[TrumpCard]

Combined stats for all of Stanford's WRs through 8 games: 51 receptions, 701 yds, 13.7 avg., 7 TDs. 

[TrumpCard]

Combined stats for all of Stanford's WRs through 8 games: 51 receptions, 701 yds, 13.7 avg., 7 TDs. 

[Spiny_Norman]

Are you trying to make the point that the WRs have not been productive?  As Shaw pointed out in his post-game comments, McCaffrey, Love and Hooper have all lined up as a WR and caught passes.  (Kyle Murphy on the other hand has zero receptions from the WR position)

[Spiny_Norman]

Are you trying to make the point that the WRs have not been productive?  As Shaw pointed out in his post-game comments, McCaffrey, Love and Hooper have all lined up as a WR and caught passes.  (Kyle Murphy on the other hand has zero receptions from the WR position)

[TrumpCard]

Are you trying to make the point that the WRs have not been productive?  As Shaw pointed out in his post-game comments, McCaffrey, Love and Hooper have all lined up as a WR and caught passes.  (Kyle Murphy on the other hand has zero receptions from the WR position)

Yes, that was my point.  More specifically, Stanford has not been able to stretch the field as much as I'd like to see.  Despite the fact that Rector, Cajuste, and Owusu all have good speed, the team has not completed very many deep throws this year.  The team has made some pass plays to McCaffrey and Love, but those are mostly short routes designed to get the team's athletes in space on the perimeter.  Hooper and Irwin have mostly caught mid-range passes over the middle.  Opposing safeties will be able to cheat, and Stanford's offense will start to appear a lot less explosive, unless the team can complete some more deep throws.     

[TrumpCard]

Are you trying to make the point that the WRs have not been productive?  As Shaw pointed out in his post-game comments, McCaffrey, Love and Hooper have all lined up as a WR and caught passes.  (Kyle Murphy on the other hand has zero receptions from the WR position)

Yes, that was my point.  More specifically, Stanford has not been able to stretch the field as much as I'd like to see.  Despite the fact that Rector, Cajuste, and Owusu all have good speed, the team has not completed very many deep throws this year.  The team has made some pass plays to McCaffrey and Love, but those are mostly short routes designed to get the team's athletes in space on the perimeter.  Hooper and Irwin have mostly caught mid-range passes over the middle.  Opposing safeties will be able to cheat, and Stanford's offense will start to appear a lot less explosive, unless the team can complete some more deep throws.     

[fullmetal]

This might be an aspect of our ball control offense limiting the amount of time the defense needs to be on the field given our lack of defensive depth.  I think it's fine.  I feel bad for guys (like 5Sr Cajuste) who probably want to start showing off for scouts.

[fullmetal]

This might be an aspect of our ball control offense limiting the amount of time the defense needs to be on the field given our lack of defensive depth.  I think it's fine.  I feel bad for guys (like 5Sr Cajuste) who probably want to start showing off for scouts.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford's passing game isn't very creative more than the personnel is lacking, IMO.  It's got to be difficult to recruit decent WRs when they get so few opportunities.  Then again, Georgia Tech has produced some great NFL receivers with Paul Johnson's offense.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford's passing game isn't very creative more than the personnel is lacking, IMO.  It's got to be difficult to recruit decent WRs when they get so few opportunities.  Then again, Georgia Tech has produced some great NFL receivers with Paul Johnson's offense.

[fullmetal]

Well, Hogan's not a precision passer in the mold of Falk/Goff.  Decision-making has to be a little quicker under pressure.  If we could run passing plays with routes at multiple levels and have the QB who knew his progressions, the checkdown, and had good pocket awareness...we'd be punishing everyone.

[fullmetal]

Well, Hogan's not a precision passer in the mold of Falk/Goff.  Decision-making has to be a little quicker under pressure.  If we could run passing plays with routes at multiple levels and have the QB who knew his progressions, the checkdown, and had good pocket awareness...we'd be punishing everyone.

[stupac2]

Well, Hogan's not a precision passer in the mold of Falk/Goff.  Decision-making has to be a little quicker under pressure.  If we could run passing plays with routes at multiple levels and have the QB who knew his progressions, the checkdown, and had good pocket awareness...we'd be punishing everyone.

In his post-game interview Hogan said one of this problems was going through his progression too quickly, that he was abandoning the first read before the guy could come open, and then the second and third reads wouldn't be open because they weren't supposed to be. I'm not sure why he wasn't hitting the hot reads in that case, he didn't mention that.

[stupac2]

Well, Hogan's not a precision passer in the mold of Falk/Goff.  Decision-making has to be a little quicker under pressure.  If we could run passing plays with routes at multiple levels and have the QB who knew his progressions, the checkdown, and had good pocket awareness...we'd be punishing everyone.

In his post-game interview Hogan said one of this problems was going through his progression too quickly, that he was abandoning the first read before the guy could come open, and then the second and third reads wouldn't be open because they weren't supposed to be. I'm not sure why he wasn't hitting the hot reads in that case, he didn't mention that.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=13462.msg138791#msg138791 date=1446415649]
Are you trying to make the point that the WRs have not been productive?  As Shaw pointed out in his post-game comments, McCaffrey, Love and Hooper have all lined up as a WR and caught passes.  (Kyle Murphy on the other hand has zero receptions from the WR position)

Yes, that was my point.  More specifically, Stanford has not been able to stretch the field as much as I'd like to see.  Despite the fact that Rector, Cajuste, and Owusu all have good speed, the team has not completed very many deep throws this year.  The team has made some pass plays to McCaffrey and Love, but those are mostly short routes designed to get the team's athletes in space on the perimeter.  Hooper and Irwin have mostly caught mid-range passes over the middle.  Opposing safeties will be able to cheat, and Stanford's offense will start to appear a lot less explosive, unless the team can complete some more deep throws.   
[/quote]

Wouldn't a better stat to show if that is or isn't the case be passes completed (or attempted) over say, 20 or 30 yards, than WR total yardage?  One of those advanced stats sites probably has that somewhere.

Here are some stats I was able to easily find:  Our yards per completion is 14.22, good for 13th in the nation.  Our yards per attempt is 9.3, good for 8th in the nation.  I guess these could be all coming from short passes that our awesome skill guys take to the house, but either way, compared to every other team we're getting the ball down the field in our passing game really well, however we do it.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=13462.msg138791#msg138791 date=1446415649]
Are you trying to make the point that the WRs have not been productive?  As Shaw pointed out in his post-game comments, McCaffrey, Love and Hooper have all lined up as a WR and caught passes.  (Kyle Murphy on the other hand has zero receptions from the WR position)

Yes, that was my point.  More specifically, Stanford has not been able to stretch the field as much as I'd like to see.  Despite the fact that Rector, Cajuste, and Owusu all have good speed, the team has not completed very many deep throws this year.  The team has made some pass plays to McCaffrey and Love, but those are mostly short routes designed to get the team's athletes in space on the perimeter.  Hooper and Irwin have mostly caught mid-range passes over the middle.  Opposing safeties will be able to cheat, and Stanford's offense will start to appear a lot less explosive, unless the team can complete some more deep throws.   
[/quote]

Wouldn't a better stat to show if that is or isn't the case be passes completed (or attempted) over say, 20 or 30 yards, than WR total yardage?  One of those advanced stats sites probably has that somewhere.

Here are some stats I was able to easily find:  Our yards per completion is 14.22, good for 13th in the nation.  Our yards per attempt is 9.3, good for 8th in the nation.  I guess these could be all coming from short passes that our awesome skill guys take to the house, but either way, compared to every other team we're getting the ball down the field in our passing game really well, however we do it.

[Hulk01]

Given our passing stats, I do not want a creative passing attack.  I want this one.

[Hulk01]

Given our passing stats, I do not want a creative passing attack.  I want this one.

[TrumpCard]

The yards per attempt or completion stats just show that Stanford does well when it does pass, not that Stanford passes a sufficient number of times per game to keep defenses honest.  To the best of my recollection, in 8 games, Stanford has had a total of 8 completions in which the receiver caught the ball more than 20 yards downfield:

Owusu has two:  "The Catch" off a flea flicker and a deep sideline catch against Iman Marshall.

Rector has three: The flea flicker against UCF, the sideline catch against OSU that went through the hands of two defenders, a deep post pattern against Arizona.

Hooper had two, against U$C and OSU.

Cajuste had one, against Arizona.

If this number holds up, it seems pretty low.  Further, I'd suggest that there have been at least two games in which Stanford has not kept the defense honest, namely NW and WSU.  The passing attack against UW was just fine without a deep completion.

[TrumpCard]

The yards per attempt or completion stats just show that Stanford does well when it does pass, not that Stanford passes a sufficient number of times per game to keep defenses honest.  To the best of my recollection, in 8 games, Stanford has had a total of 8 completions in which the receiver caught the ball more than 20 yards downfield:

Owusu has two:  "The Catch" off a flea flicker and a deep sideline catch against Iman Marshall.

Rector has three: The flea flicker against UCF, the sideline catch against OSU that went through the hands of two defenders, a deep post pattern against Arizona.

Hooper had two, against U$C and OSU.

Cajuste had one, against Arizona.

If this number holds up, it seems pretty low.  Further, I'd suggest that there have been at least two games in which Stanford has not kept the defense honest, namely NW and WSU.  The passing attack against UW was just fine without a deep completion.

[socalstanfan1]

Honestly folks, I think this thread, at this point at least, seems to be an over-reaction to one bad game.  Prior to the WSU game we were putting up points and had an efficiency on offense that we hadn't seen since the Luck era. We were spreading the ball around to various receivers (including the TEs and RBs), and our experienced QB was lauded for his leadership, toughness, and calm under pressure. One of the things repeated frequently about Hogan for the past month and a half has been his ability to read the defense and get the offense into the correct play. Then, we have a single bad game, played in terrible conditions, against a team that has been improving, was fired up to make a national statement in their home stadium, and suddenly we are looking for problems to fix with an offense that put up 31, 41, 42, 55, 56, and 31 points (the last one against the toughest D in the Pac-12).

I agree with the idea throwing the ball deep a few more times might keep the safeties at bay.  But I trust that the coaches and Hogan will come up with an effective plan if other teams start totally selling out to stop the run as WSU did.

[socalstanfan1]

Honestly folks, I think this thread, at this point at least, seems to be an over-reaction to one bad game.  Prior to the WSU game we were putting up points and had an efficiency on offense that we hadn't seen since the Luck era. We were spreading the ball around to various receivers (including the TEs and RBs), and our experienced QB was lauded for his leadership, toughness, and calm under pressure. One of the things repeated frequently about Hogan for the past month and a half has been his ability to read the defense and get the offense into the correct play. Then, we have a single bad game, played in terrible conditions, against a team that has been improving, was fired up to make a national statement in their home stadium, and suddenly we are looking for problems to fix with an offense that put up 31, 41, 42, 55, 56, and 31 points (the last one against the toughest D in the Pac-12).

I agree with the idea throwing the ball deep a few more times might keep the safeties at bay.  But I trust that the coaches and Hogan will come up with an effective plan if other teams start totally selling out to stop the run as WSU did.

[fullmetal]

I think my point was that sometimes we don't have the luxury to throw deep...that luxury is the time afforded by excellent pass protection.  But generally, if we have excellent pass protection, we can also run block effectively as well, so we'll lean on that.

[fullmetal]

I think my point was that sometimes we don't have the luxury to throw deep...that luxury is the time afforded by excellent pass protection.  But generally, if we have excellent pass protection, we can also run block effectively as well, so we'll lean on that.

[BostonCard]

In a unit where we are likely to have all conference players at the QB, RB, TE, and OL, it is fair to say that the relative weakness of the unit's offense is the wide receiver.  That's not to say that the receivers are bad, but rather, it is the weak point on the offense.  To the extent that there is a formula for slowing down the offense, that is it; cover the receivers one-on-one and bring 8 or 9 into the box to stop the run.  In order for us to win when defenses try to do this to us (and I suspect they will), we will have to beat them over the top with play action passes over-the-top to Rector, or midlevel passes to Cajuste.  In order to do that, we need our receivers to gain separation, and to do so fast enough that Hogan has the ball out to them before the defense gets to him.

BC

[BostonCard]

In a unit where we are likely to have all conference players at the QB, RB, TE, and OL, it is fair to say that the relative weakness of the unit's offense is the wide receiver.  That's not to say that the receivers are bad, but rather, it is the weak point on the offense.  To the extent that there is a formula for slowing down the offense, that is it; cover the receivers one-on-one and bring 8 or 9 into the box to stop the run.  In order for us to win when defenses try to do this to us (and I suspect they will), we will have to beat them over the top with play action passes over-the-top to Rector, or midlevel passes to Cajuste.  In order to do that, we need our receivers to gain separation, and to do so fast enough that Hogan has the ball out to them before the defense gets to him.

BC

[stupac2]

In a unit where we are likely to have all conference players at the QB, RB, TE, and OL, it is fair to say that the relative weakness of the unit's offense is the wide receiver.  That's not to say that the receivers are bad, but rather, it is the weak point on the offense.  To the extent that there is a formula for slowing down the offense, that is it; cover the receivers one-on-one and bring 8 or 9 into the box to stop the run.  In order for us to win when defenses try to do this to us (and I suspect they will), we will have to beat them over the top with play action passes over-the-top to Rector, or midlevel passes to Cajuste.  In order to do that, we need our receivers to gain separation, and to do so fast enough that Hogan has the ball out to them before the defense gets to him.

BC

Or split out McCaffrey and/or Love and run some quick screens/swings. Haven't they both taken a quick screen over 50 yards to the house? I think if either of them are out there you need to have a high safety on their side of the field.

[stupac2]

In a unit where we are likely to have all conference players at the QB, RB, TE, and OL, it is fair to say that the relative weakness of the unit's offense is the wide receiver.  That's not to say that the receivers are bad, but rather, it is the weak point on the offense.  To the extent that there is a formula for slowing down the offense, that is it; cover the receivers one-on-one and bring 8 or 9 into the box to stop the run.  In order for us to win when defenses try to do this to us (and I suspect they will), we will have to beat them over the top with play action passes over-the-top to Rector, or midlevel passes to Cajuste.  In order to do that, we need our receivers to gain separation, and to do so fast enough that Hogan has the ball out to them before the defense gets to him.

BC

Or split out McCaffrey and/or Love and run some quick screens/swings. Haven't they both taken a quick screen over 50 yards to the house? I think if either of them are out there you need to have a high safety on their side of the field.

[TrumpCard]

Or split out McCaffrey and/or Love and run some quick screens/swings. Haven't they both taken a quick screen over 50 yards to the house? I think if either of them are out there you need to have a high safety on their side of the field.

If there are 2 RBs on the field, including McCaffrey, and McCaffrey is split wide, that would keep teams honest.  It might be too high of a cost because McCaffrey is by far the best RB though.

We've seen McCaffrey at RB and Love split wide.  It worked reasonably well against WSU.  Three targets on the screen, two catches for reasonable gains.  I'm not sure that formation required a safety on Love's side of the field though.  I seem to recall that the screen was open because WSU continued to stack the box against that formation.  I would have liked to see a deep throw to Love against that defense.  Maybe weather did not permit.  I hope we see that in the future.

[TrumpCard]

Or split out McCaffrey and/or Love and run some quick screens/swings. Haven't they both taken a quick screen over 50 yards to the house? I think if either of them are out there you need to have a high safety on their side of the field.

If there are 2 RBs on the field, including McCaffrey, and McCaffrey is split wide, that would keep teams honest.  It might be too high of a cost because McCaffrey is by far the best RB though.

We've seen McCaffrey at RB and Love split wide.  It worked reasonably well against WSU.  Three targets on the screen, two catches for reasonable gains.  I'm not sure that formation required a safety on Love's side of the field though.  I seem to recall that the screen was open because WSU continued to stack the box against that formation.  I would have liked to see a deep throw to Love against that defense.  Maybe weather did not permit.  I hope we see that in the future.

[CrazedZooChimp]

The yards per attempt or completion stats just show that Stanford does well when it does pass, not that Stanford passes a sufficient number of times per game to keep defenses honest.

Well, in terms of passing a certain number of times per game, the percentage of pass plays against WSU was almost identical to UW (1/3, although that doesn't include sacks which are counted as runs for the NCAA, I think).  Against NW we threw the ball more times than we ran, so that wasn't a case of not passing enough.  Really we should have run more, CMac's per carry average in that game was way better than our yards per attempt...

Actually, looking at our other games, it's impressive how many times we've hit almost exactly that 1/3, 2/3 split of pass and run.  Only ones that weren't like that were NW, OSU, and UCLA.

[CrazedZooChimp]

The yards per attempt or completion stats just show that Stanford does well when it does pass, not that Stanford passes a sufficient number of times per game to keep defenses honest.

Well, in terms of passing a certain number of times per game, the percentage of pass plays against WSU was almost identical to UW (1/3, although that doesn't include sacks which are counted as runs for the NCAA, I think).  Against NW we threw the ball more times than we ran, so that wasn't a case of not passing enough.  Really we should have run more, CMac's per carry average in that game was way better than our yards per attempt...

Actually, looking at our other games, it's impressive how many times we've hit almost exactly that 1/3, 2/3 split of pass and run.  Only ones that weren't like that were NW, OSU, and UCLA.

[Mick]

In a unit where we are likely to have all conference players at the QB, RB, TE, and OL, it is fair to say that the relative weakness of the unit's offense is the wide receiver.  That's not to say that the receivers are bad, but rather, it is the weak point on the offense.
BC

In a world of 10's, it's tough to be the 9.  Unless you can catch a 50 yard pass with your hands and the ball wedged against the DB's back.  Then, you're a 10.

[Mick]

In a unit where we are likely to have all conference players at the QB, RB, TE, and OL, it is fair to say that the relative weakness of the unit's offense is the wide receiver.  That's not to say that the receivers are bad, but rather, it is the weak point on the offense.
BC

In a world of 10's, it's tough to be the 9.  Unless you can catch a 50 yard pass with your hands and the ball wedged against the DB's back.  Then, you're a 10.

[CTcard]

In a world of 10's, it's tough to be the 9.  Unless you can catch a 50 yard pass with your hands and the ball wedged against the DB's back.  Then, you're a 10.

While true, I am not really sure our WRs are 9s.
Even with Owusu's amazing catch, he only has nine catches on the year and it's not as if he is running around wide open all the time ... or even that the ball always sticks to his hands like stickum.

Our WRs are functional if they are all present and if they aren't needed to carry the offensive load. Otherwise, WSU and NW performances are possible.

[CTcard]

In a world of 10's, it's tough to be the 9.  Unless you can catch a 50 yard pass with your hands and the ball wedged against the DB's back.  Then, you're a 10.

While true, I am not really sure our WRs are 9s.
Even with Owusu's amazing catch, he only has nine catches on the year and it's not as if he is running around wide open all the time ... or even that the ball always sticks to his hands like stickum.

Our WRs are functional if they are all present and if they aren't needed to carry the offensive load. Otherwise, WSU and NW performances are possible.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=13462.msg139213#msg139213 date=1446571879]
In a world of 10's, it's tough to be the 9.  Unless you can catch a 50 yard pass with your hands and the ball wedged against the DB's back.  Then, you're a 10.

While true, I am not really sure our WRs are 9s.
Even with Owusu's amazing catch, he only has nine catches on the year and it's not as if he is running around wide open all the time ... or even that the ball always sticks to his hands like stickum.

Our WRs are functional if they are all present and if they aren't needed to carry the offensive load. Otherwise, WSU and NW performances are possible.
[/quote]

I don't think our receivers are 9's, or even 7's.  As a unit, I would say that they are probably the 10th best in the Pac-12:
WSU (Marks, Williams Cracraft)
Colorado (Spruce, Fields)
USC (Juju Smith-Schuster, and when he plays on offense Adoree Jackson)
UCLA (Payton, Duarte)
Cal (Lawler, Davis, Treggs)
Oregon (Addison, Stanford, Carrington)
all have substantially better receiving corps than Stanford.

We are in the next group with:
Arizona (Jones, Jackson, Richards and a couple others)
ASU (Lucien, White, Foster, Chambers)
Utah (Covey, Scott)

We are probably better than Washington and Oregon State, but that's about it.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=13462.msg139213#msg139213 date=1446571879]
In a world of 10's, it's tough to be the 9.  Unless you can catch a 50 yard pass with your hands and the ball wedged against the DB's back.  Then, you're a 10.

While true, I am not really sure our WRs are 9s.
Even with Owusu's amazing catch, he only has nine catches on the year and it's not as if he is running around wide open all the time ... or even that the ball always sticks to his hands like stickum.

Our WRs are functional if they are all present and if they aren't needed to carry the offensive load. Otherwise, WSU and NW performances are possible.
[/quote]

I don't think our receivers are 9's, or even 7's.  As a unit, I would say that they are probably the 10th best in the Pac-12:
WSU (Marks, Williams Cracraft)
Colorado (Spruce, Fields)
USC (Juju Smith-Schuster, and when he plays on offense Adoree Jackson)
UCLA (Payton, Duarte)
Cal (Lawler, Davis, Treggs)
Oregon (Addison, Stanford, Carrington)
all have substantially better receiving corps than Stanford.

We are in the next group with:
Arizona (Jones, Jackson, Richards and a couple others)
ASU (Lucien, White, Foster, Chambers)
Utah (Covey, Scott)

We are probably better than Washington and Oregon State, but that's about it.

BC

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

It is kind of interesting (to me at least) to look at the all-time Stanford career receiving list.  This is the golden age of Stanford football and yet only two WR from the Harbaugh-Shaw era crack the top 20 in all-time Stanford receiving (by yardage or receptions): Ty Montgomery and Ryan Whalen.  If you look at the top 40, Chris Owusu, Devon Cajuste, Doug Baldwin and Richard Sherman make the list.  A total of 6 out of 40.  Plenty of factors help explain that result.  Run-first offense, NFL-caliber TE's taking receptions away, etc.  Still, I can't help but think that we've seen the best stretch of Stanford football ever and I don't think we've had a great college WR.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

It is kind of interesting (to me at least) to look at the all-time Stanford career receiving list.  This is the golden age of Stanford football and yet only two WR from the Harbaugh-Shaw era crack the top 20 in all-time Stanford receiving (by yardage or receptions): Ty Montgomery and Ryan Whalen.  If you look at the top 40, Chris Owusu, Devon Cajuste, Doug Baldwin and Richard Sherman make the list.  A total of 6 out of 40.  Plenty of factors help explain that result.  Run-first offense, NFL-caliber TE's taking receptions away, etc.  Still, I can't help but think that we've seen the best stretch of Stanford football ever and I don't think we've had a great college WR.