[BostonCard]

Not mine...

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/A...-110090555

A bit of a discussion from Shaw as to why we've done less on play action.

We haven’t done a lot of play action, just philosophically with what we’ve been doing up front and really with who our runners have been the last two years. We’ve done such a good job running the ball from single back sets, running the ball from shotgun that our play action movements have come from shotgun. Under center-wise we haven’t done as much but we run the ball from under center and we have some of our movements up front from under center from out 22 personnel and try to get the quarterback outside the edge. So it’s been less than in years past, less than when we had Toby, less than when we had Stepfan Taylor and Tyler Gaffney. We were more tight ends than receivers. We were more two-tight end play-action pass as opposed to three wide receivers maybe quicker play-action pass getting the ball out of the quarterback’s hands.

A bit to unpack here, but it sounds like running from the shotgun has worked better for McCaffrey and Love, perhaps because their higher agility allows them more time to see the hole and hit it.  That gives us big gains when they hit the hole, but problems when the defense has the gaps covered.  The other downside is that it limits options for play action passing.

BC

[BostonCard]

Not mine...

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/A...-110090555

A bit of a discussion from Shaw as to why we've done less on play action.

We haven’t done a lot of play action, just philosophically with what we’ve been doing up front and really with who our runners have been the last two years. We’ve done such a good job running the ball from single back sets, running the ball from shotgun that our play action movements have come from shotgun. Under center-wise we haven’t done as much but we run the ball from under center and we have some of our movements up front from under center from out 22 personnel and try to get the quarterback outside the edge. So it’s been less than in years past, less than when we had Toby, less than when we had Stepfan Taylor and Tyler Gaffney. We were more tight ends than receivers. We were more two-tight end play-action pass as opposed to three wide receivers maybe quicker play-action pass getting the ball out of the quarterback’s hands.

A bit to unpack here, but it sounds like running from the shotgun has worked better for McCaffrey and Love, perhaps because their higher agility allows them more time to see the hole and hit it.  That gives us big gains when they hit the hole, but problems when the defense has the gaps covered.  The other downside is that it limits options for play action passing.

BC

[Goose]

A bit to unpack here, but it sounds like running from the shotgun has worked better for McCaffrey and Love, perhaps because their higher agility allows them more time to see the hole and hit it.

True. However, that is the glass half full evaluation. The other side of the coin is that they also can't make a hole by themselves. Toby could. Obviously, the blocking approach is different, so perhaps it isn't a fair comparison. However, it is for sure that Love and CMAC need an OL that can get them a crease or they aren't going anywhere (baring some kind of cutback, which sometimes opens up, but not so much against good teams). The more powerful backs can something out of nothing more easily, at the cost of fewer "home runs".

That gives us big gains when they hit the hole, but problems when the defense has the gaps covered.  The other downside is that it limits options for play action passing.

BC

Yes it does. We could still run the same stuff with the QB under center. It is clear from Shaw's comments that was a philosophy change, but it is not clear, at least to me, why we changed. Shaw doesn't really say.

[Goose]

A bit to unpack here, but it sounds like running from the shotgun has worked better for McCaffrey and Love, perhaps because their higher agility allows them more time to see the hole and hit it.

True. However, that is the glass half full evaluation. The other side of the coin is that they also can't make a hole by themselves. Toby could. Obviously, the blocking approach is different, so perhaps it isn't a fair comparison. However, it is for sure that Love and CMAC need an OL that can get them a crease or they aren't going anywhere (baring some kind of cutback, which sometimes opens up, but not so much against good teams). The more powerful backs can something out of nothing more easily, at the cost of fewer "home runs".

That gives us big gains when they hit the hole, but problems when the defense has the gaps covered.  The other downside is that it limits options for play action passing.

BC

Yes it does. We could still run the same stuff with the QB under center. It is clear from Shaw's comments that was a philosophy change, but it is not clear, at least to me, why we changed. Shaw doesn't really say.

[cardcrimson]

Still doesn't address the lack of screen passes. Hot rush, slow them with a screen or flare to a back sneaking out from blocking.

[cardcrimson]

Still doesn't address the lack of screen passes. Hot rush, slow them with a screen or flare to a back sneaking out from blocking.

[washingtonismoney]

Of course there are still ways to punish defenses that over-sell against the running back even in the absence of play-action:

1) you can use read-option, which constrains at least one defender from attacking too aggressively
2) you can use run-pass options, in which you pass to a vacated space left by an overly aggressive defender

Now, the offense has utilized both of these ideas before, but seemingly not against WSU. Why? It's strange. (Screens or reverses could also serve a similar purpose).  Overall, the lack of a jiu-jitsu counter-punch to WSU's aggressive defense was perhaps the weirdest part of the gameplan. It's hard to say whether any of these options would've worked; it's hard to do anything with a below-minimally-competent offensive line. But (seemingly) the refusal to try any of them was odd.

[washingtonismoney]

Of course there are still ways to punish defenses that over-sell against the running back even in the absence of play-action:

1) you can use read-option, which constrains at least one defender from attacking too aggressively
2) you can use run-pass options, in which you pass to a vacated space left by an overly aggressive defender

Now, the offense has utilized both of these ideas before, but seemingly not against WSU. Why? It's strange. (Screens or reverses could also serve a similar purpose).  Overall, the lack of a jiu-jitsu counter-punch to WSU's aggressive defense was perhaps the weirdest part of the gameplan. It's hard to say whether any of these options would've worked; it's hard to do anything with a below-minimally-competent offensive line. But (seemingly) the refusal to try any of them was odd.

[BostonCard]

Of course there are still ways to punish defenses that over-sell against the running back even in the absence of play-action:

1) you can use read-option, which constrains at least one defender from attacking too aggressively
2) you can use run-pass options, in which you pass to a vacated space left by an overly aggressive defender

Now, the offense has utilized both of these ideas before, but seemingly not against WSU. Why? It's strange. (Screens or reverses could also serve a similar purpose).  Overall, the lack of a jiu-jitsu counter-punch to WSU's aggressive defense was perhaps the weirdest part of the gameplan. It's hard to say whether any of these options would've worked; it's hard to do anything with a below-minimally-competent offensive line. But (seemingly) the refusal to try any of them was odd.

I wonder if this reflects Costello's inexperience.  I think one of the rationales bandied about against Costello is that he didn't know the playbook as well, and if his development has focused on our bread and butter, perhaps there was some concern that he couldn't execute some of the plays deeper in the playbook, which we bring out to counter efforts by the defense.

I think a reverse wouldn't have worked.  I don't think the issue with WSU was that they overpursued (for which a reverse is a good antidote); it was that they beat their blockers too easily.  A slow developing play like a reverse would probably result in a tackle for loss 10 yards behind the LOS.  A screen might work better, since the goal is to have the defense in the backfield quickly.

BC

[BostonCard]

Of course there are still ways to punish defenses that over-sell against the running back even in the absence of play-action:

1) you can use read-option, which constrains at least one defender from attacking too aggressively
2) you can use run-pass options, in which you pass to a vacated space left by an overly aggressive defender

Now, the offense has utilized both of these ideas before, but seemingly not against WSU. Why? It's strange. (Screens or reverses could also serve a similar purpose).  Overall, the lack of a jiu-jitsu counter-punch to WSU's aggressive defense was perhaps the weirdest part of the gameplan. It's hard to say whether any of these options would've worked; it's hard to do anything with a below-minimally-competent offensive line. But (seemingly) the refusal to try any of them was odd.

I wonder if this reflects Costello's inexperience.  I think one of the rationales bandied about against Costello is that he didn't know the playbook as well, and if his development has focused on our bread and butter, perhaps there was some concern that he couldn't execute some of the plays deeper in the playbook, which we bring out to counter efforts by the defense.

I think a reverse wouldn't have worked.  I don't think the issue with WSU was that they overpursued (for which a reverse is a good antidote); it was that they beat their blockers too easily.  A slow developing play like a reverse would probably result in a tackle for loss 10 yards behind the LOS.  A screen might work better, since the goal is to have the defense in the backfield quickly.

BC

[Goose]

Still doesn't address the lack of screen passes. Hot rush, slow them with a screen or flare to a back sneaking out from blocking.

One problem with that. If you think you can sneak Love (or CMAC for that matter) anywhere, you must think the opposing DC is an idiot. Yes, you might get a busted coverage, but failing a defensive lapse, you won't get much. You can pass to the FB (if you have one in the game). That can work. However, once you do it a few times, even that will be covered. The DL will start reading the screen.

[Goose]

Still doesn't address the lack of screen passes. Hot rush, slow them with a screen or flare to a back sneaking out from blocking.

One problem with that. If you think you can sneak Love (or CMAC for that matter) anywhere, you must think the opposing DC is an idiot. Yes, you might get a busted coverage, but failing a defensive lapse, you won't get much. You can pass to the FB (if you have one in the game). That can work. However, once you do it a few times, even that will be covered. The DL will start reading the screen.

[82lsju]

I wonder if this reflects Costello's inexperience.  I think one of the rationales bandied about against Costello is that he didn't know the playbook as well, and if his development has focused on our bread and butter, perhaps there was some concern that he couldn't execute some of the plays deeper in the playbook, which we bring out to counter efforts by the defense.

BC

which brings us back around to if the playbook is so complicated that it takes a QB two years to learn it maybe it should be simplified....

[82lsju]

I wonder if this reflects Costello's inexperience.  I think one of the rationales bandied about against Costello is that he didn't know the playbook as well, and if his development has focused on our bread and butter, perhaps there was some concern that he couldn't execute some of the plays deeper in the playbook, which we bring out to counter efforts by the defense.

BC

which brings us back around to if the playbook is so complicated that it takes a QB two years to learn it maybe it should be simplified....

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17932.msg211096#msg211096 date=1510087682]
Still doesn't address the lack of screen passes. Hot rush, slow them with a screen or flare to a back sneaking out from blocking.

One problem with that. If you think you can sneak Love (or CMAC for that matter) anywhere, you must think the opposing DC is an idiot. Yes, you might get a busted coverage, but failing a defensive lapse, you won't get much. You can pass to the FB (if you have one in the game). That can work. However, once you do it a few times, even that will be covered. The DL will start reading the screen.
[/quote]

Love was wide open on one play I remember, though Costello went farther downfield for a first down. Love might, might have been able to break it. As for the DL starting to read the screen, that's the idea. It slows down the rush and the crashing of gaps.

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17932.msg211096#msg211096 date=1510087682]
Still doesn't address the lack of screen passes. Hot rush, slow them with a screen or flare to a back sneaking out from blocking.

One problem with that. If you think you can sneak Love (or CMAC for that matter) anywhere, you must think the opposing DC is an idiot. Yes, you might get a busted coverage, but failing a defensive lapse, you won't get much. You can pass to the FB (if you have one in the game). That can work. However, once you do it a few times, even that will be covered. The DL will start reading the screen.
[/quote]

Love was wide open on one play I remember, though Costello went farther downfield for a first down. Love might, might have been able to break it. As for the DL starting to read the screen, that's the idea. It slows down the rush and the crashing of gaps.

[Goose]

As for the DL starting to read the screen, that's the idea. It slows down the rush and the crashing of gaps.

Unfortunately, to slow down the rush the OL has to be able to "sell" the idea it is a pass. If a team screens a lot, the DL figures out the tells pretty quickly. In our case, the fact that Marx is not engaged with somebody would be a dead giveaway. If we also threw more to the fullback as a "normal" pass receiver, that would help. The real problem is that Marx probably can't do enough damage to make the DC worry about it much. It could get us some important first downs though.

[Goose]

As for the DL starting to read the screen, that's the idea. It slows down the rush and the crashing of gaps.

Unfortunately, to slow down the rush the OL has to be able to "sell" the idea it is a pass. If a team screens a lot, the DL figures out the tells pretty quickly. In our case, the fact that Marx is not engaged with somebody would be a dead giveaway. If we also threw more to the fullback as a "normal" pass receiver, that would help. The real problem is that Marx probably can't do enough damage to make the DC worry about it much. It could get us some important first downs though.

[82lsju]

Asked what it will take to pull an upset Friday, Shaw said, "We have to slow them down and keep the ball. We have to score touchdowns in the red zone. This is not a team you're going to beat in a field goal battle."

Given the short week and late point in the season, Shaw is reducing practices from two hours to 90 minutes.

"We can't stay on the field," he said. "We have to streamline what we're doing schematically and make sure our guys can go out there and be fresh and play fast."

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2017/11/7...ngton.aspx

[82lsju]

Asked what it will take to pull an upset Friday, Shaw said, "We have to slow them down and keep the ball. We have to score touchdowns in the red zone. This is not a team you're going to beat in a field goal battle."

Given the short week and late point in the season, Shaw is reducing practices from two hours to 90 minutes.

"We can't stay on the field," he said. "We have to streamline what we're doing schematically and make sure our guys can go out there and be fresh and play fast."

http://www.gostanford.com/news/2017/11/7...ngton.aspx

[BostonCard]

One thought I had after reviewing Costello's touchdown scramble is that it suggested that WSU might be susceptible to a QB draw, if we had decided to run it.  On that play, WSU blitzed two linebackers, so once Costello recovered the fumble and got out of the pocket, there was not a Cougar in sight.

BC

[BostonCard]

One thought I had after reviewing Costello's touchdown scramble is that it suggested that WSU might be susceptible to a QB draw, if we had decided to run it.  On that play, WSU blitzed two linebackers, so once Costello recovered the fumble and got out of the pocket, there was not a Cougar in sight.

BC

[slide]

One thought I had after reviewing Costello's touchdown scramble is that it suggested that WSU might be susceptible to a QB draw, if we had decided to run it.  On that play, WSU blitzed two linebackers, so once Costello recovered the fumble and got out of the pocket, there was not a Cougar in sight.

BC

Shaw mentioned that Hogan beat WSU with his legs in '15, but it appeared that we forgot those plays for '17

[slide]

One thought I had after reviewing Costello's touchdown scramble is that it suggested that WSU might be susceptible to a QB draw, if we had decided to run it.  On that play, WSU blitzed two linebackers, so once Costello recovered the fumble and got out of the pocket, there was not a Cougar in sight.

BC

Shaw mentioned that Hogan beat WSU with his legs in '15, but it appeared that we forgot those plays for '17

[stupac2]

Didn't we call a screen to Weddington and it was completely blown up for a 2-yard loss? It's possible we should've tried more but I'm certain there was at least one.

But, as I've said before, a lot of the answer to "Why didn't we do more ____?" is "We only ran 47 plays."

[stupac2]

Didn't we call a screen to Weddington and it was completely blown up for a 2-yard loss? It's possible we should've tried more but I'm certain there was at least one.

But, as I've said before, a lot of the answer to "Why didn't we do more ____?" is "We only ran 47 plays."

[BostonCard]

Didn't we call a screen to Weddington and it was completely blown up for a 2-yard loss? It's possible we should've tried more but I'm certain there was at least one.

But, as I've said before, a lot of the answer to "Why didn't we do more ____?" is "We only ran 47 plays."

Not really a traditional bubble screen.  As I recall, weddington was 1 on 1 with a DB, so for the play to work. He needed to make his guy miss.  Usually, the bubble screen is run with trips or at least two receivers out wide so that there can be blockers.

BC

[BostonCard]

Didn't we call a screen to Weddington and it was completely blown up for a 2-yard loss? It's possible we should've tried more but I'm certain there was at least one.

But, as I've said before, a lot of the answer to "Why didn't we do more ____?" is "We only ran 47 plays."

Not really a traditional bubble screen.  As I recall, weddington was 1 on 1 with a DB, so for the play to work. He needed to make his guy miss.  Usually, the bubble screen is run with trips or at least two receivers out wide so that there can be blockers.

BC

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17932.msg211149#msg211149 date=1510109101]
Didn't we call a screen to Weddington and it was completely blown up for a 2-yard loss? It's possible we should've tried more but I'm certain there was at least one.

But, as I've said before, a lot of the answer to "Why didn't we do more ____?" is "We only ran 47 plays."

Not really a traditional bubble screen.  As I recall, weddington was 1 on 1 with a DB, so for the play to work. He needed to make his guy miss.  Usually, the bubble screen is run with trips or at least two receivers out wide so that there can be blockers.

BC
[/quote]

Well, sure, but traditionally a bubble screen isn't that fast either, since the receiver needs to fake like he's running a route then come back to make the catch. And, no matter what happens, there's going to be at least as many defenders as receivers, so it's still the receiver's job to make a man miss. You could argue that that's easier with a blocker and his assignment taking up space, but the blocker could also just whiff, making it 2-on-1. I know NFL data has limited relevance to college, but in Football Outsider's study of DVOA by route type screens were by far the worst of the common routes, probably because they're a little "boom or bust" and not very efficient.

Anyway, maybe we should've run more than the one, but I find it hard to believe that it would've made the difference in the game.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17932.msg211149#msg211149 date=1510109101]
Didn't we call a screen to Weddington and it was completely blown up for a 2-yard loss? It's possible we should've tried more but I'm certain there was at least one.

But, as I've said before, a lot of the answer to "Why didn't we do more ____?" is "We only ran 47 plays."

Not really a traditional bubble screen.  As I recall, weddington was 1 on 1 with a DB, so for the play to work. He needed to make his guy miss.  Usually, the bubble screen is run with trips or at least two receivers out wide so that there can be blockers.

BC
[/quote]

Well, sure, but traditionally a bubble screen isn't that fast either, since the receiver needs to fake like he's running a route then come back to make the catch. And, no matter what happens, there's going to be at least as many defenders as receivers, so it's still the receiver's job to make a man miss. You could argue that that's easier with a blocker and his assignment taking up space, but the blocker could also just whiff, making it 2-on-1. I know NFL data has limited relevance to college, but in Football Outsider's study of DVOA by route type screens were by far the worst of the common routes, probably because they're a little "boom or bust" and not very efficient.

Anyway, maybe we should've run more than the one, but I find it hard to believe that it would've made the difference in the game.

[BostonCard]

That doesn’t surprise me.  To a large extent, the bubble screen relies on the defensive back making a mistake (such as missing a tackle), and NFL db’s are going to be much more fundamentally sound than your average college DB.

BC

[BostonCard]

That doesn’t surprise me.  To a large extent, the bubble screen relies on the defensive back making a mistake (such as missing a tackle), and NFL db’s are going to be much more fundamentally sound than your average college DB.

BC

[winflop]

I don't think the issue with WSU was that they overpursued (for which a reverse is a good antidote); it was that they beat their blockers too easily.  A slow developing play like a reverse would probably result in a tackle for loss 10 yards behind the LOS.  A screen might work better, since the goal is to have the defense in the backfield quickly.

BC

The issue is that Shawgren didn't try ANYTHING different - reverse, screen, flare, slant, putting Love in the slot, putting Love and Speights in the backfield together, etc. etc. If we'd run a half dozen of these types of plays and still lost, you couldn't point to a conservative, pedestrian game plan as the reason we lost. Of course, if we'd done that we might not have lost.

[winflop]

I don't think the issue with WSU was that they overpursued (for which a reverse is a good antidote); it was that they beat their blockers too easily.  A slow developing play like a reverse would probably result in a tackle for loss 10 yards behind the LOS.  A screen might work better, since the goal is to have the defense in the backfield quickly.

BC

The issue is that Shawgren didn't try ANYTHING different - reverse, screen, flare, slant, putting Love in the slot, putting Love and Speights in the backfield together, etc. etc. If we'd run a half dozen of these types of plays and still lost, you couldn't point to a conservative, pedestrian game plan as the reason we lost. Of course, if we'd done that we might not have lost.

[Goose]

The issue is that Shawgren didn't try ANYTHING different - reverse, screen, flare, slant, putting Love in the slot, putting Love and Speights in the backfield together, etc. etc. If we'd run a half dozen of these types of plays and still lost, you couldn't point to a conservative, pedestrian game plan as the reason we lost. Of course, if we'd done that we might not have lost.

Or, we still might have lost, and then people on this board would be saying "Shaw is an idiot! He went away from the tried and true strengths of the team and look what happened!". If we are reasonably intellectually honest, we will admit this will be what happens. In fact, we might have lost worse, due to picks because of bad choices by the QB. But, we wouldn't know it was worse because there is no known "control" result.
There have been tons of alternative "recommendations" for things that need to be changed in the program. Some of them probably have significant merit, but which ones?
The real truth is that players play. Coaches coach. The coaching can help, but it will not, and cannot, win by itself. The last two years, IMHO, Stanford's offense has suffered from three things: First, CMAC and BLOVE, great as they are, are not the "ideal" backs for the offense Stanford has run in previous years. That has forced the offense to adapt, and in some cases that has been harder to do than we realize. We are built behind the idea we can get 1 yard anytime we need to. The last two years, we couldn't. Second, our OL has not played well, period. Many here conjecture it is the coaches. I think it is the players. The TWU has just lacked the idea that we will do what it takes to dominate. Yes, everybody has bad games, but in the past the TWU would get it together and recover. WSU shouldn't be able to give us fits the whole game long. The players themselves have to step up and say "enough of this ****".  We should not fail on 4th down because a lineman is just standing there, blocking no one. If it isn't clear who to block on a running play, hit SOMEBODY. Lead downfield. Do something! No way have the coaches failed to instruct in the fundamentals. We are just not aggressive on the OL anymore, and I put that on the players more than the coaches. Yes, there is talent. But they need to use it! Now, many of you may feel I am being a bit unfair, and that's OK, I could be wrong. However, the players are the ones that play. The coaches can't do it for them. Third, our QB play has been poor. It isn't the 10,000 play playbook. It is executing the play that was called. Burns and Chryst both were streaky at best. We can talk about this for hours, but the fact is that neither played well reliably against quality opposition. That isn't just coaching. Coaching can help, but guys that have "it" show that in losing efforts as well as winning ones. I never have been able to say "valiant try" about any of our QB's the last two years, with the possible exception of Burns against UCLA (which was a win). That game might very well have ended with a loss (just like WSU and SDSU) if the D hadn't got a strip (and a TD) at the end.
It is true that Shaw has been playing very conservative football. However, that may be because he knows the limitations of his people. It also may because he doesn't know what he is going to get at game time. Guys look great in practice and then just don't do it on the field. I hope that this Friday the OL comes out and plays like men possessed. If the do, we are in great shape, even with our other issues. If they don't, we will have to "back in" to a win, which won't be likely against UW.

[Goose]

The issue is that Shawgren didn't try ANYTHING different - reverse, screen, flare, slant, putting Love in the slot, putting Love and Speights in the backfield together, etc. etc. If we'd run a half dozen of these types of plays and still lost, you couldn't point to a conservative, pedestrian game plan as the reason we lost. Of course, if we'd done that we might not have lost.

Or, we still might have lost, and then people on this board would be saying "Shaw is an idiot! He went away from the tried and true strengths of the team and look what happened!". If we are reasonably intellectually honest, we will admit this will be what happens. In fact, we might have lost worse, due to picks because of bad choices by the QB. But, we wouldn't know it was worse because there is no known "control" result.
There have been tons of alternative "recommendations" for things that need to be changed in the program. Some of them probably have significant merit, but which ones?
The real truth is that players play. Coaches coach. The coaching can help, but it will not, and cannot, win by itself. The last two years, IMHO, Stanford's offense has suffered from three things: First, CMAC and BLOVE, great as they are, are not the "ideal" backs for the offense Stanford has run in previous years. That has forced the offense to adapt, and in some cases that has been harder to do than we realize. We are built behind the idea we can get 1 yard anytime we need to. The last two years, we couldn't. Second, our OL has not played well, period. Many here conjecture it is the coaches. I think it is the players. The TWU has just lacked the idea that we will do what it takes to dominate. Yes, everybody has bad games, but in the past the TWU would get it together and recover. WSU shouldn't be able to give us fits the whole game long. The players themselves have to step up and say "enough of this ****".  We should not fail on 4th down because a lineman is just standing there, blocking no one. If it isn't clear who to block on a running play, hit SOMEBODY. Lead downfield. Do something! No way have the coaches failed to instruct in the fundamentals. We are just not aggressive on the OL anymore, and I put that on the players more than the coaches. Yes, there is talent. But they need to use it! Now, many of you may feel I am being a bit unfair, and that's OK, I could be wrong. However, the players are the ones that play. The coaches can't do it for them. Third, our QB play has been poor. It isn't the 10,000 play playbook. It is executing the play that was called. Burns and Chryst both were streaky at best. We can talk about this for hours, but the fact is that neither played well reliably against quality opposition. That isn't just coaching. Coaching can help, but guys that have "it" show that in losing efforts as well as winning ones. I never have been able to say "valiant try" about any of our QB's the last two years, with the possible exception of Burns against UCLA (which was a win). That game might very well have ended with a loss (just like WSU and SDSU) if the D hadn't got a strip (and a TD) at the end.
It is true that Shaw has been playing very conservative football. However, that may be because he knows the limitations of his people. It also may because he doesn't know what he is going to get at game time. Guys look great in practice and then just don't do it on the field. I hope that this Friday the OL comes out and plays like men possessed. If the do, we are in great shape, even with our other issues. If they don't, we will have to "back in" to a win, which won't be likely against UW.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17932.msg211100#msg211100 date=1510088101]
I don't think the issue with WSU was that they overpursued (for which a reverse is a good antidote); it was that they beat their blockers too easily.  A slow developing play like a reverse would probably result in a tackle for loss 10 yards behind the LOS.  A screen might work better, since the goal is to have the defense in the backfield quickly.

BC

The issue is that Shawgren didn't try ANYTHING different - reverse, screen, flare, slant, putting Love in the slot, putting Love and Speights in the backfield together, etc. etc. If we'd run a half dozen of these types of plays and still lost, you couldn't point to a conservative, pedestrian game plan as the reason we lost. Of course, if we'd done that we might not have lost.
[/quote]

I find it odd that at once Shaw is accused of running too complicated a playbook, but on the other hand, not throwing a bunch of plays up there and seeing what sticks.  As I mentioned above, the most parsimonious answer as to why Costello didn't run many of those plays is that he hasn't had a chance to practice many of those plays.  He has only had first team practice reps for two weeks in his life (and maybe shared for a third).  I'm guessing they focused on the basics.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17932.msg211100#msg211100 date=1510088101]
I don't think the issue with WSU was that they overpursued (for which a reverse is a good antidote); it was that they beat their blockers too easily.  A slow developing play like a reverse would probably result in a tackle for loss 10 yards behind the LOS.  A screen might work better, since the goal is to have the defense in the backfield quickly.

BC

The issue is that Shawgren didn't try ANYTHING different - reverse, screen, flare, slant, putting Love in the slot, putting Love and Speights in the backfield together, etc. etc. If we'd run a half dozen of these types of plays and still lost, you couldn't point to a conservative, pedestrian game plan as the reason we lost. Of course, if we'd done that we might not have lost.
[/quote]

I find it odd that at once Shaw is accused of running too complicated a playbook, but on the other hand, not throwing a bunch of plays up there and seeing what sticks.  As I mentioned above, the most parsimonious answer as to why Costello didn't run many of those plays is that he hasn't had a chance to practice many of those plays.  He has only had first team practice reps for two weeks in his life (and maybe shared for a third).  I'm guessing they focused on the basics.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

This is the central paradox for me and I don't have an answer - how can Stanford have such a complicated playbook that it can take years (literally) to master and yet run an offense that opposing coaches say is easy to prepare for?  Even with Chryst at QB earlier in the season, SDSU knew exactly what was coming.  WSU too.  U.SC looked ready for everything Stanford did.

And if they are focusing on the basics for Costello, why does Stanford still run out the play clock trying to call a play and snap the ball?

I don't know enough about football to say that the offensive schema needs an overhaul. But it sure does appear to me that the coaches are not giving the players the best chance to be successful, especially against good, well-coached defenses.

[Spiny_Norman]

This is the central paradox for me and I don't have an answer - how can Stanford have such a complicated playbook that it can take years (literally) to master and yet run an offense that opposing coaches say is easy to prepare for?  Even with Chryst at QB earlier in the season, SDSU knew exactly what was coming.  WSU too.  U.SC looked ready for everything Stanford did.

And if they are focusing on the basics for Costello, why does Stanford still run out the play clock trying to call a play and snap the ball?

I don't know enough about football to say that the offensive schema needs an overhaul. But it sure does appear to me that the coaches are not giving the players the best chance to be successful, especially against good, well-coached defenses.