's Deontay Burnett is a vivid example, going back to Mac._

Add to those problems the increased speed of so many of today's defensive ends (glorified/former outside linebackers) and outside linebackers (safeties in speed and often in background), and you can see why it's not just Stanford that doesn't run many sweeps.  It takes so long to get to the edge.  By the time you get there, there's a crowd waiting.

And at its best, the Green Bay sweep was really a classic four yards and a cloud of dust play.  It wasn't interesting or unpredictable, but it was usually good for four yards.  The good old, and slower, days.

[qwerty49]

Good point Hulk on “predictability” with two very minor quibbles -

Kelly’s offense was indeed predictable IMO, it was just that no one could stop it at first, and generally speaking it was hard to stop at the college level. (Maybe that’s not a quibble, but just another way of agreeing with you)

The same scheme with different personnel produces different results. We gave the ball to Toby on 3rd and 7 pretty regularly. But that was Toby running behind Marecic and the TWU, and we were confident he would make it. I can’t remember if we ever let Bryce go between the tackles on 3rd and long with this offensive line. So the yawns about our frequently stuffed first down runs could also be compounded by comparatively weaker blocking. And instead of “weaker” maybe I should just say “unsuccessful” — most of Bryce’s big runs seemed to spring from someone getting lateral  leverage to open the hole rather than overpowering the opponent.

My point was that Chip Kelly and Steve Frost's offenses may appear more creative, unpredictable and interesting to some Stanford fans only because they don't see Kelly and Frost teams every week of every football season.  Once you see those offense play even two games, the repetition really sets in and they're not particularly interesting or creative to watch at at all. 

This is another way of suggesting that our offense may uninteresting and predictable to some Stanford fans because those fans have seen this Stanford offense run over 10,000 plays.  It's like watching The Big Short or Pretty Woman 15 times.  What once made you look in wonder now makes you yawn.

[qwerty49]

Good point Hulk on “predictability” with two very minor quibbles -

Kelly’s offense was indeed predictable IMO, it was just that no one could stop it at first, and generally speaking it was hard to stop at the college level. (Maybe that’s not a quibble, but just another way of agreeing with you)

The same scheme with different personnel produces different results. We gave the ball to Toby on 3rd and 7 pretty regularly. But that was Toby running behind Marecic and the TWU, and we were confident he would make it. I can’t remember if we ever let Bryce go between the tackles on 3rd and long with this offensive line. So the yawns about our frequently stuffed first down runs could also be compounded by comparatively weaker blocking. And instead of “weaker” maybe I should just say “unsuccessful” — most of Bryce’s big runs seemed to spring from someone getting lateral  leverage to open the hole rather than overpowering the opponent.

My point was that Chip Kelly and Steve Frost's offenses may appear more creative, unpredictable and interesting to some Stanford fans only because they don't see Kelly and Frost teams every week of every football season.  Once you see those offense play even two games, the repetition really sets in and they're not particularly interesting or creative to watch at at all. 

This is another way of suggesting that our offense may uninteresting and predictable to some Stanford fans because those fans have seen this Stanford offense run over 10,000 plays.  It's like watching The Big Short or Pretty Woman 15 times.  What once made you look in wonder now makes you yawn.

[teejers1]

So Lex, if the offense of running Love between the tackles was so successful, then why was Stanford's YPG so abysmal (or mediocre, if you think abysmal is too strong at term)?  Is it all pace of play?  Well, if it's a good offense, why not run it more? [Do you agree that it was a mostly bust and some boom kind of offense?].

Stated differently, I considered Barry Sanders a dynamic back for the Detroit Lions.  I never considered the Lions to have a good offense during his tenure.  Same thing with Stanford and Bryce Love this year.

[teejers1]

So Lex, if the offense of running Love between the tackles was so successful, then why was Stanford's YPG so abysmal (or mediocre, if you think abysmal is too strong at term)?  Is it all pace of play?  Well, if it's a good offense, why not run it more? [Do you agree that it was a mostly bust and some boom kind of offense?].

Stated differently, I considered Barry Sanders a dynamic back for the Detroit Lions.  I never considered the Lions to have a good offense during his tenure.  Same thing with Stanford and Bryce Love this year.

[Hulk01]

We averaged 5.9 yards per rush attempt, seventh in the country.
We didn't run well?
We could have run far more effectively?

[Hulk01]

We averaged 5.9 yards per rush attempt, seventh in the country.
We didn't run well?
We could have run far more effectively?

[lex24]

Teejers, I tried to limit my comment to running Love inside versus outside. Thought that was clear. Guess not.  I wasn’t talking about overall effectiveness or lack thereof. But let me ask your position on that. I’m unclear .😜

So Lex, if the offense of running Love between the tackles was so successful, then why was Stanford's YPG so abysmal (or mediocre, if you think abysmal is too strong at term)?  Is it all pace of play?  Well, if it's a good offense, why not run it more? [Do you agree that it was a mostly bust and some boom kind of offense?].

Stated differently, I considered Barry Sanders a dynamic back for the Detroit Lions.  I never considered the Lions to have a good offense during his tenure.  Same thing with Stanford and Bryce Love this year.

[lex24]

Teejers, I tried to limit my comment to running Love inside versus outside. Thought that was clear. Guess not.  I wasn’t talking about overall effectiveness or lack thereof. But let me ask your position on that. I’m unclear .😜

So Lex, if the offense of running Love between the tackles was so successful, then why was Stanford's YPG so abysmal (or mediocre, if you think abysmal is too strong at term)?  Is it all pace of play?  Well, if it's a good offense, why not run it more? [Do you agree that it was a mostly bust and some boom kind of offense?].

Stated differently, I considered Barry Sanders a dynamic back for the Detroit Lions.  I never considered the Lions to have a good offense during his tenure.  Same thing with Stanford and Bryce Love this year.

[BostonCard]

So Lex, if the offense of running Love between the tackles was so successful, then why was Stanford's YPG so abysmal (or mediocre, if you think abysmal is too strong at term)?  Is it all pace of play?  Well, if it's a good offense, why not run it more? [Do you agree that it was a mostly bust and some boom kind of offense?].

Stated differently, I considered Barry Sanders a dynamic back for the Detroit Lions.  I never considered the Lions to have a good offense during his tenure.  Same thing with Stanford and Bryce Love this year.

I would submit that yards per game is not a good metric to determine whether an offense is effective. We scored an average of 2.78 points every time our offense possessed the ball, which ranked 17th in the country (pre-bowl, but I don't think the Alamo bowl hurt our, since we scored 37 in 13 drives, 2.84 points per drive).  It is better than USC (2.76 points per drive), Notre Dame (2.75 points per drive), and every other Pac-12 team except Washington (3.21 points per drive).  It was better than teams like Clemson (2.56 ppd), Auburn (2.74), Wisconsin (2.58), TCU (2.56), and Harbaugh's Michigan (1.94 ppd).  We scored 56 touchdowns and 21 field goals in about 163 possessions.  It would be hard to characterize an offense as "mostly bust and some boom" when it produces points almost half the time.  We were second in the conference in red zone scoring percentage, which suggests that the offense was more than just Love scoring from the 50 on a big play (and no, they were not all field goals; we were fourth in the conference in touchdown percentage and points per red zone trip).  You might be surprised to learn that we were fourth in the conference in red zone trips at 4.21/game, a stat that seems inconsistent with a mostly bust offense; given that we run fewer possessions than most teams in the conference, on a per possession basis, we are probably near the top in red zone trips.

Our offense may have looked abysmal to you, but it was a less abysmal offense than every other team in the Pac-12, with the exception of Washington and maybe USC.  USC featured a likely first round draft pick NFL QB (Darnold) and an NFL caliber RB (Jones).  It would be hard to argue we have a talent advantage over them.  UW features a three-year starter QB (Browning) and RB (Gaskin).  Also tough to claim we have a talent/experience advantage here.

I think if we are looking for reasons for our 8-5 season (well, the "5" in the 8-5 season), I would look to the other side of the ball.

BC

[BostonCard]

So Lex, if the offense of running Love between the tackles was so successful, then why was Stanford's YPG so abysmal (or mediocre, if you think abysmal is too strong at term)?  Is it all pace of play?  Well, if it's a good offense, why not run it more? [Do you agree that it was a mostly bust and some boom kind of offense?].

Stated differently, I considered Barry Sanders a dynamic back for the Detroit Lions.  I never considered the Lions to have a good offense during his tenure.  Same thing with Stanford and Bryce Love this year.

I would submit that yards per game is not a good metric to determine whether an offense is effective. We scored an average of 2.78 points every time our offense possessed the ball, which ranked 17th in the country (pre-bowl, but I don't think the Alamo bowl hurt our, since we scored 37 in 13 drives, 2.84 points per drive).  It is better than USC (2.76 points per drive), Notre Dame (2.75 points per drive), and every other Pac-12 team except Washington (3.21 points per drive).  It was better than teams like Clemson (2.56 ppd), Auburn (2.74), Wisconsin (2.58), TCU (2.56), and Harbaugh's Michigan (1.94 ppd).  We scored 56 touchdowns and 21 field goals in about 163 possessions.  It would be hard to characterize an offense as "mostly bust and some boom" when it produces points almost half the time.  We were second in the conference in red zone scoring percentage, which suggests that the offense was more than just Love scoring from the 50 on a big play (and no, they were not all field goals; we were fourth in the conference in touchdown percentage and points per red zone trip).  You might be surprised to learn that we were fourth in the conference in red zone trips at 4.21/game, a stat that seems inconsistent with a mostly bust offense; given that we run fewer possessions than most teams in the conference, on a per possession basis, we are probably near the top in red zone trips.

Our offense may have looked abysmal to you, but it was a less abysmal offense than every other team in the Pac-12, with the exception of Washington and maybe USC.  USC featured a likely first round draft pick NFL QB (Darnold) and an NFL caliber RB (Jones).  It would be hard to argue we have a talent advantage over them.  UW features a three-year starter QB (Browning) and RB (Gaskin).  Also tough to claim we have a talent/experience advantage here.

I think if we are looking for reasons for our 8-5 season (well, the "5" in the 8-5 season), I would look to the other side of the ball.

BC

[Duck Tears]

Good Grief: Thoughts on the failed two-point conversion pass to Smith.

1. When the field is three yards long, WHY drop back to pass? The odds of converting a two-point play decrease exponentially once you go backwards. The most successful two-pointers include deception/misdirection/momentum, or a combo of all three (see the Patriots in the last Super Bowl).

2. Has Stanford made a 2-point conversion (beyond garbage time) this decade? This Alamo Bowl, 2017 Oregon State, 2015 Oregon are the most recent foul-ups.*
*Combined with the related hardships near the goal-line (stuffed on fourth-and-goal in Sun Bowl 2016, P12 title games in 2017 AND 2015, USC 2014), Shaw-Vita has a problem to fix.

[Duck Tears]

Good Grief: Thoughts on the failed two-point conversion pass to Smith.

1. When the field is three yards long, WHY drop back to pass? The odds of converting a two-point play decrease exponentially once you go backwards. The most successful two-pointers include deception/misdirection/momentum, or a combo of all three (see the Patriots in the last Super Bowl).

2. Has Stanford made a 2-point conversion (beyond garbage time) this decade? This Alamo Bowl, 2017 Oregon State, 2015 Oregon are the most recent foul-ups.*
*Combined with the related hardships near the goal-line (stuffed on fourth-and-goal in Sun Bowl 2016, P12 title games in 2017 AND 2015, USC 2014), Shaw-Vita has a problem to fix.

[BostonCard]

Our last successful two point conversion was in 2016, against Notre Dame.  Trailing by 1, Bryce Love scored (or fumbled at the goal line and recovered by JJ Arcega-Whiteside, as the ruling on the field incorrectly determined) with about 10 minutes to go in the fourth quarter.  Love then ran it in for the point conversion to push the lead to a touchdown.

https://youtu.be/W-0Z-pujUgg?t=2h2m4s

Note, the conversion was from the half yard line, as Notre Dame was assessed an offside and then an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.  But Love could have walked in from the 10 yard line, as we fooled Notre Dame by faking the handoff and pitching it outside to Love.

BC

[BostonCard]

Our last successful two point conversion was in 2016, against Notre Dame.  Trailing by 1, Bryce Love scored (or fumbled at the goal line and recovered by JJ Arcega-Whiteside, as the ruling on the field incorrectly determined) with about 10 minutes to go in the fourth quarter.  Love then ran it in for the point conversion to push the lead to a touchdown.

https://youtu.be/W-0Z-pujUgg?t=2h2m4s

Note, the conversion was from the half yard line, as Notre Dame was assessed an offside and then an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.  But Love could have walked in from the 10 yard line, as we fooled Notre Dame by faking the handoff and pitching it outside to Love.

BC

[Duck Tears]

as we fooled Votre Dame by faking the handoff and pitching it outside to Love.

Thank you, there it is! "Fooled." More trickery on a short field with the game on the line, please.

[Duck Tears]

as we fooled Votre Dame by faking the handoff and pitching it outside to Love.

Thank you, there it is! "Fooled." More trickery on a short field with the game on the line, please.

[BostonCard]

On two point converesions... it appears the NFL is doing them wrong.

https://www.boydsbets.com/nfl-two-point-...cess-rate/

The success rate running the football is higher than passing (62% to 43%), and yet NFL teams insist on attempting a pass just under 3/4 of the time.  I couldn't find a similar analysis for college, but it does suggest dropping back to pass is not a good idea.  I could not find a similar number for college.

This year on third down and 1 to 3 yards to go (the situation most analogous to a 2-pt conversion), we passed 17 times and got a first down or touchdown 12 (a conversion rate of 70.5%.  We ran the ball under similar circumstances 31 times, and got a first down or touchdown 23 times, a 67.7% conversion rate.  Those numbers are close enough to suggest it doesn't really matter, though it appears that nominally it is better to pass than run.

BC

[BostonCard]

On two point converesions... it appears the NFL is doing them wrong.

https://www.boydsbets.com/nfl-two-point-...cess-rate/

The success rate running the football is higher than passing (62% to 43%), and yet NFL teams insist on attempting a pass just under 3/4 of the time.  I couldn't find a similar analysis for college, but it does suggest dropping back to pass is not a good idea.  I could not find a similar number for college.

This year on third down and 1 to 3 yards to go (the situation most analogous to a 2-pt conversion), we passed 17 times and got a first down or touchdown 12 (a conversion rate of 70.5%.  We ran the ball under similar circumstances 31 times, and got a first down or touchdown 23 times, a 67.7% conversion rate.  Those numbers are close enough to suggest it doesn't really matter, though it appears that nominally it is better to pass than run.

BC

[teejers1]

BC, we will never agree on our O being a good one this year, as I think I'd take more than half of the conference offenses over Stanford's (based on limited viewing).

I will just end with this:  it's no coincidence that Stanford's best teams under Shaw had prolific offenses:  2011 (excellent) and 2015 (very good) on a YPG metric.  [And again, if the Os under Shaw have been good or effective these last couple years, then why do we run so few plays with such a "good" offense?].

You don't have to answer that question because as noted above, we'll never agree.

P.S.  Lex, as to your question, I want an O that attacks everywhere on the field - both running and passing.  I don't believe a "run Love into a packed box and hope he springs one because he is that good" to be a particularly good strategy.  Again, Detroit Lions.  Obviously, I am in a minority here.

[teejers1]

BC, we will never agree on our O being a good one this year, as I think I'd take more than half of the conference offenses over Stanford's (based on limited viewing).

I will just end with this:  it's no coincidence that Stanford's best teams under Shaw had prolific offenses:  2011 (excellent) and 2015 (very good) on a YPG metric.  [And again, if the Os under Shaw have been good or effective these last couple years, then why do we run so few plays with such a "good" offense?].

You don't have to answer that question because as noted above, we'll never agree.

P.S.  Lex, as to your question, I want an O that attacks everywhere on the field - both running and passing.  I don't believe a "run Love into a packed box and hope he springs one because he is that good" to be a particularly good strategy.  Again, Detroit Lions.  Obviously, I am in a minority here.

[BostonCard]

I will just end with this:  it's no coincidence that Stanford's best teams under Shaw had prolific offenses:  2011 (excellent) and 2015 (very good) on a YPG metric.  [And again, if the Os under Shaw have been good or effective these last couple years, then why do we run so few plays with such a "good" offense?].

Our 2012 and 2013 Rose Bowl teams called to disagree with you.

BC

[BostonCard]

I will just end with this:  it's no coincidence that Stanford's best teams under Shaw had prolific offenses:  2011 (excellent) and 2015 (very good) on a YPG metric.  [And again, if the Os under Shaw have been good or effective these last couple years, then why do we run so few plays with such a "good" offense?].

Our 2012 and 2013 Rose Bowl teams called to disagree with you.

BC