[Phogge]

Just my opinion but M.Night may be one of the most overrated directors of all time.

[Phogge]

Just my opinion but M.Night may be one of the most overrated directors of all time.

[Goose]

But non-QB true freshmen have played at Stanford in the offensive line (Peat, Murphy, Garnett, Hebrig), usually because we install them as the Ogres where, by definition, the playbook is limited (though Hebrig started as a guard this year).  We've had true freshmen play at TE, WR, RB, and FB; basically every position but QB (and, on the OL, probably center).  So, I don't think there is much to the argument that we are holding back phenomenal freshmen non-QB's because the playbook is too complicated.

I absolutely agree the playbook being too complicated hasn't held back "phenomenal" freshmen. However, there are other factors that have not been discussed that do. IMHO, there is quite a bit of "game theory" in burning a redshirt. Despite claims to the contrary by the staff, they don't always put the "best" players on the field. If there is a freshman who the staff thinks is a "bit" better than the upperclassman candidate at say, LG, do they play him? I would say that depends. Is the freshman playing going to materially change the teams record this year? If not, he doesn't play. Is he "for sure" better or just maybe better? If not, he doesn't play. There is a definite bias on most, if not all, coaching staffs toward playing upperclassmen, because the freshmen players have a bigger upside. If you play the underclassman when he is good, you may not have him available when he is great. This is complicated by players leaving early, but I am sure coaches still look at it. How the guy fits into the team also matters a lot. Obviously, if there is nobody else who is any good, you play the freshman. However, if your team is real bad this year, but you think it will be significantly better next year, you probably don't. OTOH, if you think having a reserve LG with some experience later in the year will win you the PAC-12, you do.
What I am describing here is what I think actually happens, both at Stanford and other places. As others have pointed out, deciding to burn a redshirt can be complicated, but it is even more complicated when multi-year considerations are examined. And, despite claims to the contrary, they are examined. Shaw has explicitly stated that he wouldn't start a freshman just to give him experience over an experienced player who was better. I totally believe him in this regard. However, to my knowledge, he has never explicitly stated the converse. Correct me if I am wrong. Given what I know now, I would say that he would start a less qualified player to protect a redshirt if he thought it made overall sense.

[Goose]

But non-QB true freshmen have played at Stanford in the offensive line (Peat, Murphy, Garnett, Hebrig), usually because we install them as the Ogres where, by definition, the playbook is limited (though Hebrig started as a guard this year).  We've had true freshmen play at TE, WR, RB, and FB; basically every position but QB (and, on the OL, probably center).  So, I don't think there is much to the argument that we are holding back phenomenal freshmen non-QB's because the playbook is too complicated.

I absolutely agree the playbook being too complicated hasn't held back "phenomenal" freshmen. However, there are other factors that have not been discussed that do. IMHO, there is quite a bit of "game theory" in burning a redshirt. Despite claims to the contrary by the staff, they don't always put the "best" players on the field. If there is a freshman who the staff thinks is a "bit" better than the upperclassman candidate at say, LG, do they play him? I would say that depends. Is the freshman playing going to materially change the teams record this year? If not, he doesn't play. Is he "for sure" better or just maybe better? If not, he doesn't play. There is a definite bias on most, if not all, coaching staffs toward playing upperclassmen, because the freshmen players have a bigger upside. If you play the underclassman when he is good, you may not have him available when he is great. This is complicated by players leaving early, but I am sure coaches still look at it. How the guy fits into the team also matters a lot. Obviously, if there is nobody else who is any good, you play the freshman. However, if your team is real bad this year, but you think it will be significantly better next year, you probably don't. OTOH, if you think having a reserve LG with some experience later in the year will win you the PAC-12, you do.
What I am describing here is what I think actually happens, both at Stanford and other places. As others have pointed out, deciding to burn a redshirt can be complicated, but it is even more complicated when multi-year considerations are examined. And, despite claims to the contrary, they are examined. Shaw has explicitly stated that he wouldn't start a freshman just to give him experience over an experienced player who was better. I totally believe him in this regard. However, to my knowledge, he has never explicitly stated the converse. Correct me if I am wrong. Given what I know now, I would say that he would start a less qualified player to protect a redshirt if he thought it made overall sense.

[stupac2]

So, one thing about this thread that I find curious is that everyone just accepts that the complex playbook is why we don't start true freshman QBs. I have a few questions about this:

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? Throughout this season we've had a continual chicken-egg discussion about whether the problem was the QBs or the OL, and frankly I think it starts with the OL. 2014 is the best indication of this, Hogan didn't suddenly become 0.3 points/drive worse, but our OL sure did have some turnover. This year we started with a pretty darn effective offense (IIRC the first two games were >3 points/drive, which is great!) and then we got a ton of injuries and started to suck. It's a team game, it all feeds into each other.

4) Are other true frosh QBs, even the good ones, actually all that good? People keep citing Hurts, but come on man, he plays for Alabama. They have the best OL in the country, some of the best RBs, great skill players, etc etc. He averaged <200 yards per game! Yeah, it's not surprising that a kid can succeed in that offense, he barely has to do anything. If anything Alabama is a perfect indication of how hard it is to find a good QB, Hurts is the best they've had in forever and I'm not sure he'd be anything besides terrible on a non-stacked team. How is it so hard for Saban to get a real QB? With Watson the tide would've crushed everyone by even more ridiculous margins.


We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

[stupac2]

So, one thing about this thread that I find curious is that everyone just accepts that the complex playbook is why we don't start true freshman QBs. I have a few questions about this:

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? Throughout this season we've had a continual chicken-egg discussion about whether the problem was the QBs or the OL, and frankly I think it starts with the OL. 2014 is the best indication of this, Hogan didn't suddenly become 0.3 points/drive worse, but our OL sure did have some turnover. This year we started with a pretty darn effective offense (IIRC the first two games were >3 points/drive, which is great!) and then we got a ton of injuries and started to suck. It's a team game, it all feeds into each other.

4) Are other true frosh QBs, even the good ones, actually all that good? People keep citing Hurts, but come on man, he plays for Alabama. They have the best OL in the country, some of the best RBs, great skill players, etc etc. He averaged <200 yards per game! Yeah, it's not surprising that a kid can succeed in that offense, he barely has to do anything. If anything Alabama is a perfect indication of how hard it is to find a good QB, Hurts is the best they've had in forever and I'm not sure he'd be anything besides terrible on a non-stacked team. How is it so hard for Saban to get a real QB? With Watson the tide would've crushed everyone by even more ridiculous margins.


We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

[Goose]

So, one thing about this thread that I find curious is that everyone just accepts that the complex playbook is why we don't start true freshman QBs. I have a few questions about this:

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

I think you are correct. The playbook isn't impossible to master in three months. What is difficult is recognizing the defense and then matching it to the play call. Apparently, that is a "learned" skill. You can't just know that if "they" do X, we do Y. They is trying to make you get it wrong, and Y is a set of options depending on other factors etc. It seems that some (very very few) QBs can just do this from the start. Other QBs take time to learn how to do it well. And some never do. That is why so many apparently talented QBs don't make it in the NFL. That is also why some QBs haven't made it at Stanford. Not an exact science.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

I interpret "mastering the playbook" to include being able to reasonably competently operate the offense in a game situation. I take his word, based on the NFL analogy, that that isn't so easy as just knowing the plays.

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? Throughout this season we've had a continual chicken-egg discussion about whether the problem was the QBs or the OL, and frankly I think it starts with the OL. 2014 is the best indication of this, Hogan didn't suddenly become 0.3 points/drive worse, but our OL sure did have some turnover. This year we started with a pretty darn effective offense (IIRC the first two games were >3 points/drive, which is great!) and then we got a ton of injuries and started to suck. It's a team game, it all feeds into each other

Totally agree. The sum of the parts is the issue. John Elway demonstrates that you can have a great QB and still not do so well.

4) Are other true frosh QBs, even the good ones, actually all that good? People keep citing Hurts, but come on man, he plays for Alabama. They have the best OL in the country, some of the best RBs, great skill players, etc etc. He averaged <200 yards per game! Yeah, it's not surprising that a kid can succeed in that offense, he barely has to do anything. If anything Alabama is a perfect indication of how hard it is to find a good QB, Hurts is the best they've had in forever and I'm not sure he'd be anything besides terrible on a non-stacked team. How is it so hard for Saban to get a real QB? With Watson the tide would've crushed everyone by even more ridiculous margins.

Or maybe not. Teams are funny animals. Sometimes too many great players (egos) are a problem (USC for the past N years?). I fully agree that being the freshman QB at Alabama is a much better deal than being the freshman QB at say, Arizona, even allowing for the higher expectations.

We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

You are exactly correct. I must say I like the puzzling things that have gone on since JH/Shaw arrived more than I did the ones under Harris/Teveens. It also gives us something to talk about. For better or worse, we will never know who is right.

[Goose]

So, one thing about this thread that I find curious is that everyone just accepts that the complex playbook is why we don't start true freshman QBs. I have a few questions about this:

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

I think you are correct. The playbook isn't impossible to master in three months. What is difficult is recognizing the defense and then matching it to the play call. Apparently, that is a "learned" skill. You can't just know that if "they" do X, we do Y. They is trying to make you get it wrong, and Y is a set of options depending on other factors etc. It seems that some (very very few) QBs can just do this from the start. Other QBs take time to learn how to do it well. And some never do. That is why so many apparently talented QBs don't make it in the NFL. That is also why some QBs haven't made it at Stanford. Not an exact science.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

I interpret "mastering the playbook" to include being able to reasonably competently operate the offense in a game situation. I take his word, based on the NFL analogy, that that isn't so easy as just knowing the plays.

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? Throughout this season we've had a continual chicken-egg discussion about whether the problem was the QBs or the OL, and frankly I think it starts with the OL. 2014 is the best indication of this, Hogan didn't suddenly become 0.3 points/drive worse, but our OL sure did have some turnover. This year we started with a pretty darn effective offense (IIRC the first two games were >3 points/drive, which is great!) and then we got a ton of injuries and started to suck. It's a team game, it all feeds into each other

Totally agree. The sum of the parts is the issue. John Elway demonstrates that you can have a great QB and still not do so well.

4) Are other true frosh QBs, even the good ones, actually all that good? People keep citing Hurts, but come on man, he plays for Alabama. They have the best OL in the country, some of the best RBs, great skill players, etc etc. He averaged <200 yards per game! Yeah, it's not surprising that a kid can succeed in that offense, he barely has to do anything. If anything Alabama is a perfect indication of how hard it is to find a good QB, Hurts is the best they've had in forever and I'm not sure he'd be anything besides terrible on a non-stacked team. How is it so hard for Saban to get a real QB? With Watson the tide would've crushed everyone by even more ridiculous margins.

Or maybe not. Teams are funny animals. Sometimes too many great players (egos) are a problem (USC for the past N years?). I fully agree that being the freshman QB at Alabama is a much better deal than being the freshman QB at say, Arizona, even allowing for the higher expectations.

We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

You are exactly correct. I must say I like the puzzling things that have gone on since JH/Shaw arrived more than I did the ones under Harris/Teveens. It also gives us something to talk about. For better or worse, we will never know who is right.

[RedShift]

So, one thing about this thread that I find curious is that everyone just accepts that the complex playbook is why we don't start true freshman QBs. I have a few questions about this:

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? .
...
...

Back in October when Roman was fired by the Bills and replaced by Anthony Lynn, I came across an interesting comment by a Bills' vet in MMQB:
"Anthony Lynn isn’t directly responsible for the Bills’ resurgence after that 0-2 start, but he has made a big difference in establishing an offensive identity for a team that needed one, and cohesion with what Ryan wanted to do defensively. And while wholesale change in midstream is, of course, pretty much impossible, Lynn’s tweaks have made a difference. “The changes aren’t super simple,” said one Bills vet. “We’re running the same plays that we did under G-Ro. It’s just that with Roman, we had a brobdingnagian playbook and we could run absolutely anything from week-to-week. Anthony’s all about matchups… He played [in the NFL], so he knows matchups are brobdingnagian.......  Second, as the players see it, Lynn is more apt to go back to something that’s working than Roman was. ”
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/10/13/nfl-w...tman-fired

I would think Shaw's playbook has changed some from that of the Harbaugh days, but (1) I've no reason to believe that it has gotten smaller, and (2) Shaw's offensive philosophy has shifted from what it was when Harbaugh brought him to Stanford. The issues raised by the Bills' player are issues I've seen with Harbaugh, Shaw and Roman when they were together and then separately. 

Having said all that, I will again make my ritual bow of deference and respect to Shaw. If he continues recruiting at the level he's doing now, the Cardinal will be perennial top-20 team regardless of deficiencies (real or perceived) with regard to coaching of offense  or in-game playcalling decisions.

[RedShift]

So, one thing about this thread that I find curious is that everyone just accepts that the complex playbook is why we don't start true freshman QBs. I have a few questions about this:

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? .
...
...

Back in October when Roman was fired by the Bills and replaced by Anthony Lynn, I came across an interesting comment by a Bills' vet in MMQB:
"Anthony Lynn isn’t directly responsible for the Bills’ resurgence after that 0-2 start, but he has made a big difference in establishing an offensive identity for a team that needed one, and cohesion with what Ryan wanted to do defensively. And while wholesale change in midstream is, of course, pretty much impossible, Lynn’s tweaks have made a difference. “The changes aren’t super simple,” said one Bills vet. “We’re running the same plays that we did under G-Ro. It’s just that with Roman, we had a brobdingnagian playbook and we could run absolutely anything from week-to-week. Anthony’s all about matchups… He played [in the NFL], so he knows matchups are brobdingnagian.......  Second, as the players see it, Lynn is more apt to go back to something that’s working than Roman was. ”
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/10/13/nfl-w...tman-fired

I would think Shaw's playbook has changed some from that of the Harbaugh days, but (1) I've no reason to believe that it has gotten smaller, and (2) Shaw's offensive philosophy has shifted from what it was when Harbaugh brought him to Stanford. The issues raised by the Bills' player are issues I've seen with Harbaugh, Shaw and Roman when they were together and then separately. 

Having said all that, I will again make my ritual bow of deference and respect to Shaw. If he continues recruiting at the level he's doing now, the Cardinal will be perennial top-20 team regardless of deficiencies (real or perceived) with regard to coaching of offense  or in-game playcalling decisions.

[CTcard]

A few comments on Stupac's questions that largely lineup with some of the other comments.

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

We do run a more complicated offense than do most teams, and that includes both formations, personnel packages and actual plays. It may be that the number more plays isn't as high as the number of more formations (as in we may have four times the formations of some other teams, but only twice the plays).

Stanford runs empty backfield, five wide sets and nominally zero receiver, 9 linemenish heavy sets, and just about everything in between. We run a slew of different run plays, and while we don't pass often there are lots of different routes (many that go unexploited some will say). Compare to what Oregon had been running. Basically one formation and about four plays. Most of the variation is all on the same basic play that allows for options depending upon the after-snap reads made by the QB.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

I tend to agree with the sentiment here.

Despite some prominent examples, starting true frosh QBs is rather rare overall. The fact Stanford hasn't done so in six years under Shaw isn't dispositive of anything. Shaw did replace a fourth year player with a RS frosh midseason without turning to a third year highly rated recruit, and the offense got much simpler but better. So, I don't think that Shaw is all that against playing younger players, and while experience is better than not it clearly cannot completely trump ability.

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? Throughout this season we've had a continual chicken-egg discussion about whether the problem was the QBs or the OL, and frankly I think it starts with the OL. 2014 is the best indication of this, Hogan didn't suddenly become 0.3 points/drive worse, but our OL sure did have some turnover. This year we started with a pretty darn effective offense (IIRC the first two games were >3 points/drive, which is great!) and then we got a ton of injuries and started to suck. It's a team game, it all feeds into each other.

Our system asks a lot of both the OL and the QB. It seems to me that the up years (odd years) have been characterized by experience and quality on both, and notable deficits on either have led to the down years.

2014 had some particular differences, along with lack of experience on the OL. One is that the coaches tried to change the offense a lot that year - the most obvious thing is that we were passing the ball a ton more (until the final three games) which was combined with a run game geared more toward attacking the dges. That simply wasn't the strength of anyone on that team.
I also thought Hogan was a little down that year, but it may be projecting thoughts about how hard it would be do deal with the situation of his father.

We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

To some extent we have this board to try to decipher them. So, I certainly think it is interesting to try.

I have come to the conclusion that 1) we do have a more complicated offense than do most teams, 2) that is at least a factor in poor production in years with lesser experience on the OL and/or QB, but that 3) the offensive philosophy we use is helpful in producing very good teams when the OL/QB situation is optimal.

I would like to think it would be possible to simplify at low experience times and put things back in when the experience and ability warrant. To some extent that is what happened when Hogan came in in 2012. But it hasn't worked all the time, certainly not in 2016, and I am not sure just how reasonable it would be to crank up and down the offensive complexity on a whim.

[CTcard]

A few comments on Stupac's questions that largely lineup with some of the other comments.

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

We do run a more complicated offense than do most teams, and that includes both formations, personnel packages and actual plays. It may be that the number more plays isn't as high as the number of more formations (as in we may have four times the formations of some other teams, but only twice the plays).

Stanford runs empty backfield, five wide sets and nominally zero receiver, 9 linemenish heavy sets, and just about everything in between. We run a slew of different run plays, and while we don't pass often there are lots of different routes (many that go unexploited some will say). Compare to what Oregon had been running. Basically one formation and about four plays. Most of the variation is all on the same basic play that allows for options depending upon the after-snap reads made by the QB.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

I tend to agree with the sentiment here.

Despite some prominent examples, starting true frosh QBs is rather rare overall. The fact Stanford hasn't done so in six years under Shaw isn't dispositive of anything. Shaw did replace a fourth year player with a RS frosh midseason without turning to a third year highly rated recruit, and the offense got much simpler but better. So, I don't think that Shaw is all that against playing younger players, and while experience is better than not it clearly cannot completely trump ability.

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? Throughout this season we've had a continual chicken-egg discussion about whether the problem was the QBs or the OL, and frankly I think it starts with the OL. 2014 is the best indication of this, Hogan didn't suddenly become 0.3 points/drive worse, but our OL sure did have some turnover. This year we started with a pretty darn effective offense (IIRC the first two games were >3 points/drive, which is great!) and then we got a ton of injuries and started to suck. It's a team game, it all feeds into each other.

Our system asks a lot of both the OL and the QB. It seems to me that the up years (odd years) have been characterized by experience and quality on both, and notable deficits on either have led to the down years.

2014 had some particular differences, along with lack of experience on the OL. One is that the coaches tried to change the offense a lot that year - the most obvious thing is that we were passing the ball a ton more (until the final three games) which was combined with a run game geared more toward attacking the dges. That simply wasn't the strength of anyone on that team.
I also thought Hogan was a little down that year, but it may be projecting thoughts about how hard it would be do deal with the situation of his father.

We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

To some extent we have this board to try to decipher them. So, I certainly think it is interesting to try.

I have come to the conclusion that 1) we do have a more complicated offense than do most teams, 2) that is at least a factor in poor production in years with lesser experience on the OL and/or QB, but that 3) the offensive philosophy we use is helpful in producing very good teams when the OL/QB situation is optimal.

I would like to think it would be possible to simplify at low experience times and put things back in when the experience and ability warrant. To some extent that is what happened when Hogan came in in 2012. But it hasn't worked all the time, certainly not in 2016, and I am not sure just how reasonable it would be to crank up and down the offensive complexity on a whim.

[TreesAndBirds]

Do people think the "complicated" playbook helps prepare our guys better for the NFL, and so therefore it is a recruiting selling point?

Not saying we should be using it if its costing us games, but just suggesting that there might be an additional advantage of helping with our reputation with recruits.

[TreesAndBirds]

Do people think the "complicated" playbook helps prepare our guys better for the NFL, and so therefore it is a recruiting selling point?

Not saying we should be using it if its costing us games, but just suggesting that there might be an additional advantage of helping with our reputation with recruits.

[washingtonismoney]

Do people think the "complicated" playbook helps prepare our guys better for the NFL, and so therefore it is a recruiting selling point?

Not saying we should be using it if its costing us games, but just suggesting that there might be an additional advantage of helping with our reputation with recruits.

Recruits believe it does.

[washingtonismoney]

Do people think the "complicated" playbook helps prepare our guys better for the NFL, and so therefore it is a recruiting selling point?

Not saying we should be using it if its costing us games, but just suggesting that there might be an additional advantage of helping with our reputation with recruits.

Recruits believe it does.

[fullmetal]

We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

I don't think it's so much the offensive philosophy as deciphering an opposing defensive philosophy.  My gut says it's probably a 70/30 effort split between reading defenses and choosing plays (I should mention I am less informed than most). 

Another major component is that we don't have insight into how good of a QB coach Tavita Pritchard is.  Some people think position coaches are glorified cheerleaders, just herding players through drills.  I tend to believe that a great position coach during the week can really make a difference on game day.  Luck and Hogan (likely) were probably self-starters--perhaps Pritchard isn't capable of coaching up players like Burns/Nunes/Nottingham...and perhaps Chryst as well. 

I hope no one's written off Costello, but it bears mentioning that the brain trust that recruited and developed Burns/Chryst hasn't had a great track record.  Hopefully Shaw and co. struck gold with Costello/Mills.

[fullmetal]

We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

I don't think it's so much the offensive philosophy as deciphering an opposing defensive philosophy.  My gut says it's probably a 70/30 effort split between reading defenses and choosing plays (I should mention I am less informed than most). 

Another major component is that we don't have insight into how good of a QB coach Tavita Pritchard is.  Some people think position coaches are glorified cheerleaders, just herding players through drills.  I tend to believe that a great position coach during the week can really make a difference on game day.  Luck and Hogan (likely) were probably self-starters--perhaps Pritchard isn't capable of coaching up players like Burns/Nunes/Nottingham...and perhaps Chryst as well. 

I hope no one's written off Costello, but it bears mentioning that the brain trust that recruited and developed Burns/Chryst hasn't had a great track record.  Hopefully Shaw and co. struck gold with Costello/Mills.

[CTcard]

Another major component is that we don't have insight into how good of a QB coach Tavita Pritchard is.  ... perhaps Pritchard isn't capable of coaching up players like Burns/Nunes/Nottingham...and perhaps Chryst as well. 

He may not be so capable, but he also never had a chance to coach Nunes or Nottingham. Pritchard only became the QB coach in 2013.

Hogan did seem to develop while Pritchard was QB coach. Burns went from looking like he couldn't perform basic functions (like taking a snap) for some time to developing to the point he looked decent at the start of the season - then things fell apart. Chryst seems to have had the opposite trajectory - initially he seemed not to be developing so fast but then seemed to come around until the knee-pop.

No doubt at some level the poor level of QB play falls to the feet of the coaches involved, but there is significant nuance to the track record.

the brain trust that recruited and developed Burns/Chryst hasn't had a great track record.  Hopefully Shaw and co. struck gold with Costello/Mills.

I am not quite sure what you consider that particular brain trust, but under head coach Shaw I would say that Stanford has had at least pretty good QB play for 4.5 out of 6 seasons, which isn't a bad track record.
To be sure, 2014 is a complicated case. I thought Hogan himself played okay that year, which is why I put it into the "at least pretty good" category. There were some definite issues with the offense, however. Hogan and the entire offense were misused over most of the season in my opinion and the OL struggled in many ways. There were some Hogan hiccups as well - perhaps related to his personal travails.

[CTcard]

Another major component is that we don't have insight into how good of a QB coach Tavita Pritchard is.  ... perhaps Pritchard isn't capable of coaching up players like Burns/Nunes/Nottingham...and perhaps Chryst as well. 

He may not be so capable, but he also never had a chance to coach Nunes or Nottingham. Pritchard only became the QB coach in 2013.

Hogan did seem to develop while Pritchard was QB coach. Burns went from looking like he couldn't perform basic functions (like taking a snap) for some time to developing to the point he looked decent at the start of the season - then things fell apart. Chryst seems to have had the opposite trajectory - initially he seemed not to be developing so fast but then seemed to come around until the knee-pop.

No doubt at some level the poor level of QB play falls to the feet of the coaches involved, but there is significant nuance to the track record.

the brain trust that recruited and developed Burns/Chryst hasn't had a great track record.  Hopefully Shaw and co. struck gold with Costello/Mills.

I am not quite sure what you consider that particular brain trust, but under head coach Shaw I would say that Stanford has had at least pretty good QB play for 4.5 out of 6 seasons, which isn't a bad track record.
To be sure, 2014 is a complicated case. I thought Hogan himself played okay that year, which is why I put it into the "at least pretty good" category. There were some definite issues with the offense, however. Hogan and the entire offense were misused over most of the season in my opinion and the OL struggled in many ways. There were some Hogan hiccups as well - perhaps related to his personal travails.

[BostonCard]

I realize he's injured, but why are people saying that Chryst hasn't been developed.  He has 2 years of eligibility left and his season (albeit against flimsy competition) was passable.  His PER this year was comparable to that of Josh Rosen, Jake Browning last year, or Jalen Hurts this year.  It's far from a top QB, but I wouldn't write him off either.

BC

[BostonCard]

I realize he's injured, but why are people saying that Chryst hasn't been developed.  He has 2 years of eligibility left and his season (albeit against flimsy competition) was passable.  His PER this year was comparable to that of Josh Rosen, Jake Browning last year, or Jalen Hurts this year.  It's far from a top QB, but I wouldn't write him off either.

BC

[Goose]

Ok, I have to ask. Do folks here think we ran a "complicated" offense this year? I don't see it. The QBs didn't make lots of adjustments at the LOS that I recall. They mostly ran the play sent in to them (occasionally somewhat belatedly according to many) from the sideline. And most of the plays were pretty much the same thing, run CMac or Love someplace. When it is third down, try to throw something (and "mostly" nobody  will be open/the QB will be sacked/ throw the ball into the ground). The problems weren't the command of the playbook. The problems were that we couldn't execute. It may also be that we missed a lot of chances by not being able to check into the right play, but I don't think we lost to UW because we couldn't read the defense. It was because that defense spent as much time in our backfield as Burns. OK, I am over-stating how bad we were, We did finish 10-3. BUT we didn't lose due to complexity of offense. Now, were we in a situation where we should have been playing Costello, who probably was less able to adjust than the guys we did play? Would his "expected" better execution matter? That is really the only issue I can see related to complexity. We can speculate whether Costello would have been a net positive. Apparently, Shaw et al didn't think so.
I think the famous quote from the USC player who supposedly said "If they run power one more time, I am subbing myself out" better describes our offensive philosophy. Not much doubt what is coming. Doesn't matter. We have at our disposal a big, complex and powerful playbook. When we have a team that can operate the whole thing, and we need to, we use it. But we actually prefer to be as simple as possible, control the ball, shorten the game, and win. This may be reflected in the every two year period, where we go from IOC to fully capable. We probably aren't an elite team when we can't operate the entire playbook. But we can still be quite good. This year, we couldn't impose our will on 3 of our opponents, not because we didn't run the "right" play, but because we couldn't execute the plays we ran.

[Goose]

Ok, I have to ask. Do folks here think we ran a "complicated" offense this year? I don't see it. The QBs didn't make lots of adjustments at the LOS that I recall. They mostly ran the play sent in to them (occasionally somewhat belatedly according to many) from the sideline. And most of the plays were pretty much the same thing, run CMac or Love someplace. When it is third down, try to throw something (and "mostly" nobody  will be open/the QB will be sacked/ throw the ball into the ground). The problems weren't the command of the playbook. The problems were that we couldn't execute. It may also be that we missed a lot of chances by not being able to check into the right play, but I don't think we lost to UW because we couldn't read the defense. It was because that defense spent as much time in our backfield as Burns. OK, I am over-stating how bad we were, We did finish 10-3. BUT we didn't lose due to complexity of offense. Now, were we in a situation where we should have been playing Costello, who probably was less able to adjust than the guys we did play? Would his "expected" better execution matter? That is really the only issue I can see related to complexity. We can speculate whether Costello would have been a net positive. Apparently, Shaw et al didn't think so.
I think the famous quote from the USC player who supposedly said "If they run power one more time, I am subbing myself out" better describes our offensive philosophy. Not much doubt what is coming. Doesn't matter. We have at our disposal a big, complex and powerful playbook. When we have a team that can operate the whole thing, and we need to, we use it. But we actually prefer to be as simple as possible, control the ball, shorten the game, and win. This may be reflected in the every two year period, where we go from IOC to fully capable. We probably aren't an elite team when we can't operate the entire playbook. But we can still be quite good. This year, we couldn't impose our will on 3 of our opponents, not because we didn't run the "right" play, but because we couldn't execute the plays we ran.

[Sea Loon]

I realize he's injured, but why are people saying that Chryst hasn't been developed.  He has 2 years of eligibility left and his season (albeit against flimsy competition) was passable.  His PER this year was comparable to that of Josh Rosen, Jake Browning last year, or Jalen Hurts this year.  It's far from a top QB, but I wouldn't write him off either.

BC

I agree that it's too early to say that. After a tough first two starts, he played better, starting hitting a few nice deep balls, finished with a 10/2 TD/INT ratio, and the team won every game that he started. I understand the caveats about the competition level. Still, Kevin Hogan was also a bit uneven in his first set of starts, but his teams won a lot, so it's easier (in my mind) to forget his rocky games, in retrospect. If Chryst comes back and gets to start, I hope he does well. And having other great QBs on the roster will only help.

[Sea Loon]

I realize he's injured, but why are people saying that Chryst hasn't been developed.  He has 2 years of eligibility left and his season (albeit against flimsy competition) was passable.  His PER this year was comparable to that of Josh Rosen, Jake Browning last year, or Jalen Hurts this year.  It's far from a top QB, but I wouldn't write him off either.

BC

I agree that it's too early to say that. After a tough first two starts, he played better, starting hitting a few nice deep balls, finished with a 10/2 TD/INT ratio, and the team won every game that he started. I understand the caveats about the competition level. Still, Kevin Hogan was also a bit uneven in his first set of starts, but his teams won a lot, so it's easier (in my mind) to forget his rocky games, in retrospect. If Chryst comes back and gets to start, I hope he does well. And having other great QBs on the roster will only help.

[washingtonismoney]

It's hard to figure whether it's just small sample size theater (in terms of the "development" narrative) or genuine improvement. Personally I thought there were reasons for both hope and pessimism in watching the Sun Bowl. (Again, a very limited sample.) He had a couple very bad misses, as I recall, and given the number of times we've seen very wayward accuracy from Chryst I'm a bit skeptical that's going to get fixed. But who knows! Clearly I've failed many predictions.

[washingtonismoney]

It's hard to figure whether it's just small sample size theater (in terms of the "development" narrative) or genuine improvement. Personally I thought there were reasons for both hope and pessimism in watching the Sun Bowl. (Again, a very limited sample.) He had a couple very bad misses, as I recall, and given the number of times we've seen very wayward accuracy from Chryst I'm a bit skeptical that's going to get fixed. But who knows! Clearly I've failed many predictions.

[terry]

When was the last time a true freshman played QB for Stanford?  Barring utter disaster, there's no way Davis Mills will play next year.

So far as I can recall, the last QB to play as a true freshman was Todd Husak in 1996. That was the year that Tim Carey lost the QB competition to Chad Hutchinson in fall camp and transferred out. That left Husak as the #2 QB.

[terry]

When was the last time a true freshman played QB for Stanford?  Barring utter disaster, there's no way Davis Mills will play next year.

So far as I can recall, the last QB to play as a true freshman was Todd Husak in 1996. That was the year that Tim Carey lost the QB competition to Chad Hutchinson in fall camp and transferred out. That left Husak as the #2 QB.

[BostonCard]

When all else is equal, I default to recognition that  we humans are very prone to small sample biases and seeing patterns in noisy data.

BC

[BostonCard]

When all else is equal, I default to recognition that  we humans are very prone to small sample biases and seeing patterns in noisy data.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

I or others may have posted this before, but the thing that makes the WCO so complicated is the terminology.  Reading defenses and making good throws is much less the issue for a QB than knowing the play calls and how to call plays is.  You particularly need to know the terminology to change the play at the LOS when you know have called a play that isn't going to work based on the pre-snap read.

I remember reading an article a few years ago about how Belichick simplified the Patriots' offense by streamlining how plays are called.  It can be done.

[OutsiderFan]

I or others may have posted this before, but the thing that makes the WCO so complicated is the terminology.  Reading defenses and making good throws is much less the issue for a QB than knowing the play calls and how to call plays is.  You particularly need to know the terminology to change the play at the LOS when you know have called a play that isn't going to work based on the pre-snap read.

I remember reading an article a few years ago about how Belichick simplified the Patriots' offense by streamlining how plays are called.  It can be done.

[stanfan]

We have a tremendous staff.  With 2 inexperienced QB's (Costello and Mills) on tap for next year (I assuming the slightly experienced Chryst will not be available until after the season has started), it is difficult to believe the staff would not make the simplifying adjustments necessary to maximize chances for success. 

[stanfan]

We have a tremendous staff.  With 2 inexperienced QB's (Costello and Mills) on tap for next year (I assuming the slightly experienced Chryst will not be available until after the season has started), it is difficult to believe the staff would not make the simplifying adjustments necessary to maximize chances for success. 

[Mick]

[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=16429.msg185969#msg185969 date=1484153296]
When was the last time a true freshman played QB for Stanford?  Barring utter disaster, there's no way Davis Mills will play next year.

So far as I can recall, the last QB to play as a true freshman was Todd Husak in 1996. That was the year that Tim Carey lost the QB competition to Chad Hutchinson in fall camp and transferred out. That left Husak as the #2 QB.
[/quote]

Coming out of Los Alamitos HS, Carey was a very enthusiastic Stanford signee.  He signed 11 weeks early, stating "I couldn't have picked a better school."
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-01-06/s..._tim-carey

He transferred to Hawaii.  They revoked his scholarship because he was arrested in a gambling raid, but he paid the tuition and attended Hawaii anyway.
http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-28/s..._tim-carey

On a 3-9 Hawaii team coached by Fred Von Appen, Tim split QB duties with sophomore Josh Skinner.  Tim had his problems with interceptions, throwing nine in 175 passes, with two TDs.  their offense was 105th of 112 D1 teams.  Ended up playing four years in the Arena football league, and did quite well in his first year (2000) throwing 33 TDs and 6 INTs.

[Mick]

[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=16429.msg185969#msg185969 date=1484153296]
When was the last time a true freshman played QB for Stanford?  Barring utter disaster, there's no way Davis Mills will play next year.

So far as I can recall, the last QB to play as a true freshman was Todd Husak in 1996. That was the year that Tim Carey lost the QB competition to Chad Hutchinson in fall camp and transferred out. That left Husak as the #2 QB.
[/quote]

Coming out of Los Alamitos HS, Carey was a very enthusiastic Stanford signee.  He signed 11 weeks early, stating "I couldn't have picked a better school."
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-01-06/s..._tim-carey

He transferred to Hawaii.  They revoked his scholarship because he was arrested in a gambling raid, but he paid the tuition and attended Hawaii anyway.
http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-28/s..._tim-carey

On a 3-9 Hawaii team coached by Fred Von Appen, Tim split QB duties with sophomore Josh Skinner.  Tim had his problems with interceptions, throwing nine in 175 passes, with two TDs.  their offense was 105th of 112 D1 teams.  Ended up playing four years in the Arena football league, and did quite well in his first year (2000) throwing 33 TDs and 6 INTs.

[Goose]

I or others may have posted this before, but the thing that makes the WCO so complicated is the terminology.  Reading defenses and making good throws is much less the issue for a QB than knowing the play calls and how to call plays is.  You particularly need to know the terminology to change the play at the LOS when you know have called a play that isn't going to work based on the pre-snap read.

I remember reading an article a few years ago about how Belichick simplified the Patriots' offense by streamlining how plays are called.  It can be done.

Interesting thought. In looking into this, I naturally checked into Wikipedia. You might want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_calling_system. They seem to express a contrary view about the Patriot's system. I would be interested in the article you refer to, if you can remember it.

From what I can see, and what I have heard, the nomenclature in the West Coast system is more complex than in some other systems, at least partially because it is more specific. However, learning that doesn't appear to me to challenge a Stanford student much. It would be no worse than one quarter of a foreign language. Some work, but doable. I actually think it is the reading defenses and knowing what to do in response part that is more an issue. Calling the play call coming from the sideline is easy. You just look it up on the wristband. Processing what it means requires more thought, but there should be no surprises. What Shaw has on the sheet you have seen before and expect. Now, if he sends in a play (via a player, not a signal) that is not on the sheet, that could be more of a challenge.
Also, I believe, but don't know for absolute certain, that the "grammar"  used in audibles is different than the nomenclature used in calling the plays. On some teams, I know this is true. I am not sure about Stanford though. Can anyone enlighten me?

[Goose]

I or others may have posted this before, but the thing that makes the WCO so complicated is the terminology.  Reading defenses and making good throws is much less the issue for a QB than knowing the play calls and how to call plays is.  You particularly need to know the terminology to change the play at the LOS when you know have called a play that isn't going to work based on the pre-snap read.

I remember reading an article a few years ago about how Belichick simplified the Patriots' offense by streamlining how plays are called.  It can be done.

Interesting thought. In looking into this, I naturally checked into Wikipedia. You might want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_calling_system. They seem to express a contrary view about the Patriot's system. I would be interested in the article you refer to, if you can remember it.

From what I can see, and what I have heard, the nomenclature in the West Coast system is more complex than in some other systems, at least partially because it is more specific. However, learning that doesn't appear to me to challenge a Stanford student much. It would be no worse than one quarter of a foreign language. Some work, but doable. I actually think it is the reading defenses and knowing what to do in response part that is more an issue. Calling the play call coming from the sideline is easy. You just look it up on the wristband. Processing what it means requires more thought, but there should be no surprises. What Shaw has on the sheet you have seen before and expect. Now, if he sends in a play (via a player, not a signal) that is not on the sheet, that could be more of a challenge.
Also, I believe, but don't know for absolute certain, that the "grammar"  used in audibles is different than the nomenclature used in calling the plays. On some teams, I know this is true. I am not sure about Stanford though. Can anyone enlighten me?