[jacketree]

Triple Option starting Saturday.

Time to blow some minds.

[jacketree]

Triple Option starting Saturday.

Time to blow some minds.

[fullmetal]

If we had that much blocking skill, I think our run game would be looking a lot healthier right now.  I've seen a lot of whiffed blocks with bad consequences from the Stanford run game :(

[fullmetal]

If we had that much blocking skill, I think our run game would be looking a lot healthier right now.  I've seen a lot of whiffed blocks with bad consequences from the Stanford run game :(

[stupac2]

[quote author=GK3 link=topic=15965.msg177031#msg177031 date=1477337995] I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc. 

This has been an absolute mystery to me why this is not done consistently, given both of their talents.  Swing passes to backs like Love and CMac should be deadly alternatives to running in the box.  Those are basically running plays that put the back in space.  Why not have both Love and CMac in, with one in position for an inside run and one moving out for a swing pass, and have Burns choose based on how the box is stacked.  Is Burns capable of throwing swing passes?
[/quote]

McCaffrey and Love have both been healthy for precisely 0 games, unless you include last weekend, which given the weird utilization of Love may dissuade you from doing that. Regardless, I don't think the coaches are just idiots, there must be a reason we're not seeing this as much as we expected to.

[stupac2]

[quote author=GK3 link=topic=15965.msg177031#msg177031 date=1477337995] I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc. 

This has been an absolute mystery to me why this is not done consistently, given both of their talents.  Swing passes to backs like Love and CMac should be deadly alternatives to running in the box.  Those are basically running plays that put the back in space.  Why not have both Love and CMac in, with one in position for an inside run and one moving out for a swing pass, and have Burns choose based on how the box is stacked.  Is Burns capable of throwing swing passes?
[/quote]

McCaffrey and Love have both been healthy for precisely 0 games, unless you include last weekend, which given the weird utilization of Love may dissuade you from doing that. Regardless, I don't think the coaches are just idiots, there must be a reason we're not seeing this as much as we expected to.

[Ratmandoo]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=15965.msg177033#msg177033 date=1477338830]
[quote author=GK3 link=topic=15965.msg177031#msg177031 date=1477337995] I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc. 

This has been an absolute mystery to me why this is not done consistently, given both of their talents.  Swing passes to backs like Love and CMac should be deadly alternatives to running in the box.  Those are basically running plays that put the back in space.  Why not have both Love and CMac in, with one in position for an inside run and one moving out for a swing pass, and have Burns choose based on how the box is stacked.  Is Burns capable of throwing swing passes?
[/quote]

McCaffrey and Love have both been healthy for precisely 0 games, unless you include last weekend, which given the weird utilization of Love may dissuade you from doing that. Regardless, I don't think the coaches are just idiots, there must be a reason we're not seeing this as much as we expected to.
[/quote]

Also McCaffrey wasn't really available to practice last week. I think this will be the first week of the season both Love and McCaffrey will be healthy for the game AND the week of practice. I have a feeling we will see a lot more of them on the field together. I can pretty much guarantee if plays haven't been practiced during the week, Shaw won't call them during the game.

One of the the really confusing thing about the Colorado game was how few touches Love got. We didn't run a ton of plays but Love deserved a couple more touches (even at the expense of McCaffrey touches) last week.

[Ratmandoo]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=15965.msg177033#msg177033 date=1477338830]
[quote author=GK3 link=topic=15965.msg177031#msg177031 date=1477337995] I would love to see us use Mac and Love like Walsh used Nelson, pitch outs, swing passes etc. 

This has been an absolute mystery to me why this is not done consistently, given both of their talents.  Swing passes to backs like Love and CMac should be deadly alternatives to running in the box.  Those are basically running plays that put the back in space.  Why not have both Love and CMac in, with one in position for an inside run and one moving out for a swing pass, and have Burns choose based on how the box is stacked.  Is Burns capable of throwing swing passes?
[/quote]

McCaffrey and Love have both been healthy for precisely 0 games, unless you include last weekend, which given the weird utilization of Love may dissuade you from doing that. Regardless, I don't think the coaches are just idiots, there must be a reason we're not seeing this as much as we expected to.
[/quote]

Also McCaffrey wasn't really available to practice last week. I think this will be the first week of the season both Love and McCaffrey will be healthy for the game AND the week of practice. I have a feeling we will see a lot more of them on the field together. I can pretty much guarantee if plays haven't been practiced during the week, Shaw won't call them during the game.

One of the the really confusing thing about the Colorado game was how few touches Love got. We didn't run a ton of plays but Love deserved a couple more touches (even at the expense of McCaffrey touches) last week.

[dabigv13]

Something I now remember from the game that I haven't seen discussed (it was reunion weekend so my memory is slightly hazy).

CMac looked a step slow to me, and it was pretty interesting that he didn't line up for the kickoff that could have potentially tied the game in the 4th quarter. I don't think he's 100%.

[dabigv13]

Something I now remember from the game that I haven't seen discussed (it was reunion weekend so my memory is slightly hazy).

CMac looked a step slow to me, and it was pretty interesting that he didn't line up for the kickoff that could have potentially tied the game in the 4th quarter. I don't think he's 100%.

[martyup]

Something I now remember from the game that I haven't seen discussed (it was reunion weekend so my memory is slightly hazy).

CMac looked a step slow to me, and it was pretty interesting that he didn't line up for the kickoff that could have potentially tied the game in the 4th quarter. I don't think he's 100%.

I thought the same thing.  He looked a bit off on some of his runs.  Hopefully he will be back to near 100% in AZ.

[martyup]

Something I now remember from the game that I haven't seen discussed (it was reunion weekend so my memory is slightly hazy).

CMac looked a step slow to me, and it was pretty interesting that he didn't line up for the kickoff that could have potentially tied the game in the 4th quarter. I don't think he's 100%.

I thought the same thing.  He looked a bit off on some of his runs.  Hopefully he will be back to near 100% in AZ.

[Hurlburt88]

Many of us have wondered why we did not see more Love on Saturday.  I recall thinking at the end of the ND game that Love looked a tad off at least when he was getting up & walking back to the huddle, so I speculate that he continues to "work through things"

[Hurlburt88]

Many of us have wondered why we did not see more Love on Saturday.  I recall thinking at the end of the ND game that Love looked a tad off at least when he was getting up & walking back to the huddle, so I speculate that he continues to "work through things"

[BostonCard]

I think there is some evidence that QB's can be ruined by starting them too soon.  I think that is especially pronounced when the offensive line is not great, as players develop "happy feet" and become more concerned with the clock in their head than with going through their progressions.  Part of me wonders whether that has happened with Burns after the UW/WSU games, where he is panicking way too early even when the pass blocking is adequate.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think there is some evidence that QB's can be ruined by starting them too soon.  I think that is especially pronounced when the offensive line is not great, as players develop "happy feet" and become more concerned with the clock in their head than with going through their progressions.  Part of me wonders whether that has happened with Burns after the UW/WSU games, where he is panicking way too early even when the pass blocking is adequate.

BC

[BurgXXIII]

I think there is some evidence that QB's can be ruined by starting them too soon.  I think that is especially pronounced when the offensive line is not great, as players develop "happy feet" and become more concerned with the clock in their head than with going through their progressions.  Part of me wonders whether that has happened with Burns after the UW/WSU games, where he is panicking way too early even when the pass blocking is adequate.

BC

So four years of preparation is inadequate? That would mean we have a severe problem with our scheme.

[BurgXXIII]

I think there is some evidence that QB's can be ruined by starting them too soon.  I think that is especially pronounced when the offensive line is not great, as players develop "happy feet" and become more concerned with the clock in their head than with going through their progressions.  Part of me wonders whether that has happened with Burns after the UW/WSU games, where he is panicking way too early even when the pass blocking is adequate.

BC

So four years of preparation is inadequate? That would mean we have a severe problem with our scheme.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15965.msg177076#msg177076 date=1477357612]
I think there is some evidence that QB's can be ruined by starting them too soon.  I think that is especially pronounced when the offensive line is not great, as players develop "happy feet" and become more concerned with the clock in their head than with going through their progressions.  Part of me wonders whether that has happened with Burns after the UW/WSU games, where he is panicking way too early even when the pass blocking is adequate.

BC

So four years of preparation is inadequate? That would mean we have a severe problem with our scheme.
[/quote]

The same scheme produced one of the most efficient offenses in the nation last year, so clearly "the scheme" is capable of producing.  My sense is that when you pair an experienced QB and offensive line, the scheme is close to unstoppable.  However, when one of the two is off, the offense begins sputtering, and when you pair an inexperienced QB and bad offensive line, the offense is a disaster.  There are probably different schemes that would avoid the offensive ineptitude that we have witnessed the last four games, but people who are asking that we swap for Cal's offense are forgetting that in a similar situation (inexperienced QB plus bad offensive line), Cal went 1-11 with only a victory over FCS Portland State despite a future first pick of the draft at QB (and had offensive outputs of 10, 13, 17, and 17 points, averaging 23 ppg), and at its peak (last year, with an experienced Goff and good offensive line), Cal's offense could be slowed down.

As with anything else, there are going to be tradeoffs involved.  I think our scheme generally suits us well, in terms of matching the types of players we can recruit effectively with their utilization.  We could try switching to a different scheme, and it might be better for situations like the one we are in now, in terms of being able to get a QB up to speed a bit more quickly.  However, I think we would be giving up a lot of the upshot we see when the offense is humming, as we have had several times in the last dozen years.  If you look over the long stretch, I think you will find that Shaw's offenses on average are about as good as we have ever had, despite periods where it has been pretty atrocious.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15965.msg177076#msg177076 date=1477357612]
I think there is some evidence that QB's can be ruined by starting them too soon.  I think that is especially pronounced when the offensive line is not great, as players develop "happy feet" and become more concerned with the clock in their head than with going through their progressions.  Part of me wonders whether that has happened with Burns after the UW/WSU games, where he is panicking way too early even when the pass blocking is adequate.

BC

So four years of preparation is inadequate? That would mean we have a severe problem with our scheme.
[/quote]

The same scheme produced one of the most efficient offenses in the nation last year, so clearly "the scheme" is capable of producing.  My sense is that when you pair an experienced QB and offensive line, the scheme is close to unstoppable.  However, when one of the two is off, the offense begins sputtering, and when you pair an inexperienced QB and bad offensive line, the offense is a disaster.  There are probably different schemes that would avoid the offensive ineptitude that we have witnessed the last four games, but people who are asking that we swap for Cal's offense are forgetting that in a similar situation (inexperienced QB plus bad offensive line), Cal went 1-11 with only a victory over FCS Portland State despite a future first pick of the draft at QB (and had offensive outputs of 10, 13, 17, and 17 points, averaging 23 ppg), and at its peak (last year, with an experienced Goff and good offensive line), Cal's offense could be slowed down.

As with anything else, there are going to be tradeoffs involved.  I think our scheme generally suits us well, in terms of matching the types of players we can recruit effectively with their utilization.  We could try switching to a different scheme, and it might be better for situations like the one we are in now, in terms of being able to get a QB up to speed a bit more quickly.  However, I think we would be giving up a lot of the upshot we see when the offense is humming, as we have had several times in the last dozen years.  If you look over the long stretch, I think you will find that Shaw's offenses on average are about as good as we have ever had, despite periods where it has been pretty atrocious.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I'm with Burg, Burns is in his fourth year in the system. If he's not ready by now, he will likely never be ready.

I'm unsure why there's such resistance to entertaining the notion that Burns may just not be very good.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I'm with Burg, Burns is in his fourth year in the system. If he's not ready by now, he will likely never be ready.

I'm unsure why there's such resistance to entertaining the notion that Burns may just not be very good.

[81alum]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15965.msg177070#msg177070 date=1477351601]
Something I now remember from the game that I haven't seen discussed (it was reunion weekend so my memory is slightly hazy).

CMac looked a step slow to me, and it was pretty interesting that he didn't line up for the kickoff that could have potentially tied the game in the 4th quarter. I don't think he's 100%.

I thought the same thing.  He looked a bit off on some of his runs.  Hopefully he will be back to near 100% in AZ.
[/quote]
In his presser, Shaw said that CMac "was not 100%" but was "still pretty good."  I wonder if Love was 100%. 

[81alum]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15965.msg177070#msg177070 date=1477351601]
Something I now remember from the game that I haven't seen discussed (it was reunion weekend so my memory is slightly hazy).

CMac looked a step slow to me, and it was pretty interesting that he didn't line up for the kickoff that could have potentially tied the game in the 4th quarter. I don't think he's 100%.

I thought the same thing.  He looked a bit off on some of his runs.  Hopefully he will be back to near 100% in AZ.
[/quote]
In his presser, Shaw said that CMac "was not 100%" but was "still pretty good."  I wonder if Love was 100%. 

[BostonCard]

I'm with Burg, Burns is in his fourth year in the system. If he's not ready by now, he will likely never be ready.

I'm unsure why there's such resistance to entertaining the notion that Burns may just not be very good.

Oh, the possibility that Burns is not very good is definitely real, but I don't think we've exhausted other possibilities, which is that Burns would be decent if given decent protection.  The evidence for that lies in the Kansas State game, where he started completing his first nine passes, and for which his protection was pretty good.  He also led the game winning drive at UCLA, so he is certainly capable.  He only really started sucking against UW (though he was not great for much of the UCLA game), and that coincided with the offensive line becoming a sieve.

Now, it is certainly possible that Burns' highlights, such as they are, are anomalies, and the Burns we have seen the last four weeks is about as much as we can expect.  I am not against trying Chryst per se, but I haven't seen anything in his appearances that would lead me to believe that he is better than Burns.  Still, at this point it may be worth a shot, to see if a QB knowing that he was going to be in for the whole game and not putting added pressure on himself to shine during "his" series, might be a bit more effective.  However, my expectations are not high for that; I think the biggest problem is the line.

I am hopeful that as we face weaker defenses in the tail end of the year, and as our offensive line and running backs heal (and hopefully if we don't have any more injuries), that we might see a step up from the QB position, no matter who is behind center.  But I think having a weak offensive line and an inexperienced quarterback is a recipe for what we have seen.  Maybe somebody with a lot of experience playing the college game can figure out how to make the best out of a collapsing pocket, but I think it would be asking a lot of even a pretty good QB (say, a Hogan quality guy) without much game experience to do much when he is being sacked once every 10 or so dropbacks.

[BostonCard]

I'm with Burg, Burns is in his fourth year in the system. If he's not ready by now, he will likely never be ready.

I'm unsure why there's such resistance to entertaining the notion that Burns may just not be very good.

Oh, the possibility that Burns is not very good is definitely real, but I don't think we've exhausted other possibilities, which is that Burns would be decent if given decent protection.  The evidence for that lies in the Kansas State game, where he started completing his first nine passes, and for which his protection was pretty good.  He also led the game winning drive at UCLA, so he is certainly capable.  He only really started sucking against UW (though he was not great for much of the UCLA game), and that coincided with the offensive line becoming a sieve.

Now, it is certainly possible that Burns' highlights, such as they are, are anomalies, and the Burns we have seen the last four weeks is about as much as we can expect.  I am not against trying Chryst per se, but I haven't seen anything in his appearances that would lead me to believe that he is better than Burns.  Still, at this point it may be worth a shot, to see if a QB knowing that he was going to be in for the whole game and not putting added pressure on himself to shine during "his" series, might be a bit more effective.  However, my expectations are not high for that; I think the biggest problem is the line.

I am hopeful that as we face weaker defenses in the tail end of the year, and as our offensive line and running backs heal (and hopefully if we don't have any more injuries), that we might see a step up from the QB position, no matter who is behind center.  But I think having a weak offensive line and an inexperienced quarterback is a recipe for what we have seen.  Maybe somebody with a lot of experience playing the college game can figure out how to make the best out of a collapsing pocket, but I think it would be asking a lot of even a pretty good QB (say, a Hogan quality guy) without much game experience to do much when he is being sacked once every 10 or so dropbacks.

[Mick]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15965.msg177070#msg177070 date=1477351601]
Something I now remember from the game that I haven't seen discussed (it was reunion weekend so my memory is slightly hazy).

CMac looked a step slow to me, and it was pretty interesting that he didn't line up for the kickoff that could have potentially tied the game in the 4th quarter. I don't think he's 100%.

I thought the same thing.  He looked a bit off on some of his runs.  Hopefully he will be back to near 100% in AZ.
[/quote]

Actually, I was wondering that from the beginning of the year.  Specifically, I wondered if the additional weight slowed CMac down a bit.

[Mick]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15965.msg177070#msg177070 date=1477351601]
Something I now remember from the game that I haven't seen discussed (it was reunion weekend so my memory is slightly hazy).

CMac looked a step slow to me, and it was pretty interesting that he didn't line up for the kickoff that could have potentially tied the game in the 4th quarter. I don't think he's 100%.

I thought the same thing.  He looked a bit off on some of his runs.  Hopefully he will be back to near 100% in AZ.
[/quote]

Actually, I was wondering that from the beginning of the year.  Specifically, I wondered if the additional weight slowed CMac down a bit.

[Roberton3]

...I don't think the coaches are just idiots, there must be a reason we're not seeing this as much as we expected to.

+1000.  It seems like there are two possibilities: (1) the formerly excellent coaches all suddenly became idiots; or (2) there's something the coaches know that the fans don't know.  Occam's Razor (and common sense) strongly suggest (2), but a lot of folks posting here seem to think it's (1).

[Roberton3]

...I don't think the coaches are just idiots, there must be a reason we're not seeing this as much as we expected to.

+1000.  It seems like there are two possibilities: (1) the formerly excellent coaches all suddenly became idiots; or (2) there's something the coaches know that the fans don't know.  Occam's Razor (and common sense) strongly suggest (2), but a lot of folks posting here seem to think it's (1).

[cardcrimson]

One of the TV commentators mentioned that Shaw had said that he was rotating quarterbacks because you can't develop without game time. Wish he had the same thinking last year when Stanford had double digit leads and Hogan was still in the game.

[cardcrimson]

One of the TV commentators mentioned that Shaw had said that he was rotating quarterbacks because you can't develop without game time. Wish he had the same thinking last year when Stanford had double digit leads and Hogan was still in the game.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think the coaches are idiots, but there is a difference between being an idiot and not adapting to changing dynamics fast enough because "we've always done it that way and it has always worked."

The rules of evolution apply in football like they do to everything else in life.  There is a reason nobody runs the T formation, single wing or wishbone any more.  To be clear, I'm not advocating for Stanford to scrap its whole offense, but I do think it needs to get a lot more creative, be a lot less predictable, threaten more of the field on every play, utilize its personnel more effectively, and show more urgency, no matter who is playing on the OL or at QB.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think the coaches are idiots, but there is a difference between being an idiot and not adapting to changing dynamics fast enough because "we've always done it that way and it has always worked."

The rules of evolution apply in football like they do to everything else in life.  There is a reason nobody runs the T formation, single wing or wishbone any more.  To be clear, I'm not advocating for Stanford to scrap its whole offense, but I do think it needs to get a lot more creative, be a lot less predictable, threaten more of the field on every play, utilize its personnel more effectively, and show more urgency, no matter who is playing on the OL or at QB.

[ATLCard]

Given how well the offense executed last year, the problems this year are unlikely to drill down to a single factor -- I think most of the factors people have voiced contribute to some degree:

1) Drop-off from 5th year Hogan to a new inexperienced starter was to be expected whoever came in as QB. I think Burns showed during the first three games that it wasn't crazy to select him as the starter. However I don't think he has great instincts and with all the other breakdowns the QB this year has to have better instincts so probably time to find out what Chryst can do.
2) Loss of 3 OL starters means a drop-off was to be expected there as well. Unfortunately the drop-off was bigger than expected.
3) OL, RB, FB, and TE injuries eliminated any margin for error, and games 4-7 showed we couldn't afford that (it's an incredibly bad run of injuries particularly given Stanford's history under Turley).  And the early bye week was a bad break and useless for healing and cleaning up all the other problems
4) Coaching to date has not adequately adjusted to 1/2/3 above.  I didn't expect Shaw/Bloomgren to tear up the playbook after the UW/WSU games, but the most complex/biggest playbook in college football should have some plays that can get Love and McCaffrey into space without depending on the OL physically dominating a defense that is expecting it.  And the lack of emphasis/imagination in the passing game hasn't helped -- I'm not surprised the CU defensive backs were calling out the routes before plays by the end of the game.
5) And finally, execution.  In retrospect with 1/2/3 above I think we would have needed to be very lucky to challenge for the Pac-12 title this year.  But my biggest disappointment is that we have stopped being the smart disciplined effective team that we are used to.  Lots of examples with blocking all across the field -- ignoring the OL because that has been discussed at length, there have been too many examples of others whiffing on blocks or failing to pick up assignments.  A couple examples that are stuck in my head: Rector's reverse where Scarlett failed to even disrupt the corner, stopping a big gain; JJAW flailing then lightly blocking in the back to bring back a long Love gain; watching a double-teamed punt return gunner run past two Stanford defenders basically untouched to cause a fair catch when a big return was possible; the list goes on and on and on.

I don't have high hopes about 1/2/3 above going forward -- if there were clear-cut personnel changes that represented magic bullets we would have seen them already (although why not give Chryst a shot, and hopefully injured players heal up).  But, improvements on 4/5 above still leaves the potential to win out -- that's on both coaches and players so lets hope they are up to it.

[ATLCard]

Given how well the offense executed last year, the problems this year are unlikely to drill down to a single factor -- I think most of the factors people have voiced contribute to some degree:

1) Drop-off from 5th year Hogan to a new inexperienced starter was to be expected whoever came in as QB. I think Burns showed during the first three games that it wasn't crazy to select him as the starter. However I don't think he has great instincts and with all the other breakdowns the QB this year has to have better instincts so probably time to find out what Chryst can do.
2) Loss of 3 OL starters means a drop-off was to be expected there as well. Unfortunately the drop-off was bigger than expected.
3) OL, RB, FB, and TE injuries eliminated any margin for error, and games 4-7 showed we couldn't afford that (it's an incredibly bad run of injuries particularly given Stanford's history under Turley).  And the early bye week was a bad break and useless for healing and cleaning up all the other problems
4) Coaching to date has not adequately adjusted to 1/2/3 above.  I didn't expect Shaw/Bloomgren to tear up the playbook after the UW/WSU games, but the most complex/biggest playbook in college football should have some plays that can get Love and McCaffrey into space without depending on the OL physically dominating a defense that is expecting it.  And the lack of emphasis/imagination in the passing game hasn't helped -- I'm not surprised the CU defensive backs were calling out the routes before plays by the end of the game.
5) And finally, execution.  In retrospect with 1/2/3 above I think we would have needed to be very lucky to challenge for the Pac-12 title this year.  But my biggest disappointment is that we have stopped being the smart disciplined effective team that we are used to.  Lots of examples with blocking all across the field -- ignoring the OL because that has been discussed at length, there have been too many examples of others whiffing on blocks or failing to pick up assignments.  A couple examples that are stuck in my head: Rector's reverse where Scarlett failed to even disrupt the corner, stopping a big gain; JJAW flailing then lightly blocking in the back to bring back a long Love gain; watching a double-teamed punt return gunner run past two Stanford defenders basically untouched to cause a fair catch when a big return was possible; the list goes on and on and on.

I don't have high hopes about 1/2/3 above going forward -- if there were clear-cut personnel changes that represented magic bullets we would have seen them already (although why not give Chryst a shot, and hopefully injured players heal up).  But, improvements on 4/5 above still leaves the potential to win out -- that's on both coaches and players so lets hope they are up to it.

[washingtonismoney]

There's a point on predictability that I want to address: is an overly predictable offense a cause or effect of a bad offense? (Or, perhaps, to crib from Orwell, is it a little bit of both: “A man may take to drink because he feels himself a failure, but then fail all the more completely because he drinks.”)

That is, if an offense only has a few plays it can competently execute it kind of has to stick with them -- doing something that won't work because it's surprising doesn't really sound like a recipe for success.

Incidentally I wonder whether execution/coaching is making plays less successful than they are. One of the features of this year's offense that bugs me is the reliance on shotgun runs. Unless they're accompanied with a read-option they simply are not great plays. And yet Burns rarely seems to pull the ball -- maybe that fumble against Kansas State spooked him. Chryst seems more eager to run, but neither of them are in Hogan's class as a runner. That makes the offense substantially more one-dimensional, and it's not as if either offer significant other virtues to offset that.

[washingtonismoney]

There's a point on predictability that I want to address: is an overly predictable offense a cause or effect of a bad offense? (Or, perhaps, to crib from Orwell, is it a little bit of both: “A man may take to drink because he feels himself a failure, but then fail all the more completely because he drinks.”)

That is, if an offense only has a few plays it can competently execute it kind of has to stick with them -- doing something that won't work because it's surprising doesn't really sound like a recipe for success.

Incidentally I wonder whether execution/coaching is making plays less successful than they are. One of the features of this year's offense that bugs me is the reliance on shotgun runs. Unless they're accompanied with a read-option they simply are not great plays. And yet Burns rarely seems to pull the ball -- maybe that fumble against Kansas State spooked him. Chryst seems more eager to run, but neither of them are in Hogan's class as a runner. That makes the offense substantially more one-dimensional, and it's not as if either offer significant other virtues to offset that.

[dabigv13]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15965.msg177067#msg177067 date=1477348972]
...I don't think the coaches are just idiots, there must be a reason we're not seeing this as much as we expected to.

+1000.  It seems like there are two possibilities: (1) the formerly excellent coaches all suddenly became idiots; or (2) there's something the coaches know that the fans don't know.  Occam's Razor (and common sense) strongly suggest (2), but a lot of folks posting here seem to think it's (1).
[/quote]

I think 1) probably also encompasses a few people who suspect Shaw and Co are not very good coaches and this is now being made clear (finally!).

Not a view I espouse. I think 2) is the rational answer.

[dabigv13]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15965.msg177067#msg177067 date=1477348972]
...I don't think the coaches are just idiots, there must be a reason we're not seeing this as much as we expected to.

+1000.  It seems like there are two possibilities: (1) the formerly excellent coaches all suddenly became idiots; or (2) there's something the coaches know that the fans don't know.  Occam's Razor (and common sense) strongly suggest (2), but a lot of folks posting here seem to think it's (1).
[/quote]

I think 1) probably also encompasses a few people who suspect Shaw and Co are not very good coaches and this is now being made clear (finally!).

Not a view I espouse. I think 2) is the rational answer.