[CTcard]

More broadly, I am amused that suddenly more Ogre with fewer play-maker options is being called for on a fan board. For years, the extra OL formations were one of the main message board complaints, often made specific by decrying the lack of other options to be exploited to fool defenses.

Let me provide you with more amusement, then. The extra OL formations used by Harbaugh were because we lacked "skill" players, and sought to strategically exploit one of three things: 1) sometimes we had better OL-men than the opponent's DL-men, 2) sometimes the opposing defenses were not experienced or equipped against such formations, and 3) sometimes we needed to run clock, and the other side knew that. In other words, given our personnel and theirs, it was the best play call option, at least if in the mix with other more traditional sets.

However, I think now it is different. We have - arguably, anyway - never had such a deep OL. This formation exploits that fact. So, this formation, IMHO, gets a significant number "play-makers," to use your term, on the field at once, no less than traditional sets.

-m.

First of all, my apologies. It seems my use of "amused" came across as pejorative. It wasn't meant as an insult, but I am … interested(?) in the evolving views of our various extra-OL formations. 

In my post, "play-maker" was used to indicate people who would handle the ball in moving it down the field, not in the sense of a player who is particularly good - a difference maker. So, RBs, WRs, and TEs. Perhaps I should have used "ball-handlers". No matter how good a player Walker Little is or becomes, he isn't going to be running downfield with the ball outside of a trick play. 

More ball-handlers means that a particular formation has more options for plays. That's one way to attack a defense. Another way is to bring superior numbers or superior ability to the point of attack. That has often been Stanford's approach under both Harbaugh and Shaw - which is the point of having so many formations and personnel packages. If you can run five-wide empty backfield sets, traditional I-formation, 7/8-heavy run formations, etc.; almost every defense will have trouble matching up with at least one of those options. The heavy sets are particularly useful when you have a back like Love; bringing everyone up to the line of scrimmage means that a single decisive blocking win could mean breaking for a TD. 

Like Goose, I suspect we will have times during the season that we'll read complaints about using too many heavy set formations, and these will morph to comments about Shaw's stubbornness. However, at the moment it looks to me as if these heavy formations play to a lot of Stanford's current personnel strengths and should be generally effective (though they do have to worry about cutting off the crashing rusher from off the edge which occasionally caused trouble last year).

[CTcard]

More broadly, I am amused that suddenly more Ogre with fewer play-maker options is being called for on a fan board. For years, the extra OL formations were one of the main message board complaints, often made specific by decrying the lack of other options to be exploited to fool defenses.

Let me provide you with more amusement, then. The extra OL formations used by Harbaugh were because we lacked "skill" players, and sought to strategically exploit one of three things: 1) sometimes we had better OL-men than the opponent's DL-men, 2) sometimes the opposing defenses were not experienced or equipped against such formations, and 3) sometimes we needed to run clock, and the other side knew that. In other words, given our personnel and theirs, it was the best play call option, at least if in the mix with other more traditional sets.

However, I think now it is different. We have - arguably, anyway - never had such a deep OL. This formation exploits that fact. So, this formation, IMHO, gets a significant number "play-makers," to use your term, on the field at once, no less than traditional sets.

-m.

First of all, my apologies. It seems my use of "amused" came across as pejorative. It wasn't meant as an insult, but I am … interested(?) in the evolving views of our various extra-OL formations. 

In my post, "play-maker" was used to indicate people who would handle the ball in moving it down the field, not in the sense of a player who is particularly good - a difference maker. So, RBs, WRs, and TEs. Perhaps I should have used "ball-handlers". No matter how good a player Walker Little is or becomes, he isn't going to be running downfield with the ball outside of a trick play. 

More ball-handlers means that a particular formation has more options for plays. That's one way to attack a defense. Another way is to bring superior numbers or superior ability to the point of attack. That has often been Stanford's approach under both Harbaugh and Shaw - which is the point of having so many formations and personnel packages. If you can run five-wide empty backfield sets, traditional I-formation, 7/8-heavy run formations, etc.; almost every defense will have trouble matching up with at least one of those options. The heavy sets are particularly useful when you have a back like Love; bringing everyone up to the line of scrimmage means that a single decisive blocking win could mean breaking for a TD. 

Like Goose, I suspect we will have times during the season that we'll read complaints about using too many heavy set formations, and these will morph to comments about Shaw's stubbornness. However, at the moment it looks to me as if these heavy formations play to a lot of Stanford's current personnel strengths and should be generally effective (though they do have to worry about cutting off the crashing rusher from off the edge which occasionally caused trouble last year).