10-04-2016, 01:53 PM
By the way, if we had trouble with Ross, we should keep an eye out for Hansen (kal).Â
Out coached? Out prepared? Out played?
10-04-2016, 01:53 PM
By the way, if we had trouble with Ross, we should keep an eye out for Hansen (kal).Â
10-04-2016, 08:17 PM
(10-04-2016, 01:53 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:By the way, if we had trouble with Ross, we should keep an eye out for Hansen (kal).
Well I'd imagine Meeks on Hansen is a lot different than Alexander on Ross.
(10-04-2016, 01:53 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:By the way, if we had trouble with Ross, we should keep an eye out for Hansen (kal).
Well I'd imagine Meeks on Hansen is a lot different than Alexander on Ross.
10-04-2016, 08:17 PM
(10-04-2016, 01:53 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:By the way, if we had trouble with Ross, we should keep an eye out for Hansen (kal).
Well I'd imagine Meeks on Hansen is a lot different than Alexander on Ross.
(10-04-2016, 01:53 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:By the way, if we had trouble with Ross, we should keep an eye out for Hansen (kal).
Well I'd imagine Meeks on Hansen is a lot different than Alexander on Ross.
10-04-2016, 08:22 PM
(10-04-2016, 01:53 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:By the way, if we had trouble with Ross, we should keep an eye out for Hansen (kal).
I think we should worry about Gabe Marks first, no?
BC
(10-04-2016, 01:53 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:By the way, if we had trouble with Ross, we should keep an eye out for Hansen (kal).
I think we should worry about Gabe Marks first, no?
BC
10-04-2016, 08:22 PM
(10-04-2016, 01:53 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:By the way, if we had trouble with Ross, we should keep an eye out for Hansen (kal).
I think we should worry about Gabe Marks first, no?
BC
(10-04-2016, 01:53 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:By the way, if we had trouble with Ross, we should keep an eye out for Hansen (kal).
I think we should worry about Gabe Marks first, no?
BC
(10-03-2016, 03:00 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:Right. And apparently we don't install hot routes as quick first reads in case of overwhelming pressure. Or we don't playaction to the TE out of the heavy formation. I feel like a broken record. Misdirection and versatility used to be hallmarks of Stanford's offense. Running a reverse out of a wildcat after pounding CMac into a 9-man box out of the shotgun is not misdirection or offensive creativity at all. It's desperation.
Agree 100%.
I'm still salty from last Friday night. :'( >:( :'(Â So I've avoided the msg board.
As I mentioned in another thread, I went to the UMich - UWisc game last Saturday and although Michigan only scored 14 pts (with 3 missed FGs), I was impressed with their play calling.
Let me ask fellow trees; does this sound familiar?
- Michigan has a first year starter who has been in the program for 3 yrs.
- Michigan would love to pound it on the ground against every opponent
- last week they played an opponent with a massive and athletic front four, who was hoping that Michigan would just try to out-physical them.
Here is what Michigan did on offense. Shaw should watch this play calling and take notes. You'll note that Harbaugh put in mostly 3 step drops and quick releases to neutralize Wisconsin's pass rush. @David Shaw: watch, take notes, implement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uHxGtfsp2Q
[yt]-uHxGtfsp2Q[/yt]Â - oops, I guess BB code doesn't work. Is there a man page/RTFM/FAQ on embedding video?
BTW - if you are not familiar with "XYZ vs ABC in 30 minutes" you should definitely check it out. I think it's genius.
(10-03-2016, 03:00 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:Right. And apparently we don't install hot routes as quick first reads in case of overwhelming pressure. Or we don't playaction to the TE out of the heavy formation. I feel like a broken record. Misdirection and versatility used to be hallmarks of Stanford's offense. Running a reverse out of a wildcat after pounding CMac into a 9-man box out of the shotgun is not misdirection or offensive creativity at all. It's desperation.
Agree 100%.
I'm still salty from last Friday night. :'( >:( :'(Â So I've avoided the msg board.
As I mentioned in another thread, I went to the UMich - UWisc game last Saturday and although Michigan only scored 14 pts (with 3 missed FGs), I was impressed with their play calling.
Let me ask fellow trees; does this sound familiar?
- Michigan has a first year starter who has been in the program for 3 yrs.
- Michigan would love to pound it on the ground against every opponent
- last week they played an opponent with a massive and athletic front four, who was hoping that Michigan would just try to out-physical them.
Here is what Michigan did on offense. Shaw should watch this play calling and take notes. You'll note that Harbaugh put in mostly 3 step drops and quick releases to neutralize Wisconsin's pass rush. @David Shaw: watch, take notes, implement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uHxGtfsp2Q
[yt]-uHxGtfsp2Q[/yt]Â - oops, I guess BB code doesn't work. Is there a man page/RTFM/FAQ on embedding video?
BTW - if you are not familiar with "XYZ vs ABC in 30 minutes" you should definitely check it out. I think it's genius.
10-08-2016, 08:26 AM
While I also don't always love the play calling, to think that better play calling would have improved last week is wishful thinking. Our O-line was getting its butt kicked on both run blocking and pass protection by UWs base front 4. When your O-line gets dominated as thoroughly as ours did, your options are limited.
1. Power runs aren't working for obvious reasons
2. Counter and misdirections runs aren't working because their defense is stopping #1 while staying home and not-over-commiting. Likewise for trick plays, flea flickers, etc.
3. Quick passes are an option but will be tough because they can drop 7 in coverage every play and linebackers and safeties aren't overplaying the run.
4. Long passes/play action aren't working because they are staying home on D and getting pressure on the QB.
5. Max-protect on 3rd and long isn't a great option because they have a lot more guys in coverage then we have receivers, and they are still getting pressure.
So what does that leave? The only real way to negate their D-line is quick passes towards the sidelines, either through WR screens or a steady diet of 5 yard outs. But we're not an air-raid team, Burns doesn't have a quick release, and we lack the execution to consistently move down the field like that. I blame the coaches for not having our guys ready to play on Friday, but the play-calling was hardly the issue.
1. Power runs aren't working for obvious reasons
2. Counter and misdirections runs aren't working because their defense is stopping #1 while staying home and not-over-commiting. Likewise for trick plays, flea flickers, etc.
3. Quick passes are an option but will be tough because they can drop 7 in coverage every play and linebackers and safeties aren't overplaying the run.
4. Long passes/play action aren't working because they are staying home on D and getting pressure on the QB.
5. Max-protect on 3rd and long isn't a great option because they have a lot more guys in coverage then we have receivers, and they are still getting pressure.
So what does that leave? The only real way to negate their D-line is quick passes towards the sidelines, either through WR screens or a steady diet of 5 yard outs. But we're not an air-raid team, Burns doesn't have a quick release, and we lack the execution to consistently move down the field like that. I blame the coaches for not having our guys ready to play on Friday, but the play-calling was hardly the issue.
While I also don't always love the play calling, to think that better play calling would have improved last week is wishful thinking. Our O-line was getting its butt kicked on both run blocking and pass protection by UWs base front 4. When your O-line gets dominated as thoroughly as ours did, your options are limited.
1. Power runs aren't working for obvious reasons
2. Counter and misdirections runs aren't working because their defense is stopping #1 while staying home and not-over-commiting. Likewise for trick plays, flea flickers, etc.
3. Quick passes are an option but will be tough because they can drop 7 in coverage every play and linebackers and safeties aren't overplaying the run.
4. Long passes/play action aren't working because they are staying home on D and getting pressure on the QB.
5. Max-protect on 3rd and long isn't a great option because they have a lot more guys in coverage then we have receivers, and they are still getting pressure.
So what does that leave? The only real way to negate their D-line is quick passes towards the sidelines, either through WR screens or a steady diet of 5 yard outs. But we're not an air-raid team, Burns doesn't have a quick release, and we lack the execution to consistently move down the field like that. I blame the coaches for not having our guys ready to play on Friday, but the play-calling was hardly the issue.
1. Power runs aren't working for obvious reasons
2. Counter and misdirections runs aren't working because their defense is stopping #1 while staying home and not-over-commiting. Likewise for trick plays, flea flickers, etc.
3. Quick passes are an option but will be tough because they can drop 7 in coverage every play and linebackers and safeties aren't overplaying the run.
4. Long passes/play action aren't working because they are staying home on D and getting pressure on the QB.
5. Max-protect on 3rd and long isn't a great option because they have a lot more guys in coverage then we have receivers, and they are still getting pressure.
So what does that leave? The only real way to negate their D-line is quick passes towards the sidelines, either through WR screens or a steady diet of 5 yard outs. But we're not an air-raid team, Burns doesn't have a quick release, and we lack the execution to consistently move down the field like that. I blame the coaches for not having our guys ready to play on Friday, but the play-calling was hardly the issue.
10-08-2016, 08:57 AM
Bill Walsh always said you can scheme offense, even when the defense is superior physically. You need great athletes to be good on defense, regardless of scheme.
You keep defenses vulnerable by being unpredictable, threatening all areas of the field, and beating them to the punch. It's preferable to line up and challenge the other team when they know what is coming, if you can overpower them, but few teams can dominate the other to make this a sound approach.
You keep defenses vulnerable by being unpredictable, threatening all areas of the field, and beating them to the punch. It's preferable to line up and challenge the other team when they know what is coming, if you can overpower them, but few teams can dominate the other to make this a sound approach.
Bill Walsh always said you can scheme offense, even when the defense is superior physically. You need great athletes to be good on defense, regardless of scheme.
You keep defenses vulnerable by being unpredictable, threatening all areas of the field, and beating them to the punch. It's preferable to line up and challenge the other team when they know what is coming, if you can overpower them, but few teams can dominate the other to make this a sound approach.
You keep defenses vulnerable by being unpredictable, threatening all areas of the field, and beating them to the punch. It's preferable to line up and challenge the other team when they know what is coming, if you can overpower them, but few teams can dominate the other to make this a sound approach.
10-08-2016, 09:08 AM
(10-08-2016, 08:57 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Bill Walsh always said you can scheme offense, even when the defense is superior physically. You need great athletes to be good on defense, regardless of scheme.I agree that this was Walsh. Walsh routinely passed on first downs and on short yardage and ran on long yardage during the first half and when behind. But when Walsh got a lead he attempted to run out the clock with the ground game. That was usually in the 4th quarter when the defense was depleted and cautious due to their earlier failures. But for all his connections to Walsh, Shaw has never fully embraced the Walsh philosophy. Instead, Shaw begins with the power running game that Walsh ends with. To his credit, it has often worked. Shaw in undeniably a more successful college coach than Walsh.Â
You keep defenses vulnerable by being unpredictable, threatening all areas of the field, and beating them to the punch. It's preferable to line up and challenge the other team when they know what is coming, if you can overpower them, but few teams can dominate the other to make this a sound approach.
I also agree that playcalling would have made no difference at Washington. Neither runs nor passes work when you O-line repeatedly has basic blocking breakdowns.
(10-08-2016, 08:57 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Bill Walsh always said you can scheme offense, even when the defense is superior physically. You need great athletes to be good on defense, regardless of scheme.I agree that this was Walsh. Walsh routinely passed on first downs and on short yardage and ran on long yardage during the first half and when behind. But when Walsh got a lead he attempted to run out the clock with the ground game. That was usually in the 4th quarter when the defense was depleted and cautious due to their earlier failures. But for all his connections to Walsh, Shaw has never fully embraced the Walsh philosophy. Instead, Shaw begins with the power running game that Walsh ends with. To his credit, it has often worked. Shaw in undeniably a more successful college coach than Walsh.Â
You keep defenses vulnerable by being unpredictable, threatening all areas of the field, and beating them to the punch. It's preferable to line up and challenge the other team when they know what is coming, if you can overpower them, but few teams can dominate the other to make this a sound approach.
I also agree that playcalling would have made no difference at Washington. Neither runs nor passes work when you O-line repeatedly has basic blocking breakdowns.
I don't think I've posted this before, so here it goes.
The reason I'm uber-rustled over Shaw's play calling --- particularly, pounding CMac into nine in the box --- is that I am sincerely concerned for the players' short and longterm health. As a fan of CFB since age 7, there is nothing I have enjoyed more than hard hitting and the violence of the game. That feeling has changed over the past few years. The NFL lawsuit, the cases of depression, the suicides, 'league of denial', ... has had a profound effect on me. When Shaw bashed Tyler Gaffney or Stefan Taylor at nine in the box, it made me uncomfortable. When Shaw bashes CMac at 11 guys all keying on CMac, and I see UKLA with multiple helmet to helmet -- strategically punishing hits, it makes me sick to my stomach.
TBH, I don't want to see our players put in situations that maximize their exposure to repetitive brutal hits. I would gladly accept 3,4, or 5 losses a year, and seeing less of CMac straight ahead into 2500lbs of humanity for a 2yd gain.Â
While I absolutely love Stanford's success over the past 7 yrs, and their physical style of play, nothing is more important than the health of the students who represent Stanford.
/rant
The reason I'm uber-rustled over Shaw's play calling --- particularly, pounding CMac into nine in the box --- is that I am sincerely concerned for the players' short and longterm health. As a fan of CFB since age 7, there is nothing I have enjoyed more than hard hitting and the violence of the game. That feeling has changed over the past few years. The NFL lawsuit, the cases of depression, the suicides, 'league of denial', ... has had a profound effect on me. When Shaw bashed Tyler Gaffney or Stefan Taylor at nine in the box, it made me uncomfortable. When Shaw bashes CMac at 11 guys all keying on CMac, and I see UKLA with multiple helmet to helmet -- strategically punishing hits, it makes me sick to my stomach.
TBH, I don't want to see our players put in situations that maximize their exposure to repetitive brutal hits. I would gladly accept 3,4, or 5 losses a year, and seeing less of CMac straight ahead into 2500lbs of humanity for a 2yd gain.Â
While I absolutely love Stanford's success over the past 7 yrs, and their physical style of play, nothing is more important than the health of the students who represent Stanford.
/rant
I don't think I've posted this before, so here it goes.
The reason I'm uber-rustled over Shaw's play calling --- particularly, pounding CMac into nine in the box --- is that I am sincerely concerned for the players' short and longterm health. As a fan of CFB since age 7, there is nothing I have enjoyed more than hard hitting and the violence of the game. That feeling has changed over the past few years. The NFL lawsuit, the cases of depression, the suicides, 'league of denial', ... has had a profound effect on me. When Shaw bashed Tyler Gaffney or Stefan Taylor at nine in the box, it made me uncomfortable. When Shaw bashes CMac at 11 guys all keying on CMac, and I see UKLA with multiple helmet to helmet -- strategically punishing hits, it makes me sick to my stomach.
TBH, I don't want to see our players put in situations that maximize their exposure to repetitive brutal hits. I would gladly accept 3,4, or 5 losses a year, and seeing less of CMac straight ahead into 2500lbs of humanity for a 2yd gain.Â
While I absolutely love Stanford's success over the past 7 yrs, and their physical style of play, nothing is more important than the health of the students who represent Stanford.
/rant
The reason I'm uber-rustled over Shaw's play calling --- particularly, pounding CMac into nine in the box --- is that I am sincerely concerned for the players' short and longterm health. As a fan of CFB since age 7, there is nothing I have enjoyed more than hard hitting and the violence of the game. That feeling has changed over the past few years. The NFL lawsuit, the cases of depression, the suicides, 'league of denial', ... has had a profound effect on me. When Shaw bashed Tyler Gaffney or Stefan Taylor at nine in the box, it made me uncomfortable. When Shaw bashes CMac at 11 guys all keying on CMac, and I see UKLA with multiple helmet to helmet -- strategically punishing hits, it makes me sick to my stomach.
TBH, I don't want to see our players put in situations that maximize their exposure to repetitive brutal hits. I would gladly accept 3,4, or 5 losses a year, and seeing less of CMac straight ahead into 2500lbs of humanity for a 2yd gain.Â
While I absolutely love Stanford's success over the past 7 yrs, and their physical style of play, nothing is more important than the health of the students who represent Stanford.
/rant
10-08-2016, 11:55 AM
(10-08-2016, 09:09 AM)TRD link Wrote:I don't think I've posted this before, so here it goes.
The reason I'm uber-rustled over Shaw's play calling --- particularly, pounding CMac into nine in the box --- is that I am sincerely concerned for the players' short and longterm health. As a fan of CFB since age 7, there is nothing I have enjoyed more than hard hitting and the violence of the game. That feeling has changed over the past few years. The NFL lawsuit, the cases of depression, the suicides, 'league of denial', ... has had a profound effect on me. When Shaw bashed Tyler Gaffney or Stefan Taylor at nine in the box, it made me uncomfortable. When Shaw bashes CMac at 11 guys all keying on CMac, and I see UKLA with multiple helmet to helmet -- strategically punishing hits, it makes me sick to my stomach.
TBH, I don't want to see our players put in situations that maximize their exposure to repetitive brutal hits. I would gladly accept 3,4, or 5 losses a year, and seeing less of CMac straight ahead into 2500lbs of humanity for a 2yd gain.Â
While I absolutely love Stanford's success over the past 7 yrs, and their physical style of play, nothing is more important than the health of the students who represent Stanford.
/rant
I don't think those hits are the problematic ones, because there's not really enough space for players to get moving rapidly and collide with a lot of energy. When you see injuries on those types of plays it tends to be of the form "someone rolled into the player's lower leg", which is unfortunate but hardly worrisome for the future (and can happen on any type of play). The really dangerous injuries are in the open field, where two guys are moving at high speed, sometimes right at each other, like with Owusu. Frankly I'd be surprised if Stanford's offensive scheme weren't less conducive to injuries than more pass-happy schemes, both because we run fewer total plays but also the plays we do run don't tend to put players in harm's way as a matter of course.
(10-08-2016, 09:09 AM)TRD link Wrote:I don't think I've posted this before, so here it goes.
The reason I'm uber-rustled over Shaw's play calling --- particularly, pounding CMac into nine in the box --- is that I am sincerely concerned for the players' short and longterm health. As a fan of CFB since age 7, there is nothing I have enjoyed more than hard hitting and the violence of the game. That feeling has changed over the past few years. The NFL lawsuit, the cases of depression, the suicides, 'league of denial', ... has had a profound effect on me. When Shaw bashed Tyler Gaffney or Stefan Taylor at nine in the box, it made me uncomfortable. When Shaw bashes CMac at 11 guys all keying on CMac, and I see UKLA with multiple helmet to helmet -- strategically punishing hits, it makes me sick to my stomach.
TBH, I don't want to see our players put in situations that maximize their exposure to repetitive brutal hits. I would gladly accept 3,4, or 5 losses a year, and seeing less of CMac straight ahead into 2500lbs of humanity for a 2yd gain.Â
While I absolutely love Stanford's success over the past 7 yrs, and their physical style of play, nothing is more important than the health of the students who represent Stanford.
/rant
I don't think those hits are the problematic ones, because there's not really enough space for players to get moving rapidly and collide with a lot of energy. When you see injuries on those types of plays it tends to be of the form "someone rolled into the player's lower leg", which is unfortunate but hardly worrisome for the future (and can happen on any type of play). The really dangerous injuries are in the open field, where two guys are moving at high speed, sometimes right at each other, like with Owusu. Frankly I'd be surprised if Stanford's offensive scheme weren't less conducive to injuries than more pass-happy schemes, both because we run fewer total plays but also the plays we do run don't tend to put players in harm's way as a matter of course.
10-09-2016, 01:01 AM
I don't think speed is always the issue, though many times, it's the LBs who come in at speed to flatten a slowly-accelerating RB. I'm worried about the weird angles that knees and ankles can be forced into when many, many pounds of body weight is dropped on them by falling OL and defensive front seven. See CMac after that kick return today where he ran away from his blockers and into the waiting crumple zone of three WSU tacklers. He then subsequently left the game for a while.
I don't think speed is always the issue, though many times, it's the LBs who come in at speed to flatten a slowly-accelerating RB. I'm worried about the weird angles that knees and ankles can be forced into when many, many pounds of body weight is dropped on them by falling OL and defensive front seven. See CMac after that kick return today where he ran away from his blockers and into the waiting crumple zone of three WSU tacklers. He then subsequently left the game for a while.
10-09-2016, 05:05 AM
So do we just reprise this thread and start replacing "Washington" with "Washington State" from here on?
So do we just reprise this thread and start replacing "Washington" with "Washington State" from here on?
10-09-2016, 06:06 AM
Yes, I think we do just resurrect this thread.
I'm depressed, of course. But I am curious about what exactly has gone wrong. Our offense has not been up to last year's standards in any game this year, but it was somewhat better against Kansas State and U,SC. Was the difference between those two games and the games that came later purely the injury factor? Both of those two teams have decent defenses--surely as good as WSU.
I don't remember complaining too bitterly about our offensive line after those early games. But it seems to be completely inept now. CMac ran well against those teams and he can't get past the line of scrimmage now.
Did defensive coordinators spot something they are now exploiting?
I'm depressed, of course. But I am curious about what exactly has gone wrong. Our offense has not been up to last year's standards in any game this year, but it was somewhat better against Kansas State and U,SC. Was the difference between those two games and the games that came later purely the injury factor? Both of those two teams have decent defenses--surely as good as WSU.
I don't remember complaining too bitterly about our offensive line after those early games. But it seems to be completely inept now. CMac ran well against those teams and he can't get past the line of scrimmage now.
Did defensive coordinators spot something they are now exploiting?
Yes, I think we do just resurrect this thread.
I'm depressed, of course. But I am curious about what exactly has gone wrong. Our offense has not been up to last year's standards in any game this year, but it was somewhat better against Kansas State and U,SC. Was the difference between those two games and the games that came later purely the injury factor? Both of those two teams have decent defenses--surely as good as WSU.
I don't remember complaining too bitterly about our offensive line after those early games. But it seems to be completely inept now. CMac ran well against those teams and he can't get past the line of scrimmage now.
Did defensive coordinators spot something they are now exploiting?
I'm depressed, of course. But I am curious about what exactly has gone wrong. Our offense has not been up to last year's standards in any game this year, but it was somewhat better against Kansas State and U,SC. Was the difference between those two games and the games that came later purely the injury factor? Both of those two teams have decent defenses--surely as good as WSU.
I don't remember complaining too bitterly about our offensive line after those early games. But it seems to be completely inept now. CMac ran well against those teams and he can't get past the line of scrimmage now.
Did defensive coordinators spot something they are now exploiting?
10-09-2016, 06:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2016, 06:51 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Rod Gilmore was hammering on all the things I've been concerned about Stanford's offense, throughout the broadcast. It goes something like this:
1. Teams are stacking the box and run blitzing on early downs, doing simple DE/DT line stunts on 3rd
2. Stanford struggles mightily to complete even 5 yard passes; only effective deep passing will change #1
3. Too much of the offense goes through McCaffrey, even passing
4. The OL isn't moving anyone against their will, and is routinely being moved against its will
Not really a surprise that the QB position is struggling, because it's hard to judge that position when all these things above are going wrong, but it's not doing anything special either.
I saw some very, very bad things from the OL last night. Guys getting absolutely clowned out there. So many missed blocks, and even when blocks weren't being missed, guys were getting knocked on their asses and run around like traffic pylons. On one particularly pathetic play, Brandon Fanaika was so overwhelmed at the point of attack, that he fell backward and landed on his ass. On another, Jesse Burkett didn't even get a hand on a stunting DT.Â
Even when despite all this, the QBs made throws, there were drops galore.
So to recap:
1. The OL stinks and is being physically dominated
2. The offensive scheme is easy to defend
3. There is no passing game to speak of
4. Everything is slow and methodical, and as Gilmore said, "a grind"
You can't fix #1 overnight, but it can be mitigated by doing something about #2, which could conceivably mitigate #3 and #4. Until Stanford is able to be a balanced offense that makes defenses play honestly, or until the OL can dominate, there is no reason to believe the offense is going to improve at all. It now feels like watching the LSU offense that got Les Miles canned.
I'm personally convinced that Shaw needs to bring in someone who truly understands the passing game. The route concepts and overall passing scheme just isn't working at all.
Tough to levy much criticism on the defense when the offense is doing nothing, but it certainly has been underwhelming the last two weeks.
1. Teams are stacking the box and run blitzing on early downs, doing simple DE/DT line stunts on 3rd
2. Stanford struggles mightily to complete even 5 yard passes; only effective deep passing will change #1
3. Too much of the offense goes through McCaffrey, even passing
4. The OL isn't moving anyone against their will, and is routinely being moved against its will
Not really a surprise that the QB position is struggling, because it's hard to judge that position when all these things above are going wrong, but it's not doing anything special either.
I saw some very, very bad things from the OL last night. Guys getting absolutely clowned out there. So many missed blocks, and even when blocks weren't being missed, guys were getting knocked on their asses and run around like traffic pylons. On one particularly pathetic play, Brandon Fanaika was so overwhelmed at the point of attack, that he fell backward and landed on his ass. On another, Jesse Burkett didn't even get a hand on a stunting DT.Â
Even when despite all this, the QBs made throws, there were drops galore.
So to recap:
1. The OL stinks and is being physically dominated
2. The offensive scheme is easy to defend
3. There is no passing game to speak of
4. Everything is slow and methodical, and as Gilmore said, "a grind"
You can't fix #1 overnight, but it can be mitigated by doing something about #2, which could conceivably mitigate #3 and #4. Until Stanford is able to be a balanced offense that makes defenses play honestly, or until the OL can dominate, there is no reason to believe the offense is going to improve at all. It now feels like watching the LSU offense that got Les Miles canned.
I'm personally convinced that Shaw needs to bring in someone who truly understands the passing game. The route concepts and overall passing scheme just isn't working at all.
Tough to levy much criticism on the defense when the offense is doing nothing, but it certainly has been underwhelming the last two weeks.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2016, 06:51 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Rod Gilmore was hammering on all the things I've been concerned about Stanford's offense, throughout the broadcast. It goes something like this:
1. Teams are stacking the box and run blitzing on early downs, doing simple DE/DT line stunts on 3rd
2. Stanford struggles mightily to complete even 5 yard passes; only effective deep passing will change #1
3. Too much of the offense goes through McCaffrey, even passing
4. The OL isn't moving anyone against their will, and is routinely being moved against its will
Not really a surprise that the QB position is struggling, because it's hard to judge that position when all these things above are going wrong, but it's not doing anything special either.
I saw some very, very bad things from the OL last night. Guys getting absolutely clowned out there. So many missed blocks, and even when blocks weren't being missed, guys were getting knocked on their asses and run around like traffic pylons. On one particularly pathetic play, Brandon Fanaika was so overwhelmed at the point of attack, that he fell backward and landed on his ass. On another, Jesse Burkett didn't even get a hand on a stunting DT.Â
Even when despite all this, the QBs made throws, there were drops galore.
So to recap:
1. The OL stinks and is being physically dominated
2. The offensive scheme is easy to defend
3. There is no passing game to speak of
4. Everything is slow and methodical, and as Gilmore said, "a grind"
You can't fix #1 overnight, but it can be mitigated by doing something about #2, which could conceivably mitigate #3 and #4. Until Stanford is able to be a balanced offense that makes defenses play honestly, or until the OL can dominate, there is no reason to believe the offense is going to improve at all. It now feels like watching the LSU offense that got Les Miles canned.
I'm personally convinced that Shaw needs to bring in someone who truly understands the passing game. The route concepts and overall passing scheme just isn't working at all.
Tough to levy much criticism on the defense when the offense is doing nothing, but it certainly has been underwhelming the last two weeks.
1. Teams are stacking the box and run blitzing on early downs, doing simple DE/DT line stunts on 3rd
2. Stanford struggles mightily to complete even 5 yard passes; only effective deep passing will change #1
3. Too much of the offense goes through McCaffrey, even passing
4. The OL isn't moving anyone against their will, and is routinely being moved against its will
Not really a surprise that the QB position is struggling, because it's hard to judge that position when all these things above are going wrong, but it's not doing anything special either.
I saw some very, very bad things from the OL last night. Guys getting absolutely clowned out there. So many missed blocks, and even when blocks weren't being missed, guys were getting knocked on their asses and run around like traffic pylons. On one particularly pathetic play, Brandon Fanaika was so overwhelmed at the point of attack, that he fell backward and landed on his ass. On another, Jesse Burkett didn't even get a hand on a stunting DT.Â
Even when despite all this, the QBs made throws, there were drops galore.
So to recap:
1. The OL stinks and is being physically dominated
2. The offensive scheme is easy to defend
3. There is no passing game to speak of
4. Everything is slow and methodical, and as Gilmore said, "a grind"
You can't fix #1 overnight, but it can be mitigated by doing something about #2, which could conceivably mitigate #3 and #4. Until Stanford is able to be a balanced offense that makes defenses play honestly, or until the OL can dominate, there is no reason to believe the offense is going to improve at all. It now feels like watching the LSU offense that got Les Miles canned.
I'm personally convinced that Shaw needs to bring in someone who truly understands the passing game. The route concepts and overall passing scheme just isn't working at all.
Tough to levy much criticism on the defense when the offense is doing nothing, but it certainly has been underwhelming the last two weeks.
10-09-2016, 08:03 AM
(10-09-2016, 06:31 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Rod Gilmore was hammering on all the things I've been concerned about Stanford's offense, throughout the broadcast. It goes something like this:Sounds plausible, but why was the offensive line able to do better against Kansas State and U.SC?
1. Teams are stacking the box and run blitzing on early downs, doing simple DE/DT line stunts on 3rd
2. Stanford struggles mightily to complete even 5 yard passes; only effective deep passing will change #1
3. Too much of the offense goes through McCaffrey, even passing
4. The OL isn't moving anyone against their will, and is routinely being moved against its will
Not really a surprise that the QB position is struggling, because it's hard to judge that position when all these things above are going wrong, but it's not doing anything special either.
I saw some very, very bad things from the OL last night. Guys getting absolutely clowned out there. So many missed blocks, and even when blocks weren't being missed, guys were getting knocked on their asses and run around like traffic pylons. On one particularly pathetic play, Brandon Fanaika was so overwhelmed at the point of attack, that he fell backward and landed on his ass. On another, Jesse Burkett didn't even get a hand on a stunting DT.Â
Even when despite all this, the QBs made throws, there were drops galore.
So to recap:
1. The OL stinks and is being physically dominated
2. The offensive scheme is easy to defend
3. There is no passing game to speak of
4. Everything is slow and methodical, and as Gilmore said, "a grind"
You can't fix #1 overnight, but it can be mitigated by doing something about #2, which could conceivably mitigate #3 and #4. Until Stanford is able to be a balanced offense that makes defenses play honestly, or until the OL can dominate, there is no reason to believe the offense is going to improve at all. It now feels like watching the LSU offense that got Les Miles canned.
I'm personally convinced that Shaw needs to bring in someone who truly understands the passing game. The route concepts and overall passing scheme just isn't working at all.
Tough to levy much criticism on the defense when the offense is doing nothing, but it certainly has been underwhelming the last two weeks.
(10-09-2016, 06:31 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Rod Gilmore was hammering on all the things I've been concerned about Stanford's offense, throughout the broadcast. It goes something like this:Sounds plausible, but why was the offensive line able to do better against Kansas State and U.SC?
1. Teams are stacking the box and run blitzing on early downs, doing simple DE/DT line stunts on 3rd
2. Stanford struggles mightily to complete even 5 yard passes; only effective deep passing will change #1
3. Too much of the offense goes through McCaffrey, even passing
4. The OL isn't moving anyone against their will, and is routinely being moved against its will
Not really a surprise that the QB position is struggling, because it's hard to judge that position when all these things above are going wrong, but it's not doing anything special either.
I saw some very, very bad things from the OL last night. Guys getting absolutely clowned out there. So many missed blocks, and even when blocks weren't being missed, guys were getting knocked on their asses and run around like traffic pylons. On one particularly pathetic play, Brandon Fanaika was so overwhelmed at the point of attack, that he fell backward and landed on his ass. On another, Jesse Burkett didn't even get a hand on a stunting DT.Â
Even when despite all this, the QBs made throws, there were drops galore.
So to recap:
1. The OL stinks and is being physically dominated
2. The offensive scheme is easy to defend
3. There is no passing game to speak of
4. Everything is slow and methodical, and as Gilmore said, "a grind"
You can't fix #1 overnight, but it can be mitigated by doing something about #2, which could conceivably mitigate #3 and #4. Until Stanford is able to be a balanced offense that makes defenses play honestly, or until the OL can dominate, there is no reason to believe the offense is going to improve at all. It now feels like watching the LSU offense that got Les Miles canned.
I'm personally convinced that Shaw needs to bring in someone who truly understands the passing game. The route concepts and overall passing scheme just isn't working at all.
Tough to levy much criticism on the defense when the offense is doing nothing, but it certainly has been underwhelming the last two weeks.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »