[BostonCard]

With the caveat that I have little idea what Shaw's trying to say -- I guess I'll have to watch the presser for greater context -- the offensive coaches' decision-making just seems oddly panicky this year. Of course there was the of exceedingly large proportions move at offensive line against SDSU, which shifted Little from rotational RT to starting LT. Now there's this weird rotation he may (or may not) be planning for Utah. It's just this weird personnel uncertainty on offensive that is suggestive of confused coaching. I probably should wait and see for the Utah game to make any final judgments, but the offensive coaching so far this year has been ...just fairly strange all year. I don't get it.

(Defense, of course, has probably been the lesser-performing unit; but aside from the coaches' odd affection for Perez, I see less to criticize about their immediate decisions. The problems were more baked-in than anything.)

Perhaps the OL shuffle deserves the benefit of the doubt.  We've had three games so far this year with the new offensive line.  Now, some of the changes coincide with the change in QB, but certainly the offensive line has looked qualitatively better the last two games.  Rushing, we've had 174, 405(!), and 328 yards, and 7.91, 9.0, and 9.9 ypc.  The last time we gained over 9 yards per carry was that famous game against UW in 2011, when Luck basically just handed it off and UW could not stop us (10.1 ypc, 446 yards rushing and 5 rushing touchdowns).  Since 2006, our last two games would rank #2 and #6 in terms of total yards rushing and #2 and #3 in terms of yards per carry.  Yes, we were arguably rushing fine before the switch, but it is really hard to argue with the results since the switch.  And, oh by the way, Bright is a pretty good pulling guard.

On pass attempts, the offensive line has given up 0 sacks in the last two games, though it did give up 4 against SDSU.

Yes, the numbers are small, and potentially confounded by the change in QB.  But it is really hard to argue that the offensive line hasn't been better since the change three games ago.  I agree that the changes seemed a bit panicky at the time. But I think CTCard's logic made sense.  Our weakest starting offensive lineman was Fanaika, and our strongest non-starter had been Little.  So moving Little to LT, sliding Bright to LG, and switching Hebrig to RG made some sense.  While Bright might be a better LT than LG, and Hebrig might be a better LG than RG, overall you still wound up with improvement in at least two positions on the line: RG Hebrig > Fanaika; LT Little > Bright.  The only question is whether at LG where Hebrig is probably a better guard than Bright, but the net was still positive.  Like you I was a bit skeptical of the move, but I have come around to OutsiderFan's view that this lineup gets our best players on the field (leaving open the possibility that Sarell might yet emerge at RT).

BC

[BostonCard]

With the caveat that I have little idea what Shaw's trying to say -- I guess I'll have to watch the presser for greater context -- the offensive coaches' decision-making just seems oddly panicky this year. Of course there was the of exceedingly large proportions move at offensive line against SDSU, which shifted Little from rotational RT to starting LT. Now there's this weird rotation he may (or may not) be planning for Utah. It's just this weird personnel uncertainty on offensive that is suggestive of confused coaching. I probably should wait and see for the Utah game to make any final judgments, but the offensive coaching so far this year has been ...just fairly strange all year. I don't get it.

(Defense, of course, has probably been the lesser-performing unit; but aside from the coaches' odd affection for Perez, I see less to criticize about their immediate decisions. The problems were more baked-in than anything.)

Perhaps the OL shuffle deserves the benefit of the doubt.  We've had three games so far this year with the new offensive line.  Now, some of the changes coincide with the change in QB, but certainly the offensive line has looked qualitatively better the last two games.  Rushing, we've had 174, 405(!), and 328 yards, and 7.91, 9.0, and 9.9 ypc.  The last time we gained over 9 yards per carry was that famous game against UW in 2011, when Luck basically just handed it off and UW could not stop us (10.1 ypc, 446 yards rushing and 5 rushing touchdowns).  Since 2006, our last two games would rank #2 and #6 in terms of total yards rushing and #2 and #3 in terms of yards per carry.  Yes, we were arguably rushing fine before the switch, but it is really hard to argue with the results since the switch.  And, oh by the way, Bright is a pretty good pulling guard.

On pass attempts, the offensive line has given up 0 sacks in the last two games, though it did give up 4 against SDSU.

Yes, the numbers are small, and potentially confounded by the change in QB.  But it is really hard to argue that the offensive line hasn't been better since the change three games ago.  I agree that the changes seemed a bit panicky at the time. But I think CTCard's logic made sense.  Our weakest starting offensive lineman was Fanaika, and our strongest non-starter had been Little.  So moving Little to LT, sliding Bright to LG, and switching Hebrig to RG made some sense.  While Bright might be a better LT than LG, and Hebrig might be a better LG than RG, overall you still wound up with improvement in at least two positions on the line: RG Hebrig > Fanaika; LT Little > Bright.  The only question is whether at LG where Hebrig is probably a better guard than Bright, but the net was still positive.  Like you I was a bit skeptical of the move, but I have come around to OutsiderFan's view that this lineup gets our best players on the field (leaving open the possibility that Sarell might yet emerge at RT).

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree tackles is a bad metric.  Some of it is dumb luck... how often is a play run towards you.  And how often a play is run towards you may depend a bit in how poor a defender you are.  That being said, when Blake Martinez led the league in tackles a couple years ago, we took it as a mark that he was a pretty good player ("had a nose for the ball"), so there is something to the stat on an individual level (especially among the front 7). And, obviously, on a team level, tackles = defensive plays - touchdowns surrendered so pretty much a lot of it will be correlated with pace of play and how many defensive plays a team is on the field for.

On the other hand, the success rate matters much more as a team defense than for an individual player.  As WIM noted, you would expect a defensive back to get a smaller number of "successful" plays than a defensive lineman.  But even among one position group (say, linebackers) you would expect differences based on assignments.  A rushing or blitzing linebacker will pretty much either get a successful play (if they get to the QB) or they won't get a play at all (if the QB gets rid of the ball), whereas a covering linebacker who tackles the tight end just after they catch the ball is almost certain to get an unsuccessful play, even if it was a good one.  Or consider a running play.  If the defensive lineman stuffs the play at the line of scrimmage they get credit for a successful play.  However, if he get blocked out of the play or the running back breaks their tackle and gets to the second level, the safety who saves the touchdown gets credited with an unsuccessful play.  So, I think it is a poor metric to apply to an individual player, even though it does have value in evaluating team defense.

It is ultimately hard to evaluate Perez without figuring out what he is being asked to do in the context of the team defense. My instinct based on watching the defense is that there are probably better options on the team right now (albeit injured), but I don't think any stat could really answer that.  I'd be interested to see how PFF grades him based on individual plays.

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree tackles is a bad metric.  Some of it is dumb luck... how often is a play run towards you.  And how often a play is run towards you may depend a bit in how poor a defender you are.  That being said, when Blake Martinez led the league in tackles a couple years ago, we took it as a mark that he was a pretty good player ("had a nose for the ball"), so there is something to the stat on an individual level (especially among the front 7). And, obviously, on a team level, tackles = defensive plays - touchdowns surrendered so pretty much a lot of it will be correlated with pace of play and how many defensive plays a team is on the field for.

On the other hand, the success rate matters much more as a team defense than for an individual player.  As WIM noted, you would expect a defensive back to get a smaller number of "successful" plays than a defensive lineman.  But even among one position group (say, linebackers) you would expect differences based on assignments.  A rushing or blitzing linebacker will pretty much either get a successful play (if they get to the QB) or they won't get a play at all (if the QB gets rid of the ball), whereas a covering linebacker who tackles the tight end just after they catch the ball is almost certain to get an unsuccessful play, even if it was a good one.  Or consider a running play.  If the defensive lineman stuffs the play at the line of scrimmage they get credit for a successful play.  However, if he get blocked out of the play or the running back breaks their tackle and gets to the second level, the safety who saves the touchdown gets credited with an unsuccessful play.  So, I think it is a poor metric to apply to an individual player, even though it does have value in evaluating team defense.

It is ultimately hard to evaluate Perez without figuring out what he is being asked to do in the context of the team defense. My instinct based on watching the defense is that there are probably better options on the team right now (albeit injured), but I don't think any stat could really answer that.  I'd be interested to see how PFF grades him based on individual plays.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

I agree tackles is a bad metric.  Some of it is dumb luck... how often is a play run towards you.  And how often a play is run towards you may depend a bit in how poor a defender you are.  That being said, when Blake Martinez led the league in tackles a couple years ago, we took it as a mark that he was a pretty good player ("had a nose for the ball"), so there is something to the stat on an individual level (especially among the front 7).

Well, except Martinez contributed more obviously good  defensive plays. (Which I'll categorize as TFLs, sacks, passes broken up, and picks.) His senior year featured 6.5 TFL, 1.5 sacks, 6 PBU, 1 pick. During his junior year -- which is Perez's eligibility right now -- he collected 7 TFL, 4.5 sacks, 3 picks, 2 PBU.

Perez has never contributed much by way of those type of impact plays. Saying Martinez is similar to Perez in the statistic of "tackles" is like comparing a Porsche to a Ford Taurus in the category of "number of wheels."

[washingtonismoney]

I agree tackles is a bad metric.  Some of it is dumb luck... how often is a play run towards you.  And how often a play is run towards you may depend a bit in how poor a defender you are.  That being said, when Blake Martinez led the league in tackles a couple years ago, we took it as a mark that he was a pretty good player ("had a nose for the ball"), so there is something to the stat on an individual level (especially among the front 7).

Well, except Martinez contributed more obviously good  defensive plays. (Which I'll categorize as TFLs, sacks, passes broken up, and picks.) His senior year featured 6.5 TFL, 1.5 sacks, 6 PBU, 1 pick. During his junior year -- which is Perez's eligibility right now -- he collected 7 TFL, 4.5 sacks, 3 picks, 2 PBU.

Perez has never contributed much by way of those type of impact plays. Saying Martinez is similar to Perez in the statistic of "tackles" is like comparing a Porsche to a Ford Taurus in the category of "number of wheels."

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17573.msg204148#msg204148 date=1507086252]
I agree tackles is a bad metric.  Some of it is dumb luck... how often is a play run towards you.  And how often a play is run towards you may depend a bit in how poor a defender you are.  That being said, when Blake Martinez led the league in tackles a couple years ago, we took it as a mark that he was a pretty good player ("had a nose for the ball"), so there is something to the stat on an individual level (especially among the front 7).

Well, except Martinez contributed more obviously good  defensive plays. (Which I'll categorize as TFLs, sacks, passes broken up, and picks.) His senior year featured 6.5 TFL, 1.5 sacks, 6 PBU, 1 pick. During his junior year -- which is Perez's eligibility right now -- he collected 7 TFL, 4.5 sacks, 3 picks, 2 PBU.

Perez has never contributed much by way of those type of impact plays. Saying Martinez is similar to Perez in the statistic of "tackles" is like comparing a Porsche to a Ford Taurus in the category of "number of wheels."
[/quote]

I think that is mischaracterizing what I said.  I just said that tackles as a metric might not be as misleading a stat (generally), though it might be in Perez' case.  Here are the team's leading tackler and (if the leading tackler wasn't a linebacker) the leading tackler among linebackers the last 10 years:
2017: Harrison Phillips, Bobby Okereke
2016: Solomon Thomas, Peter Kalambayi
2015: Blake Martinez
2014: Blake Martinez
2013: Shayne Skov
2012: Shayne Skov
2011: Jared Lancaster
2010: Shayne Skov
2009: Bo McNally, Shayne Skov
2008: Bo McNally, Pat Maynor

Looking at the list, you can reasonably say that having a lot of tackles correlated with being a good player (perhaps Lancaster the year Skov was injured might be the weakest player on the list).  Perez is fourth on the team in tackles, second amongst linebackers.  Last year, that would have been Alfieri/Kalambayi, the year before Kodi Whitfield/Kalambayi, 2014 Tarpley/Anderson, 2013 Lyons/Tarpley, 2012 Terrence Brown/Chase Thomas.  By and large you don't see bad players get on the list at the levels that Perez is.  5 tackles per game would have led the team last year, would have been second in 2015, fourth in 2014, fourth in 2013, third in 2012.

Another data point... Perez last year, when he was widely acknowledged to have been... not so good only had 28 tackles over the season (20 solo, 8 assisted), good for 15th on the team, and 7th among linebackers, and less than half his production rate this year.

I get what you are saying about impact plays, but it is hard to put that in context of what he is being asked to do (for example, it is hard for an inside linebacker to get a sack if he is not asked to blitz).  I think if you are talking about red flags for Perez, the lack of pass break-ups and interceptions given the number of times he's dropped into coverage is a concern.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17573.msg204148#msg204148 date=1507086252]
I agree tackles is a bad metric.  Some of it is dumb luck... how often is a play run towards you.  And how often a play is run towards you may depend a bit in how poor a defender you are.  That being said, when Blake Martinez led the league in tackles a couple years ago, we took it as a mark that he was a pretty good player ("had a nose for the ball"), so there is something to the stat on an individual level (especially among the front 7).

Well, except Martinez contributed more obviously good  defensive plays. (Which I'll categorize as TFLs, sacks, passes broken up, and picks.) His senior year featured 6.5 TFL, 1.5 sacks, 6 PBU, 1 pick. During his junior year -- which is Perez's eligibility right now -- he collected 7 TFL, 4.5 sacks, 3 picks, 2 PBU.

Perez has never contributed much by way of those type of impact plays. Saying Martinez is similar to Perez in the statistic of "tackles" is like comparing a Porsche to a Ford Taurus in the category of "number of wheels."
[/quote]

I think that is mischaracterizing what I said.  I just said that tackles as a metric might not be as misleading a stat (generally), though it might be in Perez' case.  Here are the team's leading tackler and (if the leading tackler wasn't a linebacker) the leading tackler among linebackers the last 10 years:
2017: Harrison Phillips, Bobby Okereke
2016: Solomon Thomas, Peter Kalambayi
2015: Blake Martinez
2014: Blake Martinez
2013: Shayne Skov
2012: Shayne Skov
2011: Jared Lancaster
2010: Shayne Skov
2009: Bo McNally, Shayne Skov
2008: Bo McNally, Pat Maynor

Looking at the list, you can reasonably say that having a lot of tackles correlated with being a good player (perhaps Lancaster the year Skov was injured might be the weakest player on the list).  Perez is fourth on the team in tackles, second amongst linebackers.  Last year, that would have been Alfieri/Kalambayi, the year before Kodi Whitfield/Kalambayi, 2014 Tarpley/Anderson, 2013 Lyons/Tarpley, 2012 Terrence Brown/Chase Thomas.  By and large you don't see bad players get on the list at the levels that Perez is.  5 tackles per game would have led the team last year, would have been second in 2015, fourth in 2014, fourth in 2013, third in 2012.

Another data point... Perez last year, when he was widely acknowledged to have been... not so good only had 28 tackles over the season (20 solo, 8 assisted), good for 15th on the team, and 7th among linebackers, and less than half his production rate this year.

I get what you are saying about impact plays, but it is hard to put that in context of what he is being asked to do (for example, it is hard for an inside linebacker to get a sack if he is not asked to blitz).  I think if you are talking about red flags for Perez, the lack of pass break-ups and interceptions given the number of times he's dropped into coverage is a concern.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

I think that is mischaracterizing what I said.  I just said that tackles as a metric might not be as misleading a stat (generally), though it might be in Perez' case.  Here are the team's leading tackler and (if the leading tackler wasn't a linebacker) the leading tackler among linebackers the last 10 years:
2017: Harrison Phillips, Bobby Okereke
2016: Solomon Thomas, Peter Kalambayi
2015: Blake Martinez
2014: Blake Martinez
2013: Shayne Skov
2012: Shayne Skov
2011: Jared Lancaster
2010: Shayne Skov
2009: Bo McNally, Shayne Skov
2008: Bo McNally, Pat Maynor

Looking at the list, you wouldn't really say that having a lot of tackles correlated with being a good player (perhaps Lancaster the year Skov was injured might be the weakest player on the list).  Perez is fourth on the team in tackles, second amongst linebackers.  Last year, that would have been Alfieri/Kalambayi, the year before Kodi Whitfield/Kalambayi, 2014 Tarpley/Anderson, 2013 Lyons/Tarpley, 2012 Terrence Brown/Chase Thomas.  By and large you don't see bad players get on the list at the levels that Perez is.  5 tackles per game would have led the team last year, would have been second in 2015, fourth in 2014, fourth in 2013, third in 2012.

Another data point... Perez last year, when he was widely acknowledged to have been not so good only had 28 tackles over the season (20 solo, 8 assisted), good for 15th on the team, and 7th among linebackers.

I get what you are saying about impact plays, but it is hard to put that in context of what he is being asked to do (for example, it is hard for an inside linebacker to get a sack if he is not asked to blitz).  I think if you are talking about red flags for Perez, the lack of pass break-ups and interceptions given the number of times he's dropped into coverage is a concern.

I think that's fair, and don't want to mischaracterize what you say. To me, what "having a lot of tackles" tells me is that...you're a middle linebacker. At least for Stanford's defense.

Perez may be unique here, in that he has gotten (relatively) a lot of tackles but not made impact plays -- whether TFL/"stuffs"/sacks or PBU/Ints (as the relative responsibilities may be). Whereas other guys generally have been able to accompany their tackles with other impact plays.

Anyway, I'd say the entire ILB unit has been disappointing for one reason or another. Okereke had a nice game against SDSU but not much otherwise. Barton contributed -- when healthy. Alfieri hasn't been making the field much and the switchover looks like a wasted year of eligibility. (Speaking of poor coaching decisions made this year...) Targeting Perez is a bit unfair, though I still can't figure out why the coaches seem to like him so much.

[washingtonismoney]

I think that is mischaracterizing what I said.  I just said that tackles as a metric might not be as misleading a stat (generally), though it might be in Perez' case.  Here are the team's leading tackler and (if the leading tackler wasn't a linebacker) the leading tackler among linebackers the last 10 years:
2017: Harrison Phillips, Bobby Okereke
2016: Solomon Thomas, Peter Kalambayi
2015: Blake Martinez
2014: Blake Martinez
2013: Shayne Skov
2012: Shayne Skov
2011: Jared Lancaster
2010: Shayne Skov
2009: Bo McNally, Shayne Skov
2008: Bo McNally, Pat Maynor

Looking at the list, you wouldn't really say that having a lot of tackles correlated with being a good player (perhaps Lancaster the year Skov was injured might be the weakest player on the list).  Perez is fourth on the team in tackles, second amongst linebackers.  Last year, that would have been Alfieri/Kalambayi, the year before Kodi Whitfield/Kalambayi, 2014 Tarpley/Anderson, 2013 Lyons/Tarpley, 2012 Terrence Brown/Chase Thomas.  By and large you don't see bad players get on the list at the levels that Perez is.  5 tackles per game would have led the team last year, would have been second in 2015, fourth in 2014, fourth in 2013, third in 2012.

Another data point... Perez last year, when he was widely acknowledged to have been not so good only had 28 tackles over the season (20 solo, 8 assisted), good for 15th on the team, and 7th among linebackers.

I get what you are saying about impact plays, but it is hard to put that in context of what he is being asked to do (for example, it is hard for an inside linebacker to get a sack if he is not asked to blitz).  I think if you are talking about red flags for Perez, the lack of pass break-ups and interceptions given the number of times he's dropped into coverage is a concern.

I think that's fair, and don't want to mischaracterize what you say. To me, what "having a lot of tackles" tells me is that...you're a middle linebacker. At least for Stanford's defense.

Perez may be unique here, in that he has gotten (relatively) a lot of tackles but not made impact plays -- whether TFL/"stuffs"/sacks or PBU/Ints (as the relative responsibilities may be). Whereas other guys generally have been able to accompany their tackles with other impact plays.

Anyway, I'd say the entire ILB unit has been disappointing for one reason or another. Okereke had a nice game against SDSU but not much otherwise. Barton contributed -- when healthy. Alfieri hasn't been making the field much and the switchover looks like a wasted year of eligibility. (Speaking of poor coaching decisions made this year...) Targeting Perez is a bit unfair, though I still can't figure out why the coaches seem to like him so much.

[CTcard]

To me, what "having a lot of tackles" tells me is that...you're a middle linebacker. At least for Stanford's defense.

Perez may be unique here, in that he has gotten (relatively) a lot of tackles but not made impact plays -- whether TFL/"stuffs"/sacks or PBU/Ints (as the relative responsibilities may be). Whereas other guys generally have been able to accompany their tackles with other impact plays.

Yes, Stanford's defense is designed for pressure to come from the DL and OLB, funneling runners to the ILBs. That gives ILBs tackles, but it also means that ILBs not named Skov tend to make fewer of those impact plays you mention.

At the moment, our ILBs have 1, 0, 1, 1.5, 1, and 0 TFLs.
Also the same guys have 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, and 0 pass break ups (no INTs).

While making tackles does tend to mean you play ILB, certainly among our ILB group itself, who makes the tackles indicates something about relative contributions at the position.

Anyway, I'd say the entire ILB unit has been disappointing for one reason or another. Okereke had a nice game against SDSU but not much otherwise. Barton contributed -- when healthy. Alfieri hasn't been making the field much and the switchover looks like a wasted year of eligibility. (Speaking of poor coaching decisions made this year...)

Well, the entire defense has been disappointing, ILB as well.
Okereke has been a little better than you state - a good game vs UCLA as well I thought.
Alfieri has me shaking my head.

[CTcard]

To me, what "having a lot of tackles" tells me is that...you're a middle linebacker. At least for Stanford's defense.

Perez may be unique here, in that he has gotten (relatively) a lot of tackles but not made impact plays -- whether TFL/"stuffs"/sacks or PBU/Ints (as the relative responsibilities may be). Whereas other guys generally have been able to accompany their tackles with other impact plays.

Yes, Stanford's defense is designed for pressure to come from the DL and OLB, funneling runners to the ILBs. That gives ILBs tackles, but it also means that ILBs not named Skov tend to make fewer of those impact plays you mention.

At the moment, our ILBs have 1, 0, 1, 1.5, 1, and 0 TFLs.
Also the same guys have 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, and 0 pass break ups (no INTs).

While making tackles does tend to mean you play ILB, certainly among our ILB group itself, who makes the tackles indicates something about relative contributions at the position.

Anyway, I'd say the entire ILB unit has been disappointing for one reason or another. Okereke had a nice game against SDSU but not much otherwise. Barton contributed -- when healthy. Alfieri hasn't been making the field much and the switchover looks like a wasted year of eligibility. (Speaking of poor coaching decisions made this year...)

Well, the entire defense has been disappointing, ILB as well.
Okereke has been a little better than you state - a good game vs UCLA as well I thought.
Alfieri has me shaking my head.

[Phogge]

They have recruited one stud ILB since Skov. There aren't going to be any Rose Bowls until they get another, and another..........

[Phogge]

They have recruited one stud ILB since Skov. There aren't going to be any Rose Bowls until they get another, and another..........

[Hulk01]

Disagree on the Alfieri shift.  He looked good against ASU, and much better than he looked against SDSU. 

He's looked slow not because he is, but because he's been uncertain.  Now he's getting comfortable; he's able to react faster, which makes him appear faster.

This was a good move.  Joey Alfieri is an ILB. 

[Hulk01]

Disagree on the Alfieri shift.  He looked good against ASU, and much better than he looked against SDSU. 

He's looked slow not because he is, but because he's been uncertain.  Now he's getting comfortable; he's able to react faster, which makes him appear faster.

This was a good move.  Joey Alfieri is an ILB. 

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17573.msg204113#msg204113 date=1507068451] 

I'd rather have a QB that can only run 3 plays, makes good, quick decisions, has poise, presence, and throws accurately, than one who knows a 1,000 page playbook, but can't do those things as well.

What do you do if the defense takes away those three plays? You are now *******. The one who can't do those things as well will do just fine running play 4 not-so-great but good enough.
I want to see Costello start too. But I understand why it may be a real good idea to have Chryst ready to go if they are taking away the underneath stuff. Without JJAW, we may have some issues no matter who starts, but we may need a bigger playbook than Costello has ATM. As I said, I expect Shaw will do it the other way around, but we shall see.

[/quote]

Oregon doesn't run many more than 3 plays as it is.  Inside Zone, Outside Zone, Bubble screens are their bread and butter.  They may do a few more than that, but not many.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17573.msg204113#msg204113 date=1507068451] 

I'd rather have a QB that can only run 3 plays, makes good, quick decisions, has poise, presence, and throws accurately, than one who knows a 1,000 page playbook, but can't do those things as well.

What do you do if the defense takes away those three plays? You are now *******. The one who can't do those things as well will do just fine running play 4 not-so-great but good enough.
I want to see Costello start too. But I understand why it may be a real good idea to have Chryst ready to go if they are taking away the underneath stuff. Without JJAW, we may have some issues no matter who starts, but we may need a bigger playbook than Costello has ATM. As I said, I expect Shaw will do it the other way around, but we shall see.

[/quote]

Oregon doesn't run many more than 3 plays as it is.  Inside Zone, Outside Zone, Bubble screens are their bread and butter.  They may do a few more than that, but not many.

[Goose]

Oregon doesn't run many more than 3 plays as it is.  Inside Zone, Outside Zone, Bubble screens are their bread and butter.  They may do a few more than that, but not many.

Mainly, that is true. Oregon, much like Stanford, has run a "This is what we do, stop us if you can" offense. We run power, counter, and maybe a sweep. As Shaw says we run the same plays from different looks.  However, to be fair, both Stanford and Oregon do have a plan "B" if you are able to stop their "bread and butter". Mariota could and did drop back into the pocket and throw it down the field. They beat us in 2015 that way. We failed to cover wide receivers on deep patterns at least twice in that game. Many teams never could stop their (or our) primary three plays, but when either of us met a team that could, we did have other options. The problem Oregon now has with their freshman QB is that they probably DON'T have other options. He, like Costello, can probably execute the throws, but possibly not in the context of a hard-fought game. That can matter, especially against a defense that is doing a good job against the vanilla offense. Therefore, the idea that Chryst is a better choice isn't totally out of the picture.
I am not necessarily confident that Chryst would be a better choice under those circumstances, but Shaw may feel otherwise.

[Goose]

Oregon doesn't run many more than 3 plays as it is.  Inside Zone, Outside Zone, Bubble screens are their bread and butter.  They may do a few more than that, but not many.

Mainly, that is true. Oregon, much like Stanford, has run a "This is what we do, stop us if you can" offense. We run power, counter, and maybe a sweep. As Shaw says we run the same plays from different looks.  However, to be fair, both Stanford and Oregon do have a plan "B" if you are able to stop their "bread and butter". Mariota could and did drop back into the pocket and throw it down the field. They beat us in 2015 that way. We failed to cover wide receivers on deep patterns at least twice in that game. Many teams never could stop their (or our) primary three plays, but when either of us met a team that could, we did have other options. The problem Oregon now has with their freshman QB is that they probably DON'T have other options. He, like Costello, can probably execute the throws, but possibly not in the context of a hard-fought game. That can matter, especially against a defense that is doing a good job against the vanilla offense. Therefore, the idea that Chryst is a better choice isn't totally out of the picture.
I am not necessarily confident that Chryst would be a better choice under those circumstances, but Shaw may feel otherwise.

[BostonCard]

JJ Arcega-Whiteside is out.
Hebrig confirmed in.

https://scout.com/college/stanford/Artic...-108472532

BC

[BostonCard]

JJ Arcega-Whiteside is out.
Hebrig confirmed in.

https://scout.com/college/stanford/Artic...-108472532

BC

[CompSci87]

Herbig, that is.

[CompSci87]

Herbig, that is.

[CTcard]

JJ Arcega-Whiteside is out.
Hebrig confirmed in.

https://scout.com/college/stanford/Artic...-108472532

BC

Well, since Shaw gives his reasons for optimism in the video (very coach-speak), I thought I'd take this opportunity to slip in my own reasons for optimism/pessimism here.
[Well, I don't see where else to put it.]

Reasons for Optimism.
1. Utah's weak schedule. Sometimes it's a shock the first time a team sees a real, physical opponent. We will be that for Utah.
2. Our most consistent weakness has been inability to stop the run. Utah doesn't seem as able to exploit that as we would usually expect. Their run game has struggled. Utah managed 112 yds on 2.95 yds/carry vs Arizona and 116 yds on 3.22 yds/carry vs BYU.
3. Our offense may be coming around. 8 yds/play vs UCLA is most they've allowed; 8.84 yds/play vs ASU is most they've allowed [for that matter we had the best yds/play allowed by $C and Rice as well - but somehow UC Davis had best yds/play vs SDSU (Stanford second)].
4. Herbig will be back.
5. Our defense played a good half ... once they got Holder back. Maybe it can keep improving.
5. Utah's got some important injuries ... probably (Whittingham is more tight lipped than Shaw about injuries). Their promising sophomore QB Huntley is probably out, one of their top DL (Fitts) probably out, and another DL (Annae) the Utah papers seem unsure about. 


Between Utah's weak schedule, my inability to watch them much this year, and their supposed new offensive system, I find them a mystery.

Reasons for Pessism.
1. I think there might be something to Wilner's occasional theory that Stanford has the most trouble with teams built more or less like itself.
2. Utah is rested and coming off a bye.
3. Utah is a tough place to play; and of course there is our recent history.
4. As far as we can tell, Utah's defense appears to be good. Their front seven is tough. That could neutralize our strength.
5. Our defense played a good half ... and that's about it this year.
6. JJAW is our best receiver - missing him is tough.

[CTcard]

JJ Arcega-Whiteside is out.
Hebrig confirmed in.

https://scout.com/college/stanford/Artic...-108472532

BC

Well, since Shaw gives his reasons for optimism in the video (very coach-speak), I thought I'd take this opportunity to slip in my own reasons for optimism/pessimism here.
[Well, I don't see where else to put it.]

Reasons for Optimism.
1. Utah's weak schedule. Sometimes it's a shock the first time a team sees a real, physical opponent. We will be that for Utah.
2. Our most consistent weakness has been inability to stop the run. Utah doesn't seem as able to exploit that as we would usually expect. Their run game has struggled. Utah managed 112 yds on 2.95 yds/carry vs Arizona and 116 yds on 3.22 yds/carry vs BYU.
3. Our offense may be coming around. 8 yds/play vs UCLA is most they've allowed; 8.84 yds/play vs ASU is most they've allowed [for that matter we had the best yds/play allowed by $C and Rice as well - but somehow UC Davis had best yds/play vs SDSU (Stanford second)].
4. Herbig will be back.
5. Our defense played a good half ... once they got Holder back. Maybe it can keep improving.
5. Utah's got some important injuries ... probably (Whittingham is more tight lipped than Shaw about injuries). Their promising sophomore QB Huntley is probably out, one of their top DL (Fitts) probably out, and another DL (Annae) the Utah papers seem unsure about. 


Between Utah's weak schedule, my inability to watch them much this year, and their supposed new offensive system, I find them a mystery.

Reasons for Pessism.
1. I think there might be something to Wilner's occasional theory that Stanford has the most trouble with teams built more or less like itself.
2. Utah is rested and coming off a bye.
3. Utah is a tough place to play; and of course there is our recent history.
4. As far as we can tell, Utah's defense appears to be good. Their front seven is tough. That could neutralize our strength.
5. Our defense played a good half ... and that's about it this year.
6. JJAW is our best receiver - missing him is tough.

[JJJ]

"Stanford Stifles Utah" was the headline I was greeted with upon visiting gostanford.com just now...

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2017/10/5...-utah.aspx

[JJJ]

"Stanford Stifles Utah" was the headline I was greeted with upon visiting gostanford.com just now...

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2017/10/5...-utah.aspx

[BostonCard]

Update.... T Alexander is out for the game.

BC

[BostonCard]

Update.... T Alexander is out for the game.

BC

[BostonCard]

Utah's starting QB is not warming up, and their big D-lineman is apparently not warming up either.

BC

[BostonCard]

Utah's starting QB is not warming up, and their big D-lineman is apparently not warming up either.

BC