[BostonCard]

So I'm trying to find out what, if anything has changed between last year and this year in the offense.  It has been taken as an article off faith that we have taken a step back on offense.  The question is, "why"?

So, some basic stats
2013
2904 rush yards; 2776 pass yards; 895 plays; 5880 total yards; 6.35 yards per play; 405.7 yards per game.
Rushing, we had 584 rushes, 2904 yards, 4.97 yards per cary, 30 TD, 207.4 yards per game(!). 
Passing we had 190 completions in 311 attempts, 61.1 completion percentage, 2776 yards, 8.9 yards per attempt, 21 TD, 10 INT, and a rating of 151.9; 198.3 yards per game.
9 fumbles, 10 interceptions
58 Tackles for Loss given up (181 yards), 4.14 tackles for loss per game
16 Sacks given up (94 yards), 1.14 sack per game
74 penalties, 625 yards (5.3 penalties per game, 44.6 penalty yards per game)

2013 (first four games only):
872 rush yards, 885 pass yards, 258 plays; 1757 total yards; 6.81 yards per play; 430.3 yards per game
Rushing, we had 164 rushes for 872 yards (5.32 yards per carry), 8 TD, 218 yards per game.
Passing, we were 58/94 (61.7%) for 885 yards; 9.4 yards per attempt, 10 TD, 3 INT, a rating of 169.52, 221.3 yards per game.
2 fumbles, 3 interceptions
(I don't have the game-by-game breakdown of tackles for loss or sacks).
19 penalties, 154 yards (4.8 penalties per game, 38.5 penalty yards per game)

2014:

662 rush yards, 991 pass yards, 1653 total yards, 6.46 yards per play; 413.3 yards per game
Rushing: we had 142 rushes for 662 yards, 4.66 yards per attempt, 4 TD, 165.5 yards per game.
Passing, we were 80/114 (70.2%) for 991 yards; 8.7 yards per attempt, 9 TD, 2 INT, a rating of 165.74, 247.8 yards per game.
7 fumbles, 2 Interceptions
16 TFL given up, 68 TFL yards, 4 TFL per game, 17 TFL yards per game
7 Sacks given up, 91 sack yards, 2.75 sacks per game
23 penalties, 223 yards (5.8 penalties per game, 55.8 penalty yards per game)

Red is worse than last year; green is better.  I see a lot of red.

BC

[BostonCard]

So I'm trying to find out what, if anything has changed between last year and this year in the offense.  It has been taken as an article off faith that we have taken a step back on offense.  The question is, "why"?

So, some basic stats
2013
2904 rush yards; 2776 pass yards; 895 plays; 5880 total yards; 6.35 yards per play; 405.7 yards per game.
Rushing, we had 584 rushes, 2904 yards, 4.97 yards per cary, 30 TD, 207.4 yards per game(!). 
Passing we had 190 completions in 311 attempts, 61.1 completion percentage, 2776 yards, 8.9 yards per attempt, 21 TD, 10 INT, and a rating of 151.9; 198.3 yards per game.
9 fumbles, 10 interceptions
58 Tackles for Loss given up (181 yards), 4.14 tackles for loss per game
16 Sacks given up (94 yards), 1.14 sack per game
74 penalties, 625 yards (5.3 penalties per game, 44.6 penalty yards per game)

2013 (first four games only):
872 rush yards, 885 pass yards, 258 plays; 1757 total yards; 6.81 yards per play; 430.3 yards per game
Rushing, we had 164 rushes for 872 yards (5.32 yards per carry), 8 TD, 218 yards per game.
Passing, we were 58/94 (61.7%) for 885 yards; 9.4 yards per attempt, 10 TD, 3 INT, a rating of 169.52, 221.3 yards per game.
2 fumbles, 3 interceptions
(I don't have the game-by-game breakdown of tackles for loss or sacks).
19 penalties, 154 yards (4.8 penalties per game, 38.5 penalty yards per game)

2014:

662 rush yards, 991 pass yards, 1653 total yards, 6.46 yards per play; 413.3 yards per game
Rushing: we had 142 rushes for 662 yards, 4.66 yards per attempt, 4 TD, 165.5 yards per game.
Passing, we were 80/114 (70.2%) for 991 yards; 8.7 yards per attempt, 9 TD, 2 INT, a rating of 165.74, 247.8 yards per game.
7 fumbles, 2 Interceptions
16 TFL given up, 68 TFL yards, 4 TFL per game, 17 TFL yards per game
7 Sacks given up, 91 sack yards, 2.75 sacks per game
23 penalties, 223 yards (5.8 penalties per game, 55.8 penalty yards per game)

Red is worse than last year; green is better.  I see a lot of red.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

One other way of looking at this is by comparing matchups. We had a lot of trouble with UW and SC last year and so perhaps it's not surprising that we had a lot of trouble with them this year as well. Defenses with Leonard Williams, Sua Cravens, Shaq Thompson and Danny Shelton are not exactly easy nuts to crack. And of course Justin Wilcox has been a real bete noire for us.

On the other hand, last year included two nonconference weaklings, plus ASU and WSU -- both of which we seem to match up well with. 

I don't have time to slice the data that way, but that might be a revealing way to look at it.

(One last factor: we blew out both Davis and Army and therefore got to bring in backups, which results in Evan Crower throwing passes instead of Hogan. Last year both SJSU and Army were able to keep it close enough to keep the backups' backsides on the bench.)

[washingtonismoney]

One other way of looking at this is by comparing matchups. We had a lot of trouble with UW and SC last year and so perhaps it's not surprising that we had a lot of trouble with them this year as well. Defenses with Leonard Williams, Sua Cravens, Shaq Thompson and Danny Shelton are not exactly easy nuts to crack. And of course Justin Wilcox has been a real bete noire for us.

On the other hand, last year included two nonconference weaklings, plus ASU and WSU -- both of which we seem to match up well with. 

I don't have time to slice the data that way, but that might be a revealing way to look at it.

(One last factor: we blew out both Davis and Army and therefore got to bring in backups, which results in Evan Crower throwing passes instead of Hogan. Last year both SJSU and Army were able to keep it close enough to keep the backups' backsides on the bench.)

[BostonCard]

Yes, direct comparison to last year are impossible because we didn't play the same teams as last year (and even when we played the same teams, some of them have new coaching staffs, and different sets of players). 

Still, some trends are clear:

• We run less than we used to, and when we do we don't get as many yards as we used to.
  
• We pass more than we did last year, and while we have a better completion percentage, our yards per attempt are down, likely because we aren't beating teams deep, likely because they are no longer putting eight in the box to stop the run.
  
• We have been having much more trouble holding onto the ball. Seven fumbles in four games, versus nine in thirteen last year!
  
• we are having trouble protecting Hogan.... Almost two sacks a game this year, versus a shade over one last year.  I'd love to see the stats for scrambles forced (makes our run game worse) and hurries (hurts our passing game).  Having an OL that could keep the pocket open for Hogan allowed him the time to develop the long pass plays.  This year, I've seen many fewer.
  
• we are committing more penalties for more yards this year.  That really hurts us.
  

It's hard to pin things on a single problem, but I think the biggest issue is probably the offensive line (which isn't bad, but isn't as phenomenal as we've gotten accustomed to).

BC

[BostonCard]

Yes, direct comparison to last year are impossible because we didn't play the same teams as last year (and even when we played the same teams, some of them have new coaching staffs, and different sets of players). 

Still, some trends are clear:

• We run less than we used to, and when we do we don't get as many yards as we used to.
  
• We pass more than we did last year, and while we have a better completion percentage, our yards per attempt are down, likely because we aren't beating teams deep, likely because they are no longer putting eight in the box to stop the run.
  
• We have been having much more trouble holding onto the ball. Seven fumbles in four games, versus nine in thirteen last year!
  
• we are having trouble protecting Hogan.... Almost two sacks a game this year, versus a shade over one last year.  I'd love to see the stats for scrambles forced (makes our run game worse) and hurries (hurts our passing game).  Having an OL that could keep the pocket open for Hogan allowed him the time to develop the long pass plays.  This year, I've seen many fewer.
  
• we are committing more penalties for more yards this year.  That really hurts us.
  

It's hard to pin things on a single problem, but I think the biggest issue is probably the offensive line (which isn't bad, but isn't as phenomenal as we've gotten accustomed to).

BC

[washingtonismoney]

[1.]We pass more than we did last year, and while we have a better completion percentage, our yards per attempt are down, likely because we aren't beating teams deep, likely because they are no longer putting eight in the box to stop the run.
[2.]We have been having much more trouble holding onto the ball. Seven fumbles in four games, versus nine in thirteen last year!

1. Think this is deceptive -- skewed by Crower's relief effort. Hogan's YPA (8.9 vs. 8.83) is barely different as a topline. (I do think passing problems are hidden by, as we've alluded to, Hogan's scrambles, which are effectively hidden incompletions. For whatever reason Hogan hasn't been terribly effective scrambling. Is that the offensive line? For whatever reason, is Hogan bailing out rather than completing his progressions? An increased emphasis on zone, potentially stemming from less eight-in-the-box stuffing? Any experts' thoughts here?)

2. Also think this is deceptive. Stanford's been victimized by bad turnovers luck this year. 0 true turnovers against SC and UW (turnovers-on-downs are a *bit* less meaningful though certainly still good -- the difference, say, between a single and a walk.) UW recovered four of five fumbles yesterday; Army recovered two of three; SC recovered three of five; and against Davis Stanford split the recovered fumbles evenly. That means Stanford's only recovered 4 of 15 fumbles. Over the long run, teams recover half of fumbles; there's no such thing as skill in fumble recoveries over the long term. (There's definitely skill in causing and, I presume, preventing fumbles, which goes to your point. But not quite the same thing.)

At any rate, this suggests Stanford's past results have a substantial drag. If it's even -- or reverses itself and turns to turnovers luck -- over the rest of the year, Stanford should perform much better.

[washingtonismoney]

[1.]We pass more than we did last year, and while we have a better completion percentage, our yards per attempt are down, likely because we aren't beating teams deep, likely because they are no longer putting eight in the box to stop the run.
[2.]We have been having much more trouble holding onto the ball. Seven fumbles in four games, versus nine in thirteen last year!

1. Think this is deceptive -- skewed by Crower's relief effort. Hogan's YPA (8.9 vs. 8.83) is barely different as a topline. (I do think passing problems are hidden by, as we've alluded to, Hogan's scrambles, which are effectively hidden incompletions. For whatever reason Hogan hasn't been terribly effective scrambling. Is that the offensive line? For whatever reason, is Hogan bailing out rather than completing his progressions? An increased emphasis on zone, potentially stemming from less eight-in-the-box stuffing? Any experts' thoughts here?)

2. Also think this is deceptive. Stanford's been victimized by bad turnovers luck this year. 0 true turnovers against SC and UW (turnovers-on-downs are a *bit* less meaningful though certainly still good -- the difference, say, between a single and a walk.) UW recovered four of five fumbles yesterday; Army recovered two of three; SC recovered three of five; and against Davis Stanford split the recovered fumbles evenly. That means Stanford's only recovered 4 of 15 fumbles. Over the long run, teams recover half of fumbles; there's no such thing as skill in fumble recoveries over the long term. (There's definitely skill in causing and, I presume, preventing fumbles, which goes to your point. But not quite the same thing.)

At any rate, this suggests Stanford's past results have a substantial drag. If it's even -- or reverses itself and turns to turnovers luck -- over the rest of the year, Stanford should perform much better.

[Papa John]

I'm amazed that no Stanford RB has scored a rushing touchdown four games into the season. Versus UW our lone rushing TD was Hogan a well-designed bootleg.

[Papa John]

I'm amazed that no Stanford RB has scored a rushing touchdown four games into the season. Versus UW our lone rushing TD was Hogan a well-designed bootleg.

[CTcard]

So I'm trying to find out what, if anything has changed between last year and this year in the offense.  It has been taken as an article off faith that we have taken a step back on offense.  The question is, "why"?

2014:

662 rush yards, 991 pass yards, 1653 total yards, 6.46 yds/play; 413.3 yds/gm

Rushing: 142 rushes, 662 yards, 4.66 yds/rush, 4 TD, 165.5 yds/gm.

Passing: 80/114 (70.2%),  991 yards; 8.7 yds/att, 9 TD, 2 INT, PER=165.74, 247.8 yds/gm

Other:
7 fumbles, 2 Interceptions
16 TFL given up, 68 TFL yards,4 TFL per game, 17 TFL yards per game
7 Sacks given up, 91 sack yards, 2.75 sacks per game
23 penalties, 223 yards (5.8 penalties per game, 55.8 penalty yards per game)

Red is worse than last year; green is better.  I see a lot of red.

EDIT NOTE: I recolored the above stats to reflect the comparison to like opponents - see below. Now I see run game=red, pass game=green.

Here is basically the same thing vs like opponents. This requires the substitution of Davis for SJS - and each of the others involves a swap of venue.

2013: like opponents (SJS, Army, UW, S.-C.)

789 rush yards, 631 pass yards, 1428 total yards, 5.83 yds/play; 357 yds/gm

Rushing: 151 rushes for 789 yards, 5.22 yards per attempt, 8 TD, 197 yds/gm.

Passing: 56/94 (59.6%), 639 yds; 6.8 yds/att, 5 TD, 4 INT, PER=125.72, 160 yds/gm.

Other: 3 fumbles (lost), 4 Interceptions
15 TFL given up, 42 TFL yards, 3.75 TFL per game, 10.5 TFL yards per game
4 Sacks given up, 15 sack yards, 1 sacks per game
16 penalties, 158 yards (4 penalties per game, 39.5 penalty yards per game)

Observations:

This measures something a little different than comparing first four games in two seasons, but I think it is a little more instructive on relative strengths of the team.

The major caveat is that Davis in 2014 is probably worse than SJS in 2013, but still the best substitution possible. 

Based on this comparison ...
We are running less and passing more.

The uptick in the pass game has more than made up for the downtick in the run game. Total yards by the offense is considerably better than vs same opponents in 2013.

I think that the output per carry by the running backs is at least as good as last year, but that Hogans scrambling and end-around type plays are down considerably. Will look at that when I get time.
EDIT: here is a partial analysis of this. http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg99701

We are way worse in fumbles and overall penalties. Those penalties are not all on the offense, but it is certainly my impression that penalties on the offense are up considerably as well.

In a separate thread Hulk and WIM noted that explosive plays are down this year. Though it is not directly in these statistics, it certainly looks to me that the passing game is much less focused on the deep ball for the kill.

Put together, I get a picture of an offense that passes more and very differently than last year. An offense that overall is moving the ball more consistently UNTIL they get close when things collapse.
That's not really too surprising given that we have four new OLine starters, and it seems to me that the Oline does a lot of individual things well but has way too many mistakes and breakdowns.

[CTcard]

So I'm trying to find out what, if anything has changed between last year and this year in the offense.  It has been taken as an article off faith that we have taken a step back on offense.  The question is, "why"?

2014:

662 rush yards, 991 pass yards, 1653 total yards, 6.46 yds/play; 413.3 yds/gm

Rushing: 142 rushes, 662 yards, 4.66 yds/rush, 4 TD, 165.5 yds/gm.

Passing: 80/114 (70.2%),  991 yards; 8.7 yds/att, 9 TD, 2 INT, PER=165.74, 247.8 yds/gm

Other:
7 fumbles, 2 Interceptions
16 TFL given up, 68 TFL yards,4 TFL per game, 17 TFL yards per game
7 Sacks given up, 91 sack yards, 2.75 sacks per game
23 penalties, 223 yards (5.8 penalties per game, 55.8 penalty yards per game)

Red is worse than last year; green is better.  I see a lot of red.

EDIT NOTE: I recolored the above stats to reflect the comparison to like opponents - see below. Now I see run game=red, pass game=green.

Here is basically the same thing vs like opponents. This requires the substitution of Davis for SJS - and each of the others involves a swap of venue.

2013: like opponents (SJS, Army, UW, S.-C.)

789 rush yards, 631 pass yards, 1428 total yards, 5.83 yds/play; 357 yds/gm

Rushing: 151 rushes for 789 yards, 5.22 yards per attempt, 8 TD, 197 yds/gm.

Passing: 56/94 (59.6%), 639 yds; 6.8 yds/att, 5 TD, 4 INT, PER=125.72, 160 yds/gm.

Other: 3 fumbles (lost), 4 Interceptions
15 TFL given up, 42 TFL yards, 3.75 TFL per game, 10.5 TFL yards per game
4 Sacks given up, 15 sack yards, 1 sacks per game
16 penalties, 158 yards (4 penalties per game, 39.5 penalty yards per game)

Observations:

This measures something a little different than comparing first four games in two seasons, but I think it is a little more instructive on relative strengths of the team.

The major caveat is that Davis in 2014 is probably worse than SJS in 2013, but still the best substitution possible. 

Based on this comparison ...
We are running less and passing more.

The uptick in the pass game has more than made up for the downtick in the run game. Total yards by the offense is considerably better than vs same opponents in 2013.

I think that the output per carry by the running backs is at least as good as last year, but that Hogans scrambling and end-around type plays are down considerably. Will look at that when I get time.
EDIT: here is a partial analysis of this. http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#msg99701

We are way worse in fumbles and overall penalties. Those penalties are not all on the offense, but it is certainly my impression that penalties on the offense are up considerably as well.

In a separate thread Hulk and WIM noted that explosive plays are down this year. Though it is not directly in these statistics, it certainly looks to me that the passing game is much less focused on the deep ball for the kill.

Put together, I get a picture of an offense that passes more and very differently than last year. An offense that overall is moving the ball more consistently UNTIL they get close when things collapse.
That's not really too surprising given that we have four new OLine starters, and it seems to me that the Oline does a lot of individual things well but has way too many mistakes and breakdowns.

[Hulk01]

I've looked at our performance from several angles, but one stat that surprised me was this one:

It's Hogan passing on first and second down:

2013:  128-204 (63.7%), 1713 yards (8.3 yards per attempt, 13.4 per completion)
2014: 56-75 (74.7%), 657 yards (8.7 yards per attempt, 11.7 yards per completion)

And then Hogan's conversions on passing on 3rd and 7 or more:
2013: 19-44 (43%)
2014: 2-11 (19%)

The number of attempts is too small, of course, so we cannot insist there is a true downward trend.  But the combination of his three red zone fumbles and these 2-3 more failed third and longer conversions makes him appear less effective and consistent so far this season.  Add that to Williamson's four misses and or five offensive penalties (and airmailed direct snap) inside the red zone against USC, and it turns into a mess, and suggests a team that moves down the field but not into the end zone. 

But it's not unreasonable to think that fewer OL penalties--and we had none in the noise of Husky Stadium against an outstanding Washington defensive line--along with  improved protection (allowing sacks on 3.7% of our dropbacks to a Washington that have been averaging sacks on over 11% looks encouraging), and Hogan simply holding onto the ball (six of our 11 fumbles have been by quarterbacks, and a seventh came on the airmailed snap against USC) should help us put up points more in line with a team that averages 6.0 yards per play. 

[Hulk01]

I've looked at our performance from several angles, but one stat that surprised me was this one:

It's Hogan passing on first and second down:

2013:  128-204 (63.7%), 1713 yards (8.3 yards per attempt, 13.4 per completion)
2014: 56-75 (74.7%), 657 yards (8.7 yards per attempt, 11.7 yards per completion)

And then Hogan's conversions on passing on 3rd and 7 or more:
2013: 19-44 (43%)
2014: 2-11 (19%)

The number of attempts is too small, of course, so we cannot insist there is a true downward trend.  But the combination of his three red zone fumbles and these 2-3 more failed third and longer conversions makes him appear less effective and consistent so far this season.  Add that to Williamson's four misses and or five offensive penalties (and airmailed direct snap) inside the red zone against USC, and it turns into a mess, and suggests a team that moves down the field but not into the end zone. 

But it's not unreasonable to think that fewer OL penalties--and we had none in the noise of Husky Stadium against an outstanding Washington defensive line--along with  improved protection (allowing sacks on 3.7% of our dropbacks to a Washington that have been averaging sacks on over 11% looks encouraging), and Hogan simply holding onto the ball (six of our 11 fumbles have been by quarterbacks, and a seventh came on the airmailed snap against USC) should help us put up points more in line with a team that averages 6.0 yards per play. 

[stupac2]

And then Hogan's conversions on passing on 3rd and 7 or more:
2013: 2-11 (19%)
2014: 19-44 (43%)

Are those reversed?

[stupac2]

And then Hogan's conversions on passing on 3rd and 7 or more:
2013: 2-11 (19%)
2014: 19-44 (43%)

Are those reversed?

[Hulk01]

Sorry stupac.  Yes, the third down conversion numbers were reversed.  Now corrected.

[Hulk01]

Sorry stupac.  Yes, the third down conversion numbers were reversed.  Now corrected.

[stupac2]

Sorry stupac.  Yes, the third down conversion numbers were reversed.  Now corrected.

No worries. Though that does raise a question, how are we doing on 3rd down in general compared to last year? Being bad/unlucky on 3rd down can sure make an otherwise good offense look terrible, and IIRC we were something like 25% against Washington.

[stupac2]

Sorry stupac.  Yes, the third down conversion numbers were reversed.  Now corrected.

No worries. Though that does raise a question, how are we doing on 3rd down in general compared to last year? Being bad/unlucky on 3rd down can sure make an otherwise good offense look terrible, and IIRC we were something like 25% against Washington.

[CTcard]

No worries. Though that does raise a question, how are we doing on 3rd down in general compared to last year? Being bad/unlucky on 3rd down can sure make an otherwise good offense look terrible, and IIRC we were something like 25% against Washington.

You know this is very easy to look up.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/leader/905/...ort01.html

2014: 19 for 45, 42%
2013: 98 for 197, 50%

[CTcard]

No worries. Though that does raise a question, how are we doing on 3rd down in general compared to last year? Being bad/unlucky on 3rd down can sure make an otherwise good offense look terrible, and IIRC we were something like 25% against Washington.

You know this is very easy to look up.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/leader/905/...ort01.html

2014: 19 for 45, 42%
2013: 98 for 197, 50%

[jayasena]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=10742.msg99699#msg99699 date=1412009459]

No worries. Though that does raise a question, how are we doing on 3rd down in general compared to last year? Being bad/unlucky on 3rd down can sure make an otherwise good offense look terrible, and IIRC we were something like 25% against Washington.

You know this is very easy to look up.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/leader/905/...ort01.html

2014: 19 for 45, 42%
2013: 98 for 197, 50%
[/quote]

That difference may not seem all that big, but 50% made us #1 in the Pac-12 in 2013 while we are #9 in 2014. Whether that means the 8% difference makes a brobdingnagian difference in the games or whether we are sweating over meaningless variations in stats, I have no idea. Probably a bit of both.

[jayasena]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=10742.msg99699#msg99699 date=1412009459]

No worries. Though that does raise a question, how are we doing on 3rd down in general compared to last year? Being bad/unlucky on 3rd down can sure make an otherwise good offense look terrible, and IIRC we were something like 25% against Washington.

You know this is very easy to look up.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/leader/905/...ort01.html

2014: 19 for 45, 42%
2013: 98 for 197, 50%
[/quote]

That difference may not seem all that big, but 50% made us #1 in the Pac-12 in 2013 while we are #9 in 2014. Whether that means the 8% difference makes a brobdingnagian difference in the games or whether we are sweating over meaningless variations in stats, I have no idea. Probably a bit of both.

[washingtonismoney]

My observation about the offense is that it does well when it has options open, which I think is reflected by Hulk's stats and the inability to run the ball when it needed to burn clock. When it can throw a bunch of different stuff at the defense -- potential zone-read runs, Hogan mobility, passing threats, etc. -- it's effective at moving the ball. In situations in which options are constricted -- 3rd and long, when you must pass; 2:30 left up seven, when you want to run; the redzone, when spaces are compressed -- the weaknesses of personnel down the spine of the team (i.e. OL, QB, RB) become apparent.

That may be why the team looks superficially effective but brittle. It may be that the team should use more spread concepts to test the edges, where the team looks much stronger. Perhaps there should be more pistol and more shotgun with QB run/pass options to compensate. That's what I would consider, theoretically. Of course, such a wholesale change schematically is like turning a battleship. If we started now we might be ready by 2015 to run it effectively.

[washingtonismoney]

My observation about the offense is that it does well when it has options open, which I think is reflected by Hulk's stats and the inability to run the ball when it needed to burn clock. When it can throw a bunch of different stuff at the defense -- potential zone-read runs, Hogan mobility, passing threats, etc. -- it's effective at moving the ball. In situations in which options are constricted -- 3rd and long, when you must pass; 2:30 left up seven, when you want to run; the redzone, when spaces are compressed -- the weaknesses of personnel down the spine of the team (i.e. OL, QB, RB) become apparent.

That may be why the team looks superficially effective but brittle. It may be that the team should use more spread concepts to test the edges, where the team looks much stronger. Perhaps there should be more pistol and more shotgun with QB run/pass options to compensate. That's what I would consider, theoretically. Of course, such a wholesale change schematically is like turning a battleship. If we started now we might be ready by 2015 to run it effectively.

[Hulk01]

Against our three D1 opponents, who have allowed teams to convert 33% of their third downs, we are 10-26, or 44%.  USC ranks 6th in the nation, and Washington 18th, in this category. 

Between them, those two teams may have seven guys--Leonard Williams, Hayes Pullard, Sua Cravens, Kahaha, Denny Shelton, Shaq Thompson, and Marcus Peters--who end up on the first team All Pac-12. 

Just for fun, and to see how this prediction comes out, here's my bet on the team, with the locks in bold.

DE  Hau'oli Kikaha (WASH)
DT  Denny Shelton (WASH)
DE  Leonard Williams (Spoileds)
LB Eric Kendricks (UCLA)
LB  Scooby Wright III (Arizona)
LB  Shaq Thompson (WASH)
LB  Myles Jack (UCLA)
DB  Ife Ekpre-Olumu (UCLA)
DB  Marcus Peters (WA)
DB  Ishmael Adams (UCLA)
DB  Jordan Richards (Stan) or Alex Carter (Stan)

The number of outstanding DBs in the conference makes me think they might choose a nickel defense just to honor the best players.  The coaches typically gave chosen a 4-3, but my bet is that they go with a 3-4 for similar reasons: there seem to be more deserving linebackers than there are DLs, and not that many great DTs. 

LB  Stanford even approximates its recent performances, the coaches will have to name Henry Anderson and/or A.J Tarpley, and one of those LBs seems likely to be beat out by a guy we won't face,  I'd bet on one of them, not least of all because the 11 guys listed above include five defensive backs.

[Hulk01]

Against our three D1 opponents, who have allowed teams to convert 33% of their third downs, we are 10-26, or 44%.  USC ranks 6th in the nation, and Washington 18th, in this category. 

Between them, those two teams may have seven guys--Leonard Williams, Hayes Pullard, Sua Cravens, Kahaha, Denny Shelton, Shaq Thompson, and Marcus Peters--who end up on the first team All Pac-12. 

Just for fun, and to see how this prediction comes out, here's my bet on the team, with the locks in bold.

DE  Hau'oli Kikaha (WASH)
DT  Denny Shelton (WASH)
DE  Leonard Williams (Spoileds)
LB Eric Kendricks (UCLA)
LB  Scooby Wright III (Arizona)
LB  Shaq Thompson (WASH)
LB  Myles Jack (UCLA)
DB  Ife Ekpre-Olumu (UCLA)
DB  Marcus Peters (WA)
DB  Ishmael Adams (UCLA)
DB  Jordan Richards (Stan) or Alex Carter (Stan)

The number of outstanding DBs in the conference makes me think they might choose a nickel defense just to honor the best players.  The coaches typically gave chosen a 4-3, but my bet is that they go with a 3-4 for similar reasons: there seem to be more deserving linebackers than there are DLs, and not that many great DTs. 

LB  Stanford even approximates its recent performances, the coaches will have to name Henry Anderson and/or A.J Tarpley, and one of those LBs seems likely to be beat out by a guy we won't face,  I'd bet on one of them, not least of all because the 11 guys listed above include five defensive backs.

[76lsjumb]

Maybe I missed it in some other thread, but, in all of the macro-analysis of the offense this season to date, and given the flack that Hogan has been taking, I'm surprised at how little attention has been paid here to the fact that one player has almost single-handedly been responsible for some of the costliest offensive breakdowns so far. 

That player, of course, is Jord  Remound Wright.

I like him; I think he is [and can continue to be] a real contributor, but, at this point, I'd be hard pressed to identify someone else whose efforts on offense to date have directly led to such heartache [and, arguably, caused us our only loss].

One chop block cost us a TD against S.C.  A second chop block [against UW] cost us a 20+ yard completion [effectively ending what could have been a very promising drive]. And, of course, a fumble resulted in a pick-up-6 TD for UW.  Take away the two opponents' scores and add in another TD [or even a field goal] for us and the tone of the present conversation [as well as the season offensive stats] might be quite different right now.

I hope his luck [and blocking technique] turns quickly...  [Of course, we all know that the refs blow the whistle on stopped forward progress much more quickly at N.D. than they apparently do at UW.]

[76lsjumb]

Maybe I missed it in some other thread, but, in all of the macro-analysis of the offense this season to date, and given the flack that Hogan has been taking, I'm surprised at how little attention has been paid here to the fact that one player has almost single-handedly been responsible for some of the costliest offensive breakdowns so far. 

That player, of course, is Jord  Remound Wright.

I like him; I think he is [and can continue to be] a real contributor, but, at this point, I'd be hard pressed to identify someone else whose efforts on offense to date have directly led to such heartache [and, arguably, caused us our only loss].

One chop block cost us a TD against S.C.  A second chop block [against UW] cost us a 20+ yard completion [effectively ending what could have been a very promising drive]. And, of course, a fumble resulted in a pick-up-6 TD for UW.  Take away the two opponents' scores and add in another TD [or even a field goal] for us and the tone of the present conversation [as well as the season offensive stats] might be quite different right now.

I hope his luck [and blocking technique] turns quickly...  [Of course, we all know that the refs blow the whistle on stopped forward progress much more quickly at N.D. than they apparently do at UW.]

[washingtonismoney]

I'm surprised at how little attention has been paid here to the fact that one player has almost single-handedly been responsible for some of the costliest offensive breakdowns so far. 
...
I hope his luck [and blocking technique] turns quickly...  [Of course, we all know that the refs blow the whistle on stopped forward progress much more quickly at N.D. than they apparently do at UW.]

That's a fair point. Interestingly, however, it looks to me that Wright has the trust of the coaches. I haven't counted it out, but I'd suspect he's the primary 3rd down back -- which presumably reflects his ability to pass protect and receive.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm surprised at how little attention has been paid here to the fact that one player has almost single-handedly been responsible for some of the costliest offensive breakdowns so far. 
...
I hope his luck [and blocking technique] turns quickly...  [Of course, we all know that the refs blow the whistle on stopped forward progress much more quickly at N.D. than they apparently do at UW.]

That's a fair point. Interestingly, however, it looks to me that Wright has the trust of the coaches. I haven't counted it out, but I'd suspect he's the primary 3rd down back -- which presumably reflects his ability to pass protect and receive.

[Spiny_Norman]

George Chen of the Stanford Daily has also highlighted a weakness that has to be addressed - Hogan's decision making.

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/09/28/...ter-hogan/

[Spiny_Norman]

George Chen of the Stanford Daily has also highlighted a weakness that has to be addressed - Hogan's decision making.

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/09/28/...ter-hogan/

[CTcard]

LB  Stanford even approximates its recent performances, the coaches will have to name Henry Anderson and/or A.J Tarpley, and one of those LBs seems likely to be beat out by a guy we won't face,  I'd bet on one of them, not least of all because the 11 guys listed above include five defensive backs.

Hey Hulk, any chance you could clarify this paragraph?
I cannot figure out what you mean.

[CTcard]

LB  Stanford even approximates its recent performances, the coaches will have to name Henry Anderson and/or A.J Tarpley, and one of those LBs seems likely to be beat out by a guy we won't face,  I'd bet on one of them, not least of all because the 11 guys listed above include five defensive backs.

Hey Hulk, any chance you could clarify this paragraph?
I cannot figure out what you mean.

[CTcard]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=10742.msg99714#msg99714 date=1412016004]
I'm surprised at how little attention has been paid here to the fact that one player has almost single-handedly been responsible for some of the costliest offensive breakdowns so far. 
...
I hope his luck [and blocking technique] turns quickly...  [Of course, we all know that the refs blow the whistle on stopped forward progress much more quickly at N.D. than they apparently do at UW.]

That's a fair point. Interestingly, however, it looks to me that Wright has the trust of the coaches. I haven't counted it out, but I'd suspect he's the primary 3rd down back -- which presumably reflects his ability to pass protect and receive.
[/quote]

I am not sure if it is for good or ill, but it appears to me that Wright is on his way towards becoming Stanford's primary back.

Game 1 - Wright 4 carries
Davis      Young, Sanders 14 carries
              [We still see the result of the off-season suspension]

Game 2 - Wright 11 carries
S.-C.        Young, Sanders 9 carries

Game 3 - Wright out with injury
Army

Game 4 - Wright 14 carries
UW          Young, Sanders 8 carries

[CTcard]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=10742.msg99714#msg99714 date=1412016004]
I'm surprised at how little attention has been paid here to the fact that one player has almost single-handedly been responsible for some of the costliest offensive breakdowns so far. 
...
I hope his luck [and blocking technique] turns quickly...  [Of course, we all know that the refs blow the whistle on stopped forward progress much more quickly at N.D. than they apparently do at UW.]

That's a fair point. Interestingly, however, it looks to me that Wright has the trust of the coaches. I haven't counted it out, but I'd suspect he's the primary 3rd down back -- which presumably reflects his ability to pass protect and receive.
[/quote]

I am not sure if it is for good or ill, but it appears to me that Wright is on his way towards becoming Stanford's primary back.

Game 1 - Wright 4 carries
Davis      Young, Sanders 14 carries
              [We still see the result of the off-season suspension]

Game 2 - Wright 11 carries
S.-C.        Young, Sanders 9 carries

Game 3 - Wright out with injury
Army

Game 4 - Wright 14 carries
UW          Young, Sanders 8 carries

[stupac2]

Maybe I missed it in some other thread, but, in all of the macro-analysis of the offense this season to date, and given the flack that Hogan has been taking, I'm surprised at how little attention has been paid here to the fact that one player has almost single-handedly been responsible for some of the costliest offensive breakdowns so far. 

That player, of course, is Jord  Remound Wright.

I like him; I think he is [and can continue to be] a real contributor, but, at this point, I'd be hard pressed to identify someone else whose efforts on offense to date have directly led to such heartache [and, arguably, caused us our only loss].

One chop block cost us a TD against S.C.  A second chop block [against UW] cost us a 20+ yard completion [effectively ending what could have been a very promising drive]. And, of course, a fumble resulted in a pick-up-6 TD for UW.  Take away the two opponents' scores and add in another TD [or even a field goal] for us and the tone of the present conversation [as well as the season offensive stats] might be quite different right now.

I hope his luck [and blocking technique] turns quickly...  [Of course, we all know that the refs blow the whistle on stopped forward progress much more quickly at N.D. than they apparently do at UW.]

Weren't the chop blocks really the OL's fault? Wright had already engaged them low when the OL went high. Sure, he was there, but he was doing his job. The OL should be able to see that the defender has already been cut and not engage.

Maybe those were bad blocks by Wright, that's beyond my ability to tell. They sure looked effective to me though.

[stupac2]

Maybe I missed it in some other thread, but, in all of the macro-analysis of the offense this season to date, and given the flack that Hogan has been taking, I'm surprised at how little attention has been paid here to the fact that one player has almost single-handedly been responsible for some of the costliest offensive breakdowns so far. 

That player, of course, is Jord  Remound Wright.

I like him; I think he is [and can continue to be] a real contributor, but, at this point, I'd be hard pressed to identify someone else whose efforts on offense to date have directly led to such heartache [and, arguably, caused us our only loss].

One chop block cost us a TD against S.C.  A second chop block [against UW] cost us a 20+ yard completion [effectively ending what could have been a very promising drive]. And, of course, a fumble resulted in a pick-up-6 TD for UW.  Take away the two opponents' scores and add in another TD [or even a field goal] for us and the tone of the present conversation [as well as the season offensive stats] might be quite different right now.

I hope his luck [and blocking technique] turns quickly...  [Of course, we all know that the refs blow the whistle on stopped forward progress much more quickly at N.D. than they apparently do at UW.]

Weren't the chop blocks really the OL's fault? Wright had already engaged them low when the OL went high. Sure, he was there, but he was doing his job. The OL should be able to see that the defender has already been cut and not engage.

Maybe those were bad blocks by Wright, that's beyond my ability to tell. They sure looked effective to me though.