[Mick]

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.

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg220208#msg220208 date=1515077251]
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.

[/quote]

The interesting thing to me about multi-option offenses is that from the offense's perspective the key is to go after the weakest defender possible.  You want that player to have to make the play, and you keep going at him until the offense switches out the player or switches up the coverage.  The team with the weakest player is the most vulnerable.  Imagine how baseball would be if you didn't have to pitch to Buster Posey at all but could pitch to the player with the weakest on base percentage -- every single time.

I think if the defense knows what our offense is likely to do, we have a significant disadvantage.  It's not such a disadvantage if Luck or Garoppolo is calling the signals, they can see the tendencies in the other defense better than a less capable QB.  So Stanford (and the Niners) should always do pretty well if they have a very strong QB.  If not, all bets are off.

[Mick]

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.

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg220208#msg220208 date=1515077251]
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.

[/quote]

The interesting thing to me about multi-option offenses is that from the offense's perspective the key is to go after the weakest defender possible.  You want that player to have to make the play, and you keep going at him until the offense switches out the player or switches up the coverage.  The team with the weakest player is the most vulnerable.  Imagine how baseball would be if you didn't have to pitch to Buster Posey at all but could pitch to the player with the weakest on base percentage -- every single time.

I think if the defense knows what our offense is likely to do, we have a significant disadvantage.  It's not such a disadvantage if Luck or Garoppolo is calling the signals, they can see the tendencies in the other defense better than a less capable QB.  So Stanford (and the Niners) should always do pretty well if they have a very strong QB.  If not, all bets are off.