11-11-2014, 10:13 AM
Touchdowns are never boring, no matter how they happen. Unfortunately, they have been far too rare this season.
New OC suggestions or wishes?
11-11-2014, 12:02 PM
What we know:
1. Stanford's offense has been middling to bad the last 3 years;
2. The constant in this period is the head coach, who by all appearances, is "involved" in the play calling on offense.
3. Stanford moved the ball quite effectively against SC outside the red zone, and stunk up the joint in the red zone.
What we think we know:
1. Shaw was/is responsible for red zone calls (per comment from T. Husak on radio broadcast).
What we don't know:
1. Exactly who calls the plays and who has responsibility for what. I suspect Shaw has final say on everything, based on his constant examination of that plastic card in front of him and speaking into the headset when Stanford is on offense (and oh yeah, signaling in the plays to Hogan).
Based on the above, my belief is that until Shaw removes himself from input into play calling, Stanford's offense will be consigned to mediocrity. He can decide whether to go for it or punt; he can make a suggestion during a TO before a big/important play. But the OC has to be given the leeway during games to make the calls. Otherwise, (a) how can you have consistency?, and (b) how can you have accountability? For all we know, Bloomgren is suggesting perfectly good play calls, only to be overridden by Shaw. That is why the dumping on Bloomgren is, at best, not on a solid base.
The above, of course, is based on a certain belief as to what is actually happening now. If, in fact, Bloomgren is calling all the plays and making all the decisions, then the argument that he has to relinquish those responsibilities is strong (if not ironclad).
But we fans really don't know for sure what the hell is going on, beyond the fact that "it isn't working."Â
1. Stanford's offense has been middling to bad the last 3 years;
2. The constant in this period is the head coach, who by all appearances, is "involved" in the play calling on offense.
3. Stanford moved the ball quite effectively against SC outside the red zone, and stunk up the joint in the red zone.
What we think we know:
1. Shaw was/is responsible for red zone calls (per comment from T. Husak on radio broadcast).
What we don't know:
1. Exactly who calls the plays and who has responsibility for what. I suspect Shaw has final say on everything, based on his constant examination of that plastic card in front of him and speaking into the headset when Stanford is on offense (and oh yeah, signaling in the plays to Hogan).
Based on the above, my belief is that until Shaw removes himself from input into play calling, Stanford's offense will be consigned to mediocrity. He can decide whether to go for it or punt; he can make a suggestion during a TO before a big/important play. But the OC has to be given the leeway during games to make the calls. Otherwise, (a) how can you have consistency?, and (b) how can you have accountability? For all we know, Bloomgren is suggesting perfectly good play calls, only to be overridden by Shaw. That is why the dumping on Bloomgren is, at best, not on a solid base.
The above, of course, is based on a certain belief as to what is actually happening now. If, in fact, Bloomgren is calling all the plays and making all the decisions, then the argument that he has to relinquish those responsibilities is strong (if not ironclad).
But we fans really don't know for sure what the hell is going on, beyond the fact that "it isn't working."Â
What we know:
1. Stanford's offense has been middling to bad the last 3 years;
2. The constant in this period is the head coach, who by all appearances, is "involved" in the play calling on offense.
3. Stanford moved the ball quite effectively against SC outside the red zone, and stunk up the joint in the red zone.
What we think we know:
1. Shaw was/is responsible for red zone calls (per comment from T. Husak on radio broadcast).
What we don't know:
1. Exactly who calls the plays and who has responsibility for what. I suspect Shaw has final say on everything, based on his constant examination of that plastic card in front of him and speaking into the headset when Stanford is on offense (and oh yeah, signaling in the plays to Hogan).
Based on the above, my belief is that until Shaw removes himself from input into play calling, Stanford's offense will be consigned to mediocrity. He can decide whether to go for it or punt; he can make a suggestion during a TO before a big/important play. But the OC has to be given the leeway during games to make the calls. Otherwise, (a) how can you have consistency?, and (b) how can you have accountability? For all we know, Bloomgren is suggesting perfectly good play calls, only to be overridden by Shaw. That is why the dumping on Bloomgren is, at best, not on a solid base.
The above, of course, is based on a certain belief as to what is actually happening now. If, in fact, Bloomgren is calling all the plays and making all the decisions, then the argument that he has to relinquish those responsibilities is strong (if not ironclad).
But we fans really don't know for sure what the hell is going on, beyond the fact that "it isn't working."Â
1. Stanford's offense has been middling to bad the last 3 years;
2. The constant in this period is the head coach, who by all appearances, is "involved" in the play calling on offense.
3. Stanford moved the ball quite effectively against SC outside the red zone, and stunk up the joint in the red zone.
What we think we know:
1. Shaw was/is responsible for red zone calls (per comment from T. Husak on radio broadcast).
What we don't know:
1. Exactly who calls the plays and who has responsibility for what. I suspect Shaw has final say on everything, based on his constant examination of that plastic card in front of him and speaking into the headset when Stanford is on offense (and oh yeah, signaling in the plays to Hogan).
Based on the above, my belief is that until Shaw removes himself from input into play calling, Stanford's offense will be consigned to mediocrity. He can decide whether to go for it or punt; he can make a suggestion during a TO before a big/important play. But the OC has to be given the leeway during games to make the calls. Otherwise, (a) how can you have consistency?, and (b) how can you have accountability? For all we know, Bloomgren is suggesting perfectly good play calls, only to be overridden by Shaw. That is why the dumping on Bloomgren is, at best, not on a solid base.
The above, of course, is based on a certain belief as to what is actually happening now. If, in fact, Bloomgren is calling all the plays and making all the decisions, then the argument that he has to relinquish those responsibilities is strong (if not ironclad).
But we fans really don't know for sure what the hell is going on, beyond the fact that "it isn't working."Â
11-11-2014, 01:05 PM
The head coach is only one of the constants. Hogan and Bloomgren are, too.Â
The ultimate responsibility rests with the QB. He has to check out of bad plays and into the better one.Â
You also have to account for the variables, particularly our radical shift from a run-first power game featuring two NFL draftees at running back to an offense without a true power back in any sense, much less one worthy of second team all conference, and last year's radical shift to an offense without one tight end, much less two. The power game relies on a block-first TE capable of making some catches.Â
And finally, the power game rests on a pulling guard; Power is a pulling-guard scheme. We haven't had one in either of the last two years. It appears that our best candidate, and only the one ready to play this year, is Graham Shuler.
The fans calling for different and better playcalling very often suggest plays for which our talent is not well-suited, and just as often suggest plays which work once a game: Hogan keeping on the read-option. Hogan doesn't pressure a defense with a strong threat of running away for the play side; he's capable but not dangerous. A defense is perfectly willing to bend and allow him the occasional keeper to the back side. It's a five-yard keeper, perhaps, with a once-every-three games exception.
And finally, we played in three consecutive BCS bowl games under Shaw. He was the constant. That has to be worth something.
The ultimate responsibility rests with the QB. He has to check out of bad plays and into the better one.Â
You also have to account for the variables, particularly our radical shift from a run-first power game featuring two NFL draftees at running back to an offense without a true power back in any sense, much less one worthy of second team all conference, and last year's radical shift to an offense without one tight end, much less two. The power game relies on a block-first TE capable of making some catches.Â
And finally, the power game rests on a pulling guard; Power is a pulling-guard scheme. We haven't had one in either of the last two years. It appears that our best candidate, and only the one ready to play this year, is Graham Shuler.
The fans calling for different and better playcalling very often suggest plays for which our talent is not well-suited, and just as often suggest plays which work once a game: Hogan keeping on the read-option. Hogan doesn't pressure a defense with a strong threat of running away for the play side; he's capable but not dangerous. A defense is perfectly willing to bend and allow him the occasional keeper to the back side. It's a five-yard keeper, perhaps, with a once-every-three games exception.
And finally, we played in three consecutive BCS bowl games under Shaw. He was the constant. That has to be worth something.
The head coach is only one of the constants. Hogan and Bloomgren are, too.Â
The ultimate responsibility rests with the QB. He has to check out of bad plays and into the better one.Â
You also have to account for the variables, particularly our radical shift from a run-first power game featuring two NFL draftees at running back to an offense without a true power back in any sense, much less one worthy of second team all conference, and last year's radical shift to an offense without one tight end, much less two. The power game relies on a block-first TE capable of making some catches.Â
And finally, the power game rests on a pulling guard; Power is a pulling-guard scheme. We haven't had one in either of the last two years. It appears that our best candidate, and only the one ready to play this year, is Graham Shuler.
The fans calling for different and better playcalling very often suggest plays for which our talent is not well-suited, and just as often suggest plays which work once a game: Hogan keeping on the read-option. Hogan doesn't pressure a defense with a strong threat of running away for the play side; he's capable but not dangerous. A defense is perfectly willing to bend and allow him the occasional keeper to the back side. It's a five-yard keeper, perhaps, with a once-every-three games exception.
And finally, we played in three consecutive BCS bowl games under Shaw. He was the constant. That has to be worth something.
The ultimate responsibility rests with the QB. He has to check out of bad plays and into the better one.Â
You also have to account for the variables, particularly our radical shift from a run-first power game featuring two NFL draftees at running back to an offense without a true power back in any sense, much less one worthy of second team all conference, and last year's radical shift to an offense without one tight end, much less two. The power game relies on a block-first TE capable of making some catches.Â
And finally, the power game rests on a pulling guard; Power is a pulling-guard scheme. We haven't had one in either of the last two years. It appears that our best candidate, and only the one ready to play this year, is Graham Shuler.
The fans calling for different and better playcalling very often suggest plays for which our talent is not well-suited, and just as often suggest plays which work once a game: Hogan keeping on the read-option. Hogan doesn't pressure a defense with a strong threat of running away for the play side; he's capable but not dangerous. A defense is perfectly willing to bend and allow him the occasional keeper to the back side. It's a five-yard keeper, perhaps, with a once-every-three games exception.
And finally, we played in three consecutive BCS bowl games under Shaw. He was the constant. That has to be worth something.
11-11-2014, 01:30 PM
(11-11-2014, 01:05 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:The head coach is only one of the constants. Hogan and Bloomgren are, too.Â
The ultimate responsibility rests with the QB. He has to check out of bad plays and into the better one.Â
You also have to account for the variables, particularly our radical shift from a run-first power game featuring two NFL draftees at running back to an offense without a true power back in any sense, much less one worthy of second team all conference, and last year's radical shift to an offense without one tight end, much less two. The power game relies on a block-first TE capable of making some catches.Â
And finally, the power game rests on a pulling guard; Power is a pulling-guard scheme. We haven't had one in either of the last two years. It appears that our best candidate, and only the one ready to play this year, is Graham Shuler.
The fans calling for different and better playcalling very often suggest plays for which our talent is not well-suited, and just as often suggest plays which work once a game: Hogan keeping on the read-option. Hogan doesn't pressure a defense with a strong threat of running away for the play side; he's capable but not dangerous. A defense is perfectly willing to bend and allow him the occasional keeper to the back side. It's a five-yard keeper, perhaps, with a once-every-three games exception.
And finally, we played in three consecutive BCS bowl games under Shaw. He was the constant. That has to be worth something.
are you advocating moving Shuler to OG? Might not be a bad idea considering the year Caspers has had and Austin not showing anything.
(11-11-2014, 01:05 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:The head coach is only one of the constants. Hogan and Bloomgren are, too.Â
The ultimate responsibility rests with the QB. He has to check out of bad plays and into the better one.Â
You also have to account for the variables, particularly our radical shift from a run-first power game featuring two NFL draftees at running back to an offense without a true power back in any sense, much less one worthy of second team all conference, and last year's radical shift to an offense without one tight end, much less two. The power game relies on a block-first TE capable of making some catches.Â
And finally, the power game rests on a pulling guard; Power is a pulling-guard scheme. We haven't had one in either of the last two years. It appears that our best candidate, and only the one ready to play this year, is Graham Shuler.
The fans calling for different and better playcalling very often suggest plays for which our talent is not well-suited, and just as often suggest plays which work once a game: Hogan keeping on the read-option. Hogan doesn't pressure a defense with a strong threat of running away for the play side; he's capable but not dangerous. A defense is perfectly willing to bend and allow him the occasional keeper to the back side. It's a five-yard keeper, perhaps, with a once-every-three games exception.
And finally, we played in three consecutive BCS bowl games under Shaw. He was the constant. That has to be worth something.
are you advocating moving Shuler to OG? Might not be a bad idea considering the year Caspers has had and Austin not showing anything.
11-11-2014, 01:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-11-2014, 02:53 PM by OutsiderFan.)
Why are Harbaugh/Roman and Bloomgren/Shaw both captaining the worst Red Zone offenses in their respective levels of competition? The Niners can't score points and they have Frank Gore. The Niners are terrible in the Red Zone and they have good run blocking OL.
I'm just not buying the "we don't have a power back" and "we don't have a pulling Guard" memes. There is something fundamentally not working with the approaches these respective offensive braintrusts are taking. This isn't one Stanford offense failing to produce, it's basically another one right down the road as well.Â
I'm just not buying the "we don't have a power back" and "we don't have a pulling Guard" memes. There is something fundamentally not working with the approaches these respective offensive braintrusts are taking. This isn't one Stanford offense failing to produce, it's basically another one right down the road as well.Â
(This post was last modified: 11-11-2014, 02:53 PM by OutsiderFan.)
Why are Harbaugh/Roman and Bloomgren/Shaw both captaining the worst Red Zone offenses in their respective levels of competition? The Niners can't score points and they have Frank Gore. The Niners are terrible in the Red Zone and they have good run blocking OL.
I'm just not buying the "we don't have a power back" and "we don't have a pulling Guard" memes. There is something fundamentally not working with the approaches these respective offensive braintrusts are taking. This isn't one Stanford offense failing to produce, it's basically another one right down the road as well.Â
I'm just not buying the "we don't have a power back" and "we don't have a pulling Guard" memes. There is something fundamentally not working with the approaches these respective offensive braintrusts are taking. This isn't one Stanford offense failing to produce, it's basically another one right down the road as well.Â
11-11-2014, 02:37 PM
(11-11-2014, 01:49 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Why are Harbaugh/Roman and Bloomgren/Shaw both captaining the worst Red Zone offenses in their respective levels of competition? The Niners can't score points and they have Frank Gore. The Niners are terrible in the Red Zone and they have good run blocking OL.
I'm just not buying the "we don't have a power back" and "we don't have a pulling Guard" memes. There is something fundamentally not working with the approaches these respective offensive braintrusts are taking. This isn't one Stanford offense failing to produce, it's basically another one right down the road as well.
In 2012 SF was the #5 offense in DVOA, while we were #36. So Roman and Harbaugh are way better than Shaw and Hamilton, since they're getting it done as opposed to being merely good. Last year SF was #8 and we were #18, so Harbaugh and Roman regressed a small amount while switching from Hamilton to Bloomgren helped us. Now this year we're #65 and SF is #23. So Harbaugh and Roman lost their mojo, while Bloomgren was actually a downgrade from Pep but it took time to see.
Or this is all more complicated than your analysis because results are a combination of lots of different factors, some of which coaches control but most of which they don't, and comparing two different coaching staffs in a cherry-picked year of abnormal performance is facile, pointless, and counterproductive.
(11-11-2014, 01:49 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Why are Harbaugh/Roman and Bloomgren/Shaw both captaining the worst Red Zone offenses in their respective levels of competition? The Niners can't score points and they have Frank Gore. The Niners are terrible in the Red Zone and they have good run blocking OL.
I'm just not buying the "we don't have a power back" and "we don't have a pulling Guard" memes. There is something fundamentally not working with the approaches these respective offensive braintrusts are taking. This isn't one Stanford offense failing to produce, it's basically another one right down the road as well.
In 2012 SF was the #5 offense in DVOA, while we were #36. So Roman and Harbaugh are way better than Shaw and Hamilton, since they're getting it done as opposed to being merely good. Last year SF was #8 and we were #18, so Harbaugh and Roman regressed a small amount while switching from Hamilton to Bloomgren helped us. Now this year we're #65 and SF is #23. So Harbaugh and Roman lost their mojo, while Bloomgren was actually a downgrade from Pep but it took time to see.
Or this is all more complicated than your analysis because results are a combination of lots of different factors, some of which coaches control but most of which they don't, and comparing two different coaching staffs in a cherry-picked year of abnormal performance is facile, pointless, and counterproductive.
11-11-2014, 02:52 PM
If you want to get technical, virtually everything we talk about here is pointless and counterproductive. I still think there are similarities between Stanford and the Niners that are meaningful. It's a lot more than coincidence. And I think a lot of it has to do with defenses getting better at stopping what the teams do and the offenses not adequately adjusting.
If you want to get technical, virtually everything we talk about here is pointless and counterproductive. I still think there are similarities between Stanford and the Niners that are meaningful. It's a lot more than coincidence. And I think a lot of it has to do with defenses getting better at stopping what the teams do and the offenses not adequately adjusting.
11-11-2014, 04:52 PM
Quote: And finally, the power game rests on a pulling guard; Power is a pulling-guard scheme. We haven't had one in either of the last two years. It appears that our best candidate, and only the one ready to play this year, is Graham Shuler.
Maybe, but I would point out that all three of this team's interior guys are a definite downgrade from the guys starting last year. While I do think Shuler does some nice things, Wilkes truly played like an all-conference guy last year. He was an underrated player.
Plus, our RBs are a downgrade from Gaffney, obviously.
I think we all held out hope that the guys we have would develop into all-conference types like Wilkes did when he finally got a shot to start, but it's clear that's not happening this year.
Quote: And finally, the power game rests on a pulling guard; Power is a pulling-guard scheme. We haven't had one in either of the last two years. It appears that our best candidate, and only the one ready to play this year, is Graham Shuler.
Maybe, but I would point out that all three of this team's interior guys are a definite downgrade from the guys starting last year. While I do think Shuler does some nice things, Wilkes truly played like an all-conference guy last year. He was an underrated player.
Plus, our RBs are a downgrade from Gaffney, obviously.
I think we all held out hope that the guys we have would develop into all-conference types like Wilkes did when he finally got a shot to start, but it's clear that's not happening this year.
11-11-2014, 07:32 PM
(11-11-2014, 01:05 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:The head coach is only one of the constants. Hogan and Bloomgren are, too.Â
Well, Hogan for only part of 2012, and Bloomgren was only Oline in 2012.
More importantly it's worth remembering what were not constants over 2012-14.
1. The type of offense we have run. [See next section of this post, for example.]
2. The quality of the offense.
In 2013, on its own terms, the offense was at least not bad. We ran exceedingly few plays, by design, so not using stats that don't adjust for pace of play is pointless. Pace of play stats aren't perfect either, but they are what we got.
In 2013 we were,
Yds/play - 6.35, 2nd in Pac 12, 26th nationally
pts/drive - 2.67, 30th nationally
Offensive Efficiency - 22nd nationally (Football Outsiders, opponent adjusted FEI).
Things are worse in 2013, were significantly worse in 2012.
Quote:You also have to account for the variables, particularly our radical shift from a run-first power game
It would seem I am in a distinct minority, but I think a primary reason for some of the troubles is the radical shifts we have seen, particularly this year away from the run-first power game. The backs themselves are still averaging decent numbers per carry, but their carries are way down.
The primary RBs
2011 - 5.55 yds/carry; 32.8 carries/gm
2012 - 5.04 yds/carry; 29.2 carries/gm
2013 - 5.26 yds/carry; 32.0 carries/gm
2014 - 5.43 yds/carry; 18.7 carries/gm
It would seem to me that the decrease in carries per game is not justified by a decrease in yds/carry.
Quote:And finally, the power game rests on a pulling guard; Power is a pulling-guard scheme. We haven't had one in either of the last two years. It appears that our best candidate, and only the one ready to play this year, is Graham Shuler.
I think you got the years wrong. Last year we had Yankey at guard, who was a pretty decent pulling guard. In 2012 we had to play Yankey at LT, which left a problem at guard. As a result we rarely ran classic Power, but didn't abandon a power-ish run game.
I agree that Shuler seems to be the best puller among the interior linemen, but occasionally I see Garnett doing a good job of it. In particular I remember a couple of nice pulls vs OSU (Young's 34 yd run near in the 4th quarter, IIRC).
Quote:just as often suggest plays which work once a game: Hogan keeping on the read-option. Hogan doesn't pressure a defense with a strong threat of running away for the play side; he's capable but not dangerous. A defense is perfectly willing to bend and allow him the occasional keeper to the back side. It's a five-yard keeper, perhaps, with a once-every-three games exception.
I actually think that play works well enough I wouldn't mind seeing more of it - 5 yds a pop would be excellent. But, it's a minor thing in the grand scheme, and isn't going to change the overall look of the offense much.
(11-11-2014, 01:05 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:The head coach is only one of the constants. Hogan and Bloomgren are, too.Â
Well, Hogan for only part of 2012, and Bloomgren was only Oline in 2012.
More importantly it's worth remembering what were not constants over 2012-14.
1. The type of offense we have run. [See next section of this post, for example.]
2. The quality of the offense.
In 2013, on its own terms, the offense was at least not bad. We ran exceedingly few plays, by design, so not using stats that don't adjust for pace of play is pointless. Pace of play stats aren't perfect either, but they are what we got.
In 2013 we were,
Yds/play - 6.35, 2nd in Pac 12, 26th nationally
pts/drive - 2.67, 30th nationally
Offensive Efficiency - 22nd nationally (Football Outsiders, opponent adjusted FEI).
Things are worse in 2013, were significantly worse in 2012.
Quote:You also have to account for the variables, particularly our radical shift from a run-first power game
It would seem I am in a distinct minority, but I think a primary reason for some of the troubles is the radical shifts we have seen, particularly this year away from the run-first power game. The backs themselves are still averaging decent numbers per carry, but their carries are way down.
The primary RBs
2011 - 5.55 yds/carry; 32.8 carries/gm
2012 - 5.04 yds/carry; 29.2 carries/gm
2013 - 5.26 yds/carry; 32.0 carries/gm
2014 - 5.43 yds/carry; 18.7 carries/gm
It would seem to me that the decrease in carries per game is not justified by a decrease in yds/carry.
Quote:And finally, the power game rests on a pulling guard; Power is a pulling-guard scheme. We haven't had one in either of the last two years. It appears that our best candidate, and only the one ready to play this year, is Graham Shuler.
I think you got the years wrong. Last year we had Yankey at guard, who was a pretty decent pulling guard. In 2012 we had to play Yankey at LT, which left a problem at guard. As a result we rarely ran classic Power, but didn't abandon a power-ish run game.
I agree that Shuler seems to be the best puller among the interior linemen, but occasionally I see Garnett doing a good job of it. In particular I remember a couple of nice pulls vs OSU (Young's 34 yd run near in the 4th quarter, IIRC).
Quote:just as often suggest plays which work once a game: Hogan keeping on the read-option. Hogan doesn't pressure a defense with a strong threat of running away for the play side; he's capable but not dangerous. A defense is perfectly willing to bend and allow him the occasional keeper to the back side. It's a five-yard keeper, perhaps, with a once-every-three games exception.
I actually think that play works well enough I wouldn't mind seeing more of it - 5 yds a pop would be excellent. But, it's a minor thing in the grand scheme, and isn't going to change the overall look of the offense much.
11-11-2014, 07:53 PM
(11-11-2014, 07:32 PM)CTcard link Wrote:It would seem I am in a distinct minority, but I think a primary reason for some of the troubles is the radical shifts we have seen, particularly this year away from the run-first power game. The backs themselves are still averaging decent numbers per carry, but their carries are way down.
The primary RBs
2011 - 5.55 yds/carry; 32.8 carries/gm
2012 - 5.04 yds/carry; 29.2 carries/gm
2013 - 5.26 yds/carry; 32.0 carries/gm
2014 - 5.43 yds/carry; 18.7 carries/gm
I'm not sure the relationship is clear -- I have a strong suspicion that efficiency would decrease as carries increase. It seems to me a lot of these runs are against-the-grain, when the defense doesn't quite expect it. Running at 2011-13 volume requires you to run when the defense knows it's coming.
FWIW, Football Outsider's S&P+ metric -- which tries to measure success rates and explosiveness -- ranks our run offense (101st) as much worse than our passing offense (53rd).
(11-11-2014, 07:32 PM)CTcard link Wrote:It would seem I am in a distinct minority, but I think a primary reason for some of the troubles is the radical shifts we have seen, particularly this year away from the run-first power game. The backs themselves are still averaging decent numbers per carry, but their carries are way down.
The primary RBs
2011 - 5.55 yds/carry; 32.8 carries/gm
2012 - 5.04 yds/carry; 29.2 carries/gm
2013 - 5.26 yds/carry; 32.0 carries/gm
2014 - 5.43 yds/carry; 18.7 carries/gm
I'm not sure the relationship is clear -- I have a strong suspicion that efficiency would decrease as carries increase. It seems to me a lot of these runs are against-the-grain, when the defense doesn't quite expect it. Running at 2011-13 volume requires you to run when the defense knows it's coming.
FWIW, Football Outsider's S&P+ metric -- which tries to measure success rates and explosiveness -- ranks our run offense (101st) as much worse than our passing offense (53rd).
11-12-2014, 07:59 AM
I was including Yankey in my comments re the decline in pulling guards. Brad Badger threatened to spoil me forever until DeCastro came along, and perhaps the fact that we had two guards on that team (Phillips the other) who could pull well raised a bar that Yankey never cleared for me. He always looked like a straight up or straight back guy to me, and was good at both--but not in space.
I was including Yankey in my comments re the decline in pulling guards. Brad Badger threatened to spoil me forever until DeCastro came along, and perhaps the fact that we had two guards on that team (Phillips the other) who could pull well raised a bar that Yankey never cleared for me. He always looked like a straight up or straight back guy to me, and was good at both--but not in space.
11-12-2014, 08:16 AM
Harbaugh's offenses ranked 2d, 3rd, and 2d in the Pac-12 for red zone touchdown conversions in his last three years, and achieved its best mark with Tavita at QB. If you're looking for a scapegoat for the 49ers red zone woes this season, it appears you need to look past Harbaugh and Roman. Do the 49ers have the ideal red zone talent? I'd bet not.
Harbaugh's offenses ranked 2d, 3rd, and 2d in the Pac-12 for red zone touchdown conversions in his last three years, and achieved its best mark with Tavita at QB. If you're looking for a scapegoat for the 49ers red zone woes this season, it appears you need to look past Harbaugh and Roman. Do the 49ers have the ideal red zone talent? I'd bet not.
11-12-2014, 08:56 AM
Get back to Power Football, fast. Stanford's success during the BCS era was largely the result of being physically dominant with their OL, rushing the ball MANY times, grinding time off the clock to minimize the number of plays, and taking advantage of their opponent's impatience. When you are the bigger, stronger, more physical team, you want to keep it simple and brutal. Statistics prove this to be true. Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats said this: "Football is funny that way. If you can assure yourself three and a half yards on every running play, you'll be unstoppable."
Get back to Power Football, fast. Stanford's success during the BCS era was largely the result of being physically dominant with their OL, rushing the ball MANY times, grinding time off the clock to minimize the number of plays, and taking advantage of their opponent's impatience. When you are the bigger, stronger, more physical team, you want to keep it simple and brutal. Statistics prove this to be true. Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats said this: "Football is funny that way. If you can assure yourself three and a half yards on every running play, you'll be unstoppable."
11-12-2014, 09:25 AM
The other possibility we haven't considered: what if redzone performance has a large degree of randomness? Tavita Pritchard, redzone scholar is not a phrase that makes a ton of intuitive sense.
The other possibility we haven't considered: what if redzone performance has a large degree of randomness? Tavita Pritchard, redzone scholar is not a phrase that makes a ton of intuitive sense.
11-12-2014, 09:30 AM
(11-12-2014, 09:25 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The other possibility we haven't considered: what if redzone performance has a large degree of randomness? Tavita Pritchard, redzone scholar is not a phrase that makes a ton of intuitive sense.
This is college football, everything has a large degree of randomness year-to-year. That's what's so frustrating to me about this, right now we have absolutely no way to tell if we're seeing signal or noise.
(11-12-2014, 09:25 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The other possibility we haven't considered: what if redzone performance has a large degree of randomness? Tavita Pritchard, redzone scholar is not a phrase that makes a ton of intuitive sense.
This is college football, everything has a large degree of randomness year-to-year. That's what's so frustrating to me about this, right now we have absolutely no way to tell if we're seeing signal or noise.
11-12-2014, 10:24 AM
(11-12-2014, 09:42 AM)garvin link Wrote:But when it comes to the general proposition of red zone efficiency, I doubt that it's random.
Well, it doesn't have to be either "all random" or "no random," right? There's luck of the draw in, say, Scrabble or poker, yet no one disagrees that both are skill-based games. The question is, how much random noise is involved in this particular red zone performance? The past three years' less-than-average performance suggests there's something distinctive about our redzone offense that isn't working, but what -- who knows? Or it could be a three-year-long run of bad luck, I suppose.
(11-12-2014, 09:42 AM)garvin link Wrote:But when it comes to the general proposition of red zone efficiency, I doubt that it's random.
Well, it doesn't have to be either "all random" or "no random," right? There's luck of the draw in, say, Scrabble or poker, yet no one disagrees that both are skill-based games. The question is, how much random noise is involved in this particular red zone performance? The past three years' less-than-average performance suggests there's something distinctive about our redzone offense that isn't working, but what -- who knows? Or it could be a three-year-long run of bad luck, I suppose.
11-12-2014, 10:57 AM
(11-11-2014, 07:53 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=11056.msg104875#msg104875 date=1415759553]
It would seem I am in a distinct minority, but I think a primary reason for some of the troubles is the radical shifts we have seen, particularly this year away from the run-first power game. The backs themselves are still averaging decent numbers per carry, but their carries are way down.
The primary RBs
2011 - 5.55 yds/carry; 32.8 carries/gm
2012 - 5.04 yds/carry; 29.2 carries/gm
2013 - 5.26 yds/carry; 32.0 carries/gm
2014 - 5.43 yds/carry; 18.7 carries/gm
I'm not sure the relationship is clear -- I have a strong suspicion that efficiency would decrease as carries increase. It seems to me a lot of these runs are against-the-grain, when the defense doesn't quite expect it. Running at 2011-13 volume requires you to run when the defense knows it's coming.
FWIW, Football Outsider's S&P+ metric -- which tries to measure success rates and explosiveness -- ranks our run offense (101st) as much worse than our passing offense (53rd).
[/quote]
Some of what you say is probably true - that running more would mean less effectiveness per carry, though there may a counter effect from "wearing out the defense". I would maintain that the imbalance between effectiveness and number of carries is so large, that it argues we should run the ball more. On the other hand, I am personally biased towards a strong run game (at least for Stanford) so it is quite likely that I tend to read numbers through that lens.
I use the Football Outsiders numbers from time to time, but it bothers me that I don't know their formulas to the extent that I could reproduce them. Thus I don't feel like I know in enough detail what they are measuring. For example, a good power run game is not necessarily "explosive", so I might not care if our run game measured poorly on that metric - might not depending on the details. In addition, this stat seems to include all run plays except stats, which is better than the NCAA standard but doesn't focus on the bread and butter RB stats as I did.Â
(11-11-2014, 07:53 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=11056.msg104875#msg104875 date=1415759553]
It would seem I am in a distinct minority, but I think a primary reason for some of the troubles is the radical shifts we have seen, particularly this year away from the run-first power game. The backs themselves are still averaging decent numbers per carry, but their carries are way down.
The primary RBs
2011 - 5.55 yds/carry; 32.8 carries/gm
2012 - 5.04 yds/carry; 29.2 carries/gm
2013 - 5.26 yds/carry; 32.0 carries/gm
2014 - 5.43 yds/carry; 18.7 carries/gm
I'm not sure the relationship is clear -- I have a strong suspicion that efficiency would decrease as carries increase. It seems to me a lot of these runs are against-the-grain, when the defense doesn't quite expect it. Running at 2011-13 volume requires you to run when the defense knows it's coming.
FWIW, Football Outsider's S&P+ metric -- which tries to measure success rates and explosiveness -- ranks our run offense (101st) as much worse than our passing offense (53rd).
[/quote]
Some of what you say is probably true - that running more would mean less effectiveness per carry, though there may a counter effect from "wearing out the defense". I would maintain that the imbalance between effectiveness and number of carries is so large, that it argues we should run the ball more. On the other hand, I am personally biased towards a strong run game (at least for Stanford) so it is quite likely that I tend to read numbers through that lens.
I use the Football Outsiders numbers from time to time, but it bothers me that I don't know their formulas to the extent that I could reproduce them. Thus I don't feel like I know in enough detail what they are measuring. For example, a good power run game is not necessarily "explosive", so I might not care if our run game measured poorly on that metric - might not depending on the details. In addition, this stat seems to include all run plays except stats, which is better than the NCAA standard but doesn't focus on the bread and butter RB stats as I did.Â
11-12-2014, 11:02 AM
(11-12-2014, 07:59 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:I was including Yankey in my comments re the decline in pulling guards. Brad Badger threatened to spoil me forever until DeCastro came along, and perhaps the fact that we had two guards on that team (Phillips the other) who could pull well raised a bar that Yankey never cleared for me. He always looked like a straight up or straight back guy to me, and was good at both--but not in space.
I agree that Yankey was not the puller that either DeCastro or Phllips were. On the other hand, in 2013 we did pull Yankey a lot and our running game overall was fairly successful.
In 2012, with Yankey at LT, we simply gave up trying to pull the guards. My memory is that we still ran a lot of man-blocking scheme with a fullback lead blocker but appeared to think that keeping the off-guard on the backside was better than trying to pull him when he doesn't get around and therefore blocks nobody.
(11-12-2014, 07:59 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:I was including Yankey in my comments re the decline in pulling guards. Brad Badger threatened to spoil me forever until DeCastro came along, and perhaps the fact that we had two guards on that team (Phillips the other) who could pull well raised a bar that Yankey never cleared for me. He always looked like a straight up or straight back guy to me, and was good at both--but not in space.
I agree that Yankey was not the puller that either DeCastro or Phllips were. On the other hand, in 2013 we did pull Yankey a lot and our running game overall was fairly successful.
In 2012, with Yankey at LT, we simply gave up trying to pull the guards. My memory is that we still ran a lot of man-blocking scheme with a fullback lead blocker but appeared to think that keeping the off-guard on the backside was better than trying to pull him when he doesn't get around and therefore blocks nobody.
11-12-2014, 11:23 AM
(11-11-2014, 12:02 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:What we know:
1. Stanford's offense has been middling to bad the last 3 years;
2. The constant in this period is the head coach, who by all appearances, is "involved" in the play calling on offense.
3. Stanford moved the ball quite effectively against SC outside the red zone, and stunk up the joint in the red zone.
What we think we know:
1. Shaw was/is responsible for red zone calls (per comment from T. Husak on radio broadcast).
What we don't know:
1. Exactly who calls the plays and who has responsibility for what. I suspect Shaw has final say on everything, based on his constant examination of that plastic card in front of him and speaking into the headset when Stanford is on offense (and oh yeah, signaling in the plays to Hogan).
Based on the above, my belief is that until Shaw removes himself from input into play calling, Stanford's offense will be consigned to mediocrity. He can decide whether to go for it or punt; he can make a suggestion during a TO before a big/important play. But the OC has to be given the leeway during games to make the calls. Otherwise, (a) how can you have consistency?, and (b) how can you have accountability? For all we know, Bloomgren is suggesting perfectly good play calls, only to be overridden by Shaw. That is why the dumping on Bloomgren is, at best, not on a solid base.
The above, of course, is based on a certain belief as to what is actually happening now. If, in fact, Bloomgren is calling all the plays and making all the decisions, then the argument that he has to relinquish those responsibilities is strong (if not ironclad).
But we fans really don't know for sure what the hell is going on, beyond the fact that "it isn't working."
We must forgive Teejers for his selective amnesia about 2011. I know the thought that a Shaw-coached offense could have the 7th ranked scoring offense in the nation, 8th ranked total offense (despite running fewer plays than most because of our style; we were 6th in yards per play), the 5th rated passing efficiency offense, (7th in yards per attempt), the 13th ranked rushing yards per attempt offense, not to mention the country's best red zone conversion team (97.1%!!!) is completely incongruous with the theory that David Shaw could not coach an offense out of a box, but yes, those stats really are true, and completely discredit the idea that as soon as Shaw took over, the offense became middling. Unfortunately, the one true constant we've had for the last three years is that the quarterback was not Andrew Luck, not that the coach was David Shaw.
Any analysis that seeks to explain why we have struggled more the last three years has to account for the fact that David Shaw was the coach during one of the best offensive years in Stanford's history, and was presumably in charge of red zone calls during the year where we were about as close to perfect in red zone conversion as any team can get. Because any analysis that selectively looks only at the last three years is inherently flawed.
BC
(11-11-2014, 12:02 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:What we know:
1. Stanford's offense has been middling to bad the last 3 years;
2. The constant in this period is the head coach, who by all appearances, is "involved" in the play calling on offense.
3. Stanford moved the ball quite effectively against SC outside the red zone, and stunk up the joint in the red zone.
What we think we know:
1. Shaw was/is responsible for red zone calls (per comment from T. Husak on radio broadcast).
What we don't know:
1. Exactly who calls the plays and who has responsibility for what. I suspect Shaw has final say on everything, based on his constant examination of that plastic card in front of him and speaking into the headset when Stanford is on offense (and oh yeah, signaling in the plays to Hogan).
Based on the above, my belief is that until Shaw removes himself from input into play calling, Stanford's offense will be consigned to mediocrity. He can decide whether to go for it or punt; he can make a suggestion during a TO before a big/important play. But the OC has to be given the leeway during games to make the calls. Otherwise, (a) how can you have consistency?, and (b) how can you have accountability? For all we know, Bloomgren is suggesting perfectly good play calls, only to be overridden by Shaw. That is why the dumping on Bloomgren is, at best, not on a solid base.
The above, of course, is based on a certain belief as to what is actually happening now. If, in fact, Bloomgren is calling all the plays and making all the decisions, then the argument that he has to relinquish those responsibilities is strong (if not ironclad).
But we fans really don't know for sure what the hell is going on, beyond the fact that "it isn't working."
We must forgive Teejers for his selective amnesia about 2011. I know the thought that a Shaw-coached offense could have the 7th ranked scoring offense in the nation, 8th ranked total offense (despite running fewer plays than most because of our style; we were 6th in yards per play), the 5th rated passing efficiency offense, (7th in yards per attempt), the 13th ranked rushing yards per attempt offense, not to mention the country's best red zone conversion team (97.1%!!!) is completely incongruous with the theory that David Shaw could not coach an offense out of a box, but yes, those stats really are true, and completely discredit the idea that as soon as Shaw took over, the offense became middling. Unfortunately, the one true constant we've had for the last three years is that the quarterback was not Andrew Luck, not that the coach was David Shaw.
Any analysis that seeks to explain why we have struggled more the last three years has to account for the fact that David Shaw was the coach during one of the best offensive years in Stanford's history, and was presumably in charge of red zone calls during the year where we were about as close to perfect in red zone conversion as any team can get. Because any analysis that selectively looks only at the last three years is inherently flawed.
BC
11-13-2014, 02:30 PM
(11-12-2014, 10:32 AM)garvin link Wrote:I am always arguing with chess fanatics, who love to proclaim it's the only game in which luck (that is, randomness) plays no role. But the player who moves first wins somewhere between 52 and 56 percent of the time, depending on which study you believe. And the selection of who moves first is random.
Probably depends on the level. At grandmaster level my guess is that the most frequent result is a draw.
(11-12-2014, 10:32 AM)garvin link Wrote:I am always arguing with chess fanatics, who love to proclaim it's the only game in which luck (that is, randomness) plays no role. But the player who moves first wins somewhere between 52 and 56 percent of the time, depending on which study you believe. And the selection of who moves first is random.
Probably depends on the level. At grandmaster level my guess is that the most frequent result is a draw.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »