[BostonCard]

So a lot has been made about Shaw's "stubborness" about running on first down.  In another thread, Hulk suggested that we were actually more successful running against Notre Dame than passing.  That runs a bit counter to conventional wisdom and my thoughts, so I wanted to pressure test it and see if that was a general thing or something specific to Notre Dame.  So, here are the aggregate stats:

We've had 126 first downs, of which we have rushed about 75 (60%) of the time.

First down running:
75 carries for 268 yards (3.6 ypc), 4 TD

First down passing:
34/51 (67%), 504 yards (9.9 ypa), 3 TD, 1 INT 

The data, in aggregate, suggest that we are substantially more successful passing than running on first down.  I will try to do a by game breakdown to see if the trends have changed when I have time.

BC

---

Quick breakdown of SDSU before bed.

We had 24 first and tens (the analysis excludes a first and 20 following a penalty).  We ran on 15 (63%) and passed on 9 (the numbers include one each run and pass whose outcome was a penalty: a hold on a first down run, and a PI on a first down pass).

Running: 15 run plays for 5 yards (includes one penalty for -10 yards), 0.3 ypc, 0 First downs.
We were successful (that is, within 3 downs we had a first down or touchdown in 9 of the 15 first downs we ran (60%), which is pretty impressive given the paltry first down yardage we accumulated.

Passing: 9 pass plays resulted in 7 completions in 8 attempts (88%) with one PI, for a total of 117 yards through the air (16.7 ypa) and 132 total yards, an average of 14.7 yards per pass play, and 1 TD.  We were successful on 8 of the 9 sets of downs when we passed.

No analysis was really needed, but we were much more successful passing the ball than running it.  We were reasonably able to continue drives despite the lack of success running the ball, but that was despite, not because of the (lack of) success running the football.

BC

[BostonCard]

So a lot has been made about Shaw's "stubborness" about running on first down.  In another thread, Hulk suggested that we were actually more successful running against Notre Dame than passing.  That runs a bit counter to conventional wisdom and my thoughts, so I wanted to pressure test it and see if that was a general thing or something specific to Notre Dame.  So, here are the aggregate stats:

We've had 126 first downs, of which we have rushed about 75 (60%) of the time.

First down running:
75 carries for 268 yards (3.6 ypc), 4 TD

First down passing:
34/51 (67%), 504 yards (9.9 ypa), 3 TD, 1 INT 

The data, in aggregate, suggest that we are substantially more successful passing than running on first down.  I will try to do a by game breakdown to see if the trends have changed when I have time.

BC

---

Quick breakdown of SDSU before bed.

We had 24 first and tens (the analysis excludes a first and 20 following a penalty).  We ran on 15 (63%) and passed on 9 (the numbers include one each run and pass whose outcome was a penalty: a hold on a first down run, and a PI on a first down pass).

Running: 15 run plays for 5 yards (includes one penalty for -10 yards), 0.3 ypc, 0 First downs.
We were successful (that is, within 3 downs we had a first down or touchdown in 9 of the 15 first downs we ran (60%), which is pretty impressive given the paltry first down yardage we accumulated.

Passing: 9 pass plays resulted in 7 completions in 8 attempts (88%) with one PI, for a total of 117 yards through the air (16.7 ypa) and 132 total yards, an average of 14.7 yards per pass play, and 1 TD.  We were successful on 8 of the 9 sets of downs when we passed.

No analysis was really needed, but we were much more successful passing the ball than running it.  We were reasonably able to continue drives despite the lack of success running the ball, but that was despite, not because of the (lack of) success running the football.

BC

[slide]

thru 5 games, we are ranked 117th in the country in rushing on 1st down.  

we rocket up to 109th ranking on rushing on 3rd down and less than 3 yards to go.

[slide]

thru 5 games, we are ranked 117th in the country in rushing on 1st down.  

we rocket up to 109th ranking on rushing on 3rd down and less than 3 yards to go.

[OutsiderFan]

thru 5 games, we are ranked 117th in the country in rushing on 1st down.  

we rocket up to 109th ranking on rushing on 3rd down and less than 3 yards to go.

A jury would convict a coaching staff for being too predictable and stubborn if presented this truly damning data.  How could Stanford's offense do any worse if the defense had the play call sheet, knew the play called, and who was doing what on it, as well as the offense?  Those numbers are the stuff of coaching malpractice, IMO.

[OutsiderFan]

thru 5 games, we are ranked 117th in the country in rushing on 1st down.  

we rocket up to 109th ranking on rushing on 3rd down and less than 3 yards to go.

A jury would convict a coaching staff for being too predictable and stubborn if presented this truly damning data.  How could Stanford's offense do any worse if the defense had the play call sheet, knew the play called, and who was doing what on it, as well as the offense?  Those numbers are the stuff of coaching malpractice, IMO.

[Hulk01]

We average 3.57 yards running on first down, and almost 10 passing.
We should always pass on first down.

We average 3.55 yards running on second down, and over 5.7 passing,
We should pass more on second down.

We average 2,95 yards running on third down, and almost 10 yards passing.
We should always pass on third down.

Clearly, our play calling on runs is hideous.
However, our play calling on first and third down passes is brilliant.

So let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Tavita is a pass play calling genius!

[Hulk01]

We average 3.57 yards running on first down, and almost 10 passing.
We should always pass on first down.

We average 3.55 yards running on second down, and over 5.7 passing,
We should pass more on second down.

We average 2,95 yards running on third down, and almost 10 yards passing.
We should always pass on third down.

Clearly, our play calling on runs is hideous.
However, our play calling on first and third down passes is brilliant.

So let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Tavita is a pass play calling genius!

[GK3]

thru 5 games, we are ranked 117th in the country in rushing on 1st down.  

we rocket up to 109th ranking on rushing on 3rd down and less than 3 yards to go.

A jury would convict a coaching staff for being too predictable and stubborn if presented this truly damning data.  How could Stanford's offense do any worse if the defense had the play call sheet, knew the play called, and who was doing what on it, as well as the offense?  Those numbers are the stuff of coaching malpractice, IMO.

I have a group of friends who are convinced we telegraph our plays and everyone knows we do it but us, and everyone knows the tell.  This explanation is a warm and fuzzy way of explaining our dismal offensive efforts running. But I suppose it should not be ignored as a possibility.
It then raises the question is what can we do to run the ball better?  To gain yards you have to move people off the ball and get to your blocks on time, if you don't do that you don't run very well.  Seems to me we should throw most of the time as long as we can pass block as well as we did for all games except ND, and throw out of the usual running formations.  Would it possibly help if we widened our splits along the line?  Would it give our guys better angles?  It seems like our Power game as we run it has gone the way of the single wing.

[GK3]

thru 5 games, we are ranked 117th in the country in rushing on 1st down.  

we rocket up to 109th ranking on rushing on 3rd down and less than 3 yards to go.

A jury would convict a coaching staff for being too predictable and stubborn if presented this truly damning data.  How could Stanford's offense do any worse if the defense had the play call sheet, knew the play called, and who was doing what on it, as well as the offense?  Those numbers are the stuff of coaching malpractice, IMO.

I have a group of friends who are convinced we telegraph our plays and everyone knows we do it but us, and everyone knows the tell.  This explanation is a warm and fuzzy way of explaining our dismal offensive efforts running. But I suppose it should not be ignored as a possibility.
It then raises the question is what can we do to run the ball better?  To gain yards you have to move people off the ball and get to your blocks on time, if you don't do that you don't run very well.  Seems to me we should throw most of the time as long as we can pass block as well as we did for all games except ND, and throw out of the usual running formations.  Would it possibly help if we widened our splits along the line?  Would it give our guys better angles?  It seems like our Power game as we run it has gone the way of the single wing.

[Hulk01]

The published stats treat sacks as failed runs, not failed passes.
Treat sacks as attempted passes, and you get these 2018 stats:

Stanford first down rushing
69 runs, 312 yards, 4.5 ypa

Stanford first down passing
34-57 (59%), 460 yards, 8.1 ypa

30% of our first down passes have gone for no yards.
An additional 11% have gone for an average of 7.3 yards per play in losses.

14-16% of our first down runs have gone for gain or a loss.

---

Another way to look at the relatively high beta of our first down passing so far:

59% of our first down pass attempts have resulted in an average 13.4 yard gain.
41% of those attempts have resulted in an average 1.9 yard loss.

[Hulk01]

The published stats treat sacks as failed runs, not failed passes.
Treat sacks as attempted passes, and you get these 2018 stats:

Stanford first down rushing
69 runs, 312 yards, 4.5 ypa

Stanford first down passing
34-57 (59%), 460 yards, 8.1 ypa

30% of our first down passes have gone for no yards.
An additional 11% have gone for an average of 7.3 yards per play in losses.

14-16% of our first down runs have gone for gain or a loss.

---

Another way to look at the relatively high beta of our first down passing so far:

59% of our first down pass attempts have resulted in an average 13.4 yard gain.
41% of those attempts have resulted in an average 1.9 yard loss.

[OutsiderFan]

If they are going to toss the ball to Love and have him pick a hole in a zone running scheme, wider line splits would help.  The flip to that is the wider the splits, the less the OL can help each other in pass protection.

My take on this topic is that Stanford has developed such a reputation for wanting to run, that it will be near impossible to ever get back to being balanced on offense (being able to run and pass equally effectively) until Stanford goes through a phase where they pass much more frequently than they run, so defenses think pass first.

I have advocated game plans that start with play action passes off heavy run actions, for like 10 plays in a row, to start games. This doesn't mean going three wide, this means 22 personnel, a RB, a FB, and a TE, and throwing out of run blocking schemes. This sounds a little nuts I know, but when you have so tilted what you do to one side, and become ineffective as a result, you have to go as far the other way to balance things out. These stats make clear defenses aren't at all worried about passes, because they can sell out to stop the run and usually get a run to stop.

On college football broadcasts, everyone talks about the Safeties being 2-deep or single high, and how that suggests what an offense should be doing on a given play, but nobody focuses on the Linebackers. Play action passes are only effective if the Linebackers react to run. If they do, you can get receivers behind them and in front of Safeties, and maybe behind them is Safeties also react to run. Stanford calls far too many straight drop back passes that don't include run actions to take advantage of overly aggressive defenses expecting run.

Clearly Shaw & Pritchard know some things about offensive football, but I really believe Shaw needs to bring in an Offensive Coordinator with some different perspective who can infuse some new thinking into Stanford's approach.  I honestly thought this year would be Stanford's best offense since 2010.  All the pieces seemed to be in place.  We've seen glimpses, but not enough consistency, possibly due to being too predictable and not making defenses pay enough for their assumptions. It seems quite evident Stanford is way underperforming its talent level on offense. I mean being ranked in the 100s in so many categories, with the OL this team returned, should not happen.

[OutsiderFan]

If they are going to toss the ball to Love and have him pick a hole in a zone running scheme, wider line splits would help.  The flip to that is the wider the splits, the less the OL can help each other in pass protection.

My take on this topic is that Stanford has developed such a reputation for wanting to run, that it will be near impossible to ever get back to being balanced on offense (being able to run and pass equally effectively) until Stanford goes through a phase where they pass much more frequently than they run, so defenses think pass first.

I have advocated game plans that start with play action passes off heavy run actions, for like 10 plays in a row, to start games. This doesn't mean going three wide, this means 22 personnel, a RB, a FB, and a TE, and throwing out of run blocking schemes. This sounds a little nuts I know, but when you have so tilted what you do to one side, and become ineffective as a result, you have to go as far the other way to balance things out. These stats make clear defenses aren't at all worried about passes, because they can sell out to stop the run and usually get a run to stop.

On college football broadcasts, everyone talks about the Safeties being 2-deep or single high, and how that suggests what an offense should be doing on a given play, but nobody focuses on the Linebackers. Play action passes are only effective if the Linebackers react to run. If they do, you can get receivers behind them and in front of Safeties, and maybe behind them is Safeties also react to run. Stanford calls far too many straight drop back passes that don't include run actions to take advantage of overly aggressive defenses expecting run.

Clearly Shaw & Pritchard know some things about offensive football, but I really believe Shaw needs to bring in an Offensive Coordinator with some different perspective who can infuse some new thinking into Stanford's approach.  I honestly thought this year would be Stanford's best offense since 2010.  All the pieces seemed to be in place.  We've seen glimpses, but not enough consistency, possibly due to being too predictable and not making defenses pay enough for their assumptions. It seems quite evident Stanford is way underperforming its talent level on offense. I mean being ranked in the 100s in so many categories, with the OL this team returned, should not happen.

[qwerty49]

It seems like our Power game as we run it has gone the way of the single wing.

How long have we been running Power?  10 years?  Marecic was leading Toby through the hole in 2009.

That's a long time for defenses to catch up.  The same way they caught up to bubble screens and jet sweeps.

The rest of college football has adapted.  We haven't.

[qwerty49]

It seems like our Power game as we run it has gone the way of the single wing.

How long have we been running Power?  10 years?  Marecic was leading Toby through the hole in 2009.

That's a long time for defenses to catch up.  The same way they caught up to bubble screens and jet sweeps.

The rest of college football has adapted.  We haven't.

[Hulk01]

[/quote]
I have a group of friends who are convinced we telegraph our plays and everyone knows we do it but us, and everyone knows the tell.  This explanation is a warm and fuzzy way of explaining our dismal offensive efforts running. But I suppose it should not be ignored as a possibility.

[/quote]

There's a theory that spares you having to rewatch the games and try to determine what happened, what worked, and what didn't.

It's flawed.  Just watch opposing defenses before, just before, and at the snap, particularly the linebackers and safeties.  Are they cheating up and to the play side? 

They aren't.  

If you rewatch the games--it's not easy--you are certain to see that, with an average of maybe two exceptions a game, our offensive linemen are not finishing their blocks.  Their steps are ok, their initial strikes aren't bad, but the finishes are missing.  Only rarely is there room to run. 

Little is a pass blocker.  He's got a weak strike and doesn't have the lower body to finish and drive back his man.  Needs a year of explosive lower body work.  Can't imagine the NFL beckoning him next year.

This describes Hamilton.  Very good feet, weak punch, not enough drive.  A much bigger tight end.  Play him at RT.

Hall has a few moments run blocking; he threw a terrific block--what may have been our only pancake this season--on Love's TD.  (Herbig had a nice block on the play too.) But Hall doesn't have enough of those moments, and his penalty-proneness has killed us far too often.

Burkett's a good center.  Doesn't get pushed around but isn't someone you run behind.

Fanaika has struggled to beat out Hamilton. which is telling.  A decent, but only decent run blocker, a liability in pass blocking.

Herbig is good.  A terrific pass blocker--amazing agility for a man that big--and a good run blocker. 

The tight ends don't block nearly as well as Schultz.  Smith had a fine block in the SC game and none since.  Fisk had one, too, but. . .Still young so there's hope.

None of the WR's approach Rector as a downfield blocker, although that's a high bar. Not sure that any approach Cajuste, either.  A few more downfield blocks would make our numbers a little better.

In an ideal world, a simple change of play callers would fix our problem.  But there is no such thing as a good play behind poor blocking.  A more "creative" play is just a more interesting way to reveal your OL's weaknesses, and this Stanford OL has too many of them--although there were some positive signs against ND.

We had a similar problem last year.  Our run failure rate was very high, but Love's brobdingnagian runs obscured that to some degree and often compensated for it.  Replacing Bloomgren with Tavita hasn't really changed much.  Bright would help a little bit, and the finish issues for our guys could be partly injury-related.  If that's the case, we may see improvement as they, we hope, get back to 100%.

[Hulk01]

[/quote]
I have a group of friends who are convinced we telegraph our plays and everyone knows we do it but us, and everyone knows the tell.  This explanation is a warm and fuzzy way of explaining our dismal offensive efforts running. But I suppose it should not be ignored as a possibility.

[/quote]

There's a theory that spares you having to rewatch the games and try to determine what happened, what worked, and what didn't.

It's flawed.  Just watch opposing defenses before, just before, and at the snap, particularly the linebackers and safeties.  Are they cheating up and to the play side? 

They aren't.  

If you rewatch the games--it's not easy--you are certain to see that, with an average of maybe two exceptions a game, our offensive linemen are not finishing their blocks.  Their steps are ok, their initial strikes aren't bad, but the finishes are missing.  Only rarely is there room to run. 

Little is a pass blocker.  He's got a weak strike and doesn't have the lower body to finish and drive back his man.  Needs a year of explosive lower body work.  Can't imagine the NFL beckoning him next year.

This describes Hamilton.  Very good feet, weak punch, not enough drive.  A much bigger tight end.  Play him at RT.

Hall has a few moments run blocking; he threw a terrific block--what may have been our only pancake this season--on Love's TD.  (Herbig had a nice block on the play too.) But Hall doesn't have enough of those moments, and his penalty-proneness has killed us far too often.

Burkett's a good center.  Doesn't get pushed around but isn't someone you run behind.

Fanaika has struggled to beat out Hamilton. which is telling.  A decent, but only decent run blocker, a liability in pass blocking.

Herbig is good.  A terrific pass blocker--amazing agility for a man that big--and a good run blocker. 

The tight ends don't block nearly as well as Schultz.  Smith had a fine block in the SC game and none since.  Fisk had one, too, but. . .Still young so there's hope.

None of the WR's approach Rector as a downfield blocker, although that's a high bar. Not sure that any approach Cajuste, either.  A few more downfield blocks would make our numbers a little better.

In an ideal world, a simple change of play callers would fix our problem.  But there is no such thing as a good play behind poor blocking.  A more "creative" play is just a more interesting way to reveal your OL's weaknesses, and this Stanford OL has too many of them--although there were some positive signs against ND.

We had a similar problem last year.  Our run failure rate was very high, but Love's brobdingnagian runs obscured that to some degree and often compensated for it.  Replacing Bloomgren with Tavita hasn't really changed much.  Bright would help a little bit, and the finish issues for our guys could be partly injury-related.  If that's the case, we may see improvement as they, we hope, get back to 100%.

[Renaissance Man]

I already wrote on a different thread that I can predict our upcoming play almost 100% of the time, and if i can do that, opposing coaching staffs can do that.

That being said, this week is very similar to the week after the first USC game last year, when the consensus was that it was unlikely that we would ever win another game. The reality is that we lost to a very good team, on the road, and that team is playing much better than us right now.  We got a very improbable win against a very good team on the road the week before, making the results for the two week period better than most pre-season predictions.  Rather than falling apart last season, we improved and played USC much tougher in the second matchup.  

Things are probably not as bad as they feel right now, but my question about the program as a whole is, why does it take us so long to hit our stride every year?  It feels like it does not take one or two games, but half of the season for things to fall into place.  If we were not ready at the start of the season with the large number of experienced players we have on the roster, we never will be.  I don't know of any other school that needs 5 or 6 games for the offensive line to figure it out, but that is the norm at Stanford.  I know we have had injuries, but everyone has injuries--the team that beat us on Saturday just changed their quarterback during the season and didn't miss a beat.

[Renaissance Man]

I already wrote on a different thread that I can predict our upcoming play almost 100% of the time, and if i can do that, opposing coaching staffs can do that.

That being said, this week is very similar to the week after the first USC game last year, when the consensus was that it was unlikely that we would ever win another game. The reality is that we lost to a very good team, on the road, and that team is playing much better than us right now.  We got a very improbable win against a very good team on the road the week before, making the results for the two week period better than most pre-season predictions.  Rather than falling apart last season, we improved and played USC much tougher in the second matchup.  

Things are probably not as bad as they feel right now, but my question about the program as a whole is, why does it take us so long to hit our stride every year?  It feels like it does not take one or two games, but half of the season for things to fall into place.  If we were not ready at the start of the season with the large number of experienced players we have on the roster, we never will be.  I don't know of any other school that needs 5 or 6 games for the offensive line to figure it out, but that is the norm at Stanford.  I know we have had injuries, but everyone has injuries--the team that beat us on Saturday just changed their quarterback during the season and didn't miss a beat.

[Hulk01]

All of you are capable of doing this.

Rewatch the SC game. 
Focus on one OL at a time.
Keep the pause button handy, or slow motion--even better--if you have it.
Ask three questions of the guy:

1.  Does he move his feet well?  Does he have quick feet and a nice first step? 
Does he move well and decisively on pulls?.

2.  Does he deliver a strong blow, tight hands, hard to the defender's pecs?

3.  Is he able to drive his man after the blow?  Is he moving him, drawing stalemates, or even being pushed back (if he's standing tall and near erect, he's getting pushed. If his shoulders are ahead of his hips, he's winning.)

I recommend starting with Little, because our impressions of him were so good and our expectations so high.  If he was playing at that level, we'd be running a bit better because of it. 

To a lesser extent, ditto Herbig.  He's doing a nice job, but he isn't Decastro, Garnett, or Yankey yet. 

It's not much fun, I assure you.  Startling at first, then discouraging.  The hope is that they're trending up.  ND, which I haven't rewatched, looked a bit better and Love had some room at times.  Not the brobdingnagian holes we saw last year, but room.

---

"How long have we been running Power?  10 years?  Marecic was leading Toby through the hole in 2009.

That's a long time for defenses to catch up.  The same way they caught up to bubble screens and jet sweeps.

The rest of college football has adapted.  We haven't."


Power? 

How often do we run Power?
(Power isn't a scheme, it's a play: pulling guard, lead block from a back, double teams on the play side.)

Are our results when we do run Power--not often--worse than our results on other plays?

Is there an NFL team that doesn't run Power?

Over Love's career, over 60% of his big plays have come running behind a fullback.
Not sure how many of those plays have been Power, but quite a few.

Defenses have not adapted to successfully stop Power and force teams away from using the play. It's still a staple; it's very hard to defend and it's good for attitude.

[Hulk01]

All of you are capable of doing this.

Rewatch the SC game. 
Focus on one OL at a time.
Keep the pause button handy, or slow motion--even better--if you have it.
Ask three questions of the guy:

1.  Does he move his feet well?  Does he have quick feet and a nice first step? 
Does he move well and decisively on pulls?.

2.  Does he deliver a strong blow, tight hands, hard to the defender's pecs?

3.  Is he able to drive his man after the blow?  Is he moving him, drawing stalemates, or even being pushed back (if he's standing tall and near erect, he's getting pushed. If his shoulders are ahead of his hips, he's winning.)

I recommend starting with Little, because our impressions of him were so good and our expectations so high.  If he was playing at that level, we'd be running a bit better because of it. 

To a lesser extent, ditto Herbig.  He's doing a nice job, but he isn't Decastro, Garnett, or Yankey yet. 

It's not much fun, I assure you.  Startling at first, then discouraging.  The hope is that they're trending up.  ND, which I haven't rewatched, looked a bit better and Love had some room at times.  Not the brobdingnagian holes we saw last year, but room.

---

"How long have we been running Power?  10 years?  Marecic was leading Toby through the hole in 2009.

That's a long time for defenses to catch up.  The same way they caught up to bubble screens and jet sweeps.

The rest of college football has adapted.  We haven't."


Power? 

How often do we run Power?
(Power isn't a scheme, it's a play: pulling guard, lead block from a back, double teams on the play side.)

Are our results when we do run Power--not often--worse than our results on other plays?

Is there an NFL team that doesn't run Power?

Over Love's career, over 60% of his big plays have come running behind a fullback.
Not sure how many of those plays have been Power, but quite a few.

Defenses have not adapted to successfully stop Power and force teams away from using the play. It's still a staple; it's very hard to defend and it's good for attitude.

[GK3]

All of you are capable of doing this.

Rewatch the SC game. 
Focus on one OL at a time.
Keep the pause button handy, or slow motion--even better--if you have it.
Ask three questions of the guy:

1.  Does he move his feet well?  Does he have quick feet and a nice first step? 
Does he move well and decisively on pulls?.

2.  Does he deliver a strong blow, tight hands, hard to the defender's pecs?

3.  Is he able to drive his man after the blow?  Is he moving him, drawing stalemates, or even being pushed back (if he's standing tall and near erect, he's getting pushed. If his shoulders are ahead of his hips, he's winning.)

I recommend starting with Little, because our impressions of him were so good and our expectations so high.  If he was playing at that level, we'd be running a bit better because of it. 

To a lesser extent, ditto Herbig.  He's doing a nice job, but he isn't Decastro, Garnett, or Yankey yet. 

It's not much fun, I assure you.  Startling at first, then discouraging.  The hope is that they're trending up.  ND, which I haven't rewatched, looked a bit better and Love had some room at times.  Not the of immense proportions holes we saw last year, but room.

---

"How long have we been running Power?  10 years?  Marecic was leading Toby through the hole in 2009.

That's a long time for defenses to catch up.  The same way they caught up to bubble screens and jet sweeps.

The rest of college football has adapted.  We haven't."


Power? 

How often do we run Power?  
(Power isn't a scheme, it's a play: pulling guard, lead block from a back, double teams on the play side.)

Are our results when we do run Power--not often--worse than our results on other plays?

Is there an NFL team that doesn't run Power?  

Over Love's career, over 60% of his big plays have come running behind a fullback.  
Not sure how many of those plays have been Power, but quite a few.

Defenses have not adapted to successfully stop Power and force teams away from using the play.  It's still a staple; it's very hard to defend and it's good for attitude.

Your point is well taken.  Against ND it seemed to me that both Little and 75 had a very hard time pass blocking once we in a "have to throw" situation, and sometimes even before that.  They were slow getting to their man, who often had them half way beat within a couple of yards of the LOS.  As a result, instead of being able to push their man out and back and keep the top of the pocket from collapsing, KJ often ended up stepping up in the pocket, only to find the rush pushing our guys into his face and the defensive tackles immediately to his rear.  The pocket, if you want to call it, that didn't amount to much.  I didn't think that either of our tackles showed quick enough feet to get out on their man in time.  Perhaps play action would have slowed ND down some, but at that point the threat of running was pretty minimal.

[GK3]

All of you are capable of doing this.

Rewatch the SC game. 
Focus on one OL at a time.
Keep the pause button handy, or slow motion--even better--if you have it.
Ask three questions of the guy:

1.  Does he move his feet well?  Does he have quick feet and a nice first step? 
Does he move well and decisively on pulls?.

2.  Does he deliver a strong blow, tight hands, hard to the defender's pecs?

3.  Is he able to drive his man after the blow?  Is he moving him, drawing stalemates, or even being pushed back (if he's standing tall and near erect, he's getting pushed. If his shoulders are ahead of his hips, he's winning.)

I recommend starting with Little, because our impressions of him were so good and our expectations so high.  If he was playing at that level, we'd be running a bit better because of it. 

To a lesser extent, ditto Herbig.  He's doing a nice job, but he isn't Decastro, Garnett, or Yankey yet. 

It's not much fun, I assure you.  Startling at first, then discouraging.  The hope is that they're trending up.  ND, which I haven't rewatched, looked a bit better and Love had some room at times.  Not the of immense proportions holes we saw last year, but room.

---

"How long have we been running Power?  10 years?  Marecic was leading Toby through the hole in 2009.

That's a long time for defenses to catch up.  The same way they caught up to bubble screens and jet sweeps.

The rest of college football has adapted.  We haven't."


Power? 

How often do we run Power?  
(Power isn't a scheme, it's a play: pulling guard, lead block from a back, double teams on the play side.)

Are our results when we do run Power--not often--worse than our results on other plays?

Is there an NFL team that doesn't run Power?  

Over Love's career, over 60% of his big plays have come running behind a fullback.  
Not sure how many of those plays have been Power, but quite a few.

Defenses have not adapted to successfully stop Power and force teams away from using the play.  It's still a staple; it's very hard to defend and it's good for attitude.

Your point is well taken.  Against ND it seemed to me that both Little and 75 had a very hard time pass blocking once we in a "have to throw" situation, and sometimes even before that.  They were slow getting to their man, who often had them half way beat within a couple of yards of the LOS.  As a result, instead of being able to push their man out and back and keep the top of the pocket from collapsing, KJ often ended up stepping up in the pocket, only to find the rush pushing our guys into his face and the defensive tackles immediately to his rear.  The pocket, if you want to call it, that didn't amount to much.  I didn't think that either of our tackles showed quick enough feet to get out on their man in time.  Perhaps play action would have slowed ND down some, but at that point the threat of running was pretty minimal.

[barrister7]

All of you are capable of doing this.

Rewatch the SC game. 
Focus on one OL at a time.
Keep the pause button handy, or slow motion--even better--if you have it.
Ask three questions of the guy:

1.  Does he move his feet well?  Does he have quick feet and a nice first step? 
Does he move well and decisively on pulls?.

2.  Does he deliver a strong blow, tight hands, hard to the defender's pecs?

3.  Is he able to drive his man after the blow?  Is he moving him, drawing stalemates, or even being pushed back (if he's standing tall and near erect, he's getting pushed. If his shoulders are ahead of his hips, he's winning.)

I recommend starting with Little, because our impressions of him were so good and our expectations so high.  If he was playing at that level, we'd be running a bit better because of it. 

To a lesser extent, ditto Herbig.  He's doing a nice job, but he isn't Decastro, Garnett, or Yankey yet. 

It's not much fun, I assure you.  Startling at first, then discouraging.  The hope is that they're trending up.  ND, which I haven't rewatched, looked a bit better and Love had some room at times.  Not the of immense proportions holes we saw last year, but room.

---

"How long have we been running Power?  10 years?  Marecic was leading Toby through the hole in 2009.

That's a long time for defenses to catch up.  The same way they caught up to bubble screens and jet sweeps.

The rest of college football has adapted.  We haven't."


Power? 

How often do we run Power?  
(Power isn't a scheme, it's a play: pulling guard, lead block from a back, double teams on the play side.)

Are our results when we do run Power--not often--worse than our results on other plays?

Is there an NFL team that doesn't run Power?  

Over Love's career, over 60% of his big plays have come running behind a fullback.  
Not sure how many of those plays have been Power, but quite a few.

Defenses have not adapted to successfully stop Power and force teams away from using the play.  It's still a staple; it's very hard to defend and it's good for attitude.

Your point is well taken.  Against ND it seemed to me that both Little and 75 had a very hard time pass blocking once we in a "have to throw" situation, and sometimes even before that.  They were slow getting to their man, who often had them half way beat within a couple of yards of the LOS.  As a result, instead of being able to push their man out and back and keep the top of the pocket from collapsing, KJ often ended up stepping up in the pocket, only to find the rush pushing our guys into his face and the defensive tackles immediately to his rear.  The pocket, if you want to call it, that didn't amount to much.  I didn't think that either of our tackles showed quick enough feet to get out on their man in time.  Perhaps play action would have slowed ND down some, but at that point the threat of running was pretty minimal.

Marx  Marx  Marx     Doesn't it seem like our running game declined substantially when Marx left?

[barrister7]

All of you are capable of doing this.

Rewatch the SC game. 
Focus on one OL at a time.
Keep the pause button handy, or slow motion--even better--if you have it.
Ask three questions of the guy:

1.  Does he move his feet well?  Does he have quick feet and a nice first step? 
Does he move well and decisively on pulls?.

2.  Does he deliver a strong blow, tight hands, hard to the defender's pecs?

3.  Is he able to drive his man after the blow?  Is he moving him, drawing stalemates, or even being pushed back (if he's standing tall and near erect, he's getting pushed. If his shoulders are ahead of his hips, he's winning.)

I recommend starting with Little, because our impressions of him were so good and our expectations so high.  If he was playing at that level, we'd be running a bit better because of it. 

To a lesser extent, ditto Herbig.  He's doing a nice job, but he isn't Decastro, Garnett, or Yankey yet. 

It's not much fun, I assure you.  Startling at first, then discouraging.  The hope is that they're trending up.  ND, which I haven't rewatched, looked a bit better and Love had some room at times.  Not the of immense proportions holes we saw last year, but room.

---

"How long have we been running Power?  10 years?  Marecic was leading Toby through the hole in 2009.

That's a long time for defenses to catch up.  The same way they caught up to bubble screens and jet sweeps.

The rest of college football has adapted.  We haven't."


Power? 

How often do we run Power?  
(Power isn't a scheme, it's a play: pulling guard, lead block from a back, double teams on the play side.)

Are our results when we do run Power--not often--worse than our results on other plays?

Is there an NFL team that doesn't run Power?  

Over Love's career, over 60% of his big plays have come running behind a fullback.  
Not sure how many of those plays have been Power, but quite a few.

Defenses have not adapted to successfully stop Power and force teams away from using the play.  It's still a staple; it's very hard to defend and it's good for attitude.

Your point is well taken.  Against ND it seemed to me that both Little and 75 had a very hard time pass blocking once we in a "have to throw" situation, and sometimes even before that.  They were slow getting to their man, who often had them half way beat within a couple of yards of the LOS.  As a result, instead of being able to push their man out and back and keep the top of the pocket from collapsing, KJ often ended up stepping up in the pocket, only to find the rush pushing our guys into his face and the defensive tackles immediately to his rear.  The pocket, if you want to call it, that didn't amount to much.  I didn't think that either of our tackles showed quick enough feet to get out on their man in time.  Perhaps play action would have slowed ND down some, but at that point the threat of running was pretty minimal.

Marx  Marx  Marx     Doesn't it seem like our running game declined substantially when Marx left?

[Hulk01]

We could run Power with Marx, Bright pulling, and Schultz blocking at the edge.

We miss all three of those guys.

It seems revealing that we've tried to get a version of power with the three tight end sets.
But those sets may reveal our weakness.
We have to mass numbers at the point of attack rather than, in Power, moving them (the pulling guard and fullback) to the point of attack.
But true Power is harder to defend because you have two blockers with momentum/force instead of, as in triple TE set, two coming out of stance and trying to move someone from A to B.

[Hulk01]

We could run Power with Marx, Bright pulling, and Schultz blocking at the edge.

We miss all three of those guys.

It seems revealing that we've tried to get a version of power with the three tight end sets.
But those sets may reveal our weakness.
We have to mass numbers at the point of attack rather than, in Power, moving them (the pulling guard and fullback) to the point of attack.
But true Power is harder to defend because you have two blockers with momentum/force instead of, as in triple TE set, two coming out of stance and trying to move someone from A to B.

[barrister7]

We could run Power with Marx, Bright pulling, and Schultz blocking at the edge.

We miss all three of those guys.

It seems revealing that we've tried to get a version of power with the three tight end sets.
But those sets may reveal our weakness.  
We have to mass numbers at the point of attack rather than, in Power, moving them (the pulling guard and fullback) to the point of attack.  
But true Power is harder to defend because you have two blockers with momentum/force instead of, as in triple TE set, two coming out of stance and trying to move someone from A to B.

It seemed to me that the most effective runs we had were with Marx leading and Herbig pulling to clean out the hole.  Herbig does not seem to be the dominant force he was last year but perhaps the problems with the rest of the line have just created that image.

[barrister7]

We could run Power with Marx, Bright pulling, and Schultz blocking at the edge.

We miss all three of those guys.

It seems revealing that we've tried to get a version of power with the three tight end sets.
But those sets may reveal our weakness.  
We have to mass numbers at the point of attack rather than, in Power, moving them (the pulling guard and fullback) to the point of attack.  
But true Power is harder to defend because you have two blockers with momentum/force instead of, as in triple TE set, two coming out of stance and trying to move someone from A to B.

It seemed to me that the most effective runs we had were with Marx leading and Herbig pulling to clean out the hole.  Herbig does not seem to be the dominant force he was last year but perhaps the problems with the rest of the line have just created that image.

[Spiny_Norman]

We could run Power with Marx, Bright pulling, and Schultz blocking at the edge.

We miss all three of those guys.

It seems revealing that we've tried to get a version of power with the three tight end sets.
But those sets may reveal our weakness.  
We have to mass numbers at the point of attack rather than, in Power, moving them (the pulling guard and fullback) to the point of attack.  
But true Power is harder to defend because you have two blockers with momentum/force instead of, as in triple TE set, two coming out of stance and trying to move someone from A to B.

David Shaw (or is it Hulk in disguise?) at today's presser.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/RJ_Abeytia/status/1047194841216512000[/twitter]

[Spiny_Norman]

We could run Power with Marx, Bright pulling, and Schultz blocking at the edge.

We miss all three of those guys.

It seems revealing that we've tried to get a version of power with the three tight end sets.
But those sets may reveal our weakness.  
We have to mass numbers at the point of attack rather than, in Power, moving them (the pulling guard and fullback) to the point of attack.  
But true Power is harder to defend because you have two blockers with momentum/force instead of, as in triple TE set, two coming out of stance and trying to move someone from A to B.

David Shaw (or is it Hulk in disguise?) at today's presser.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/RJ_Abeytia/status/1047194841216512000[/twitter]

[Goose]

I think Hulk has it exactly right, in a very convincing fashion. Why our OL isn't performing as well as expected, and how to "cure" it, if possible, is the real question. We have actually seen somewhat different defensive approaches from all the defensive lines we have played, as would be expected due to different personnel with different strengths and weaknesses. The disturbing thing about that is that we have not been real successful against any of them. ND had the most talent, and we looked worse against them than anybody else. However, we really must improve on the OL or it will become a long year. For a few weeks, some were taking solace in an improved pass blocking performance. I think that was probably more due to defenses believing we couldn't pass at all and playing the run all the time. Defenses now know that we can pass, but they also know that we aren't playing well enough to require them to sell out against the run.
We aren't built to run the Air Raid (thank goodness), or to even be a "pass first" offense. We need a robust running game to force the opposing defense to overplay the run and to keep our defense fresh.There effectively is no real "plan B".

[Goose]

I think Hulk has it exactly right, in a very convincing fashion. Why our OL isn't performing as well as expected, and how to "cure" it, if possible, is the real question. We have actually seen somewhat different defensive approaches from all the defensive lines we have played, as would be expected due to different personnel with different strengths and weaknesses. The disturbing thing about that is that we have not been real successful against any of them. ND had the most talent, and we looked worse against them than anybody else. However, we really must improve on the OL or it will become a long year. For a few weeks, some were taking solace in an improved pass blocking performance. I think that was probably more due to defenses believing we couldn't pass at all and playing the run all the time. Defenses now know that we can pass, but they also know that we aren't playing well enough to require them to sell out against the run.
We aren't built to run the Air Raid (thank goodness), or to even be a "pass first" offense. We need a robust running game to force the opposing defense to overplay the run and to keep our defense fresh.There effectively is no real "plan B".

[OL84]

All of you are capable of doing this.

Rewatch the SC game. 
Focus on one OL at a time.
Keep the pause button handy, or slow motion--even better--if you have it.
Ask three questions of the guy:

1.  Does he move his feet well?  Does he have quick feet and a nice first step? 
Does he move well and decisively on pulls?.

2.  Does he deliver a strong blow, tight hands, hard to the defender's pecs?

3.  Is he able to drive his man after the blow?  Is he moving him, drawing stalemates, or even being pushed back (if he's standing tall and near erect, he's getting pushed. If his shoulders are ahead of his hips, he's winning.)

I recommend starting with Little, because our impressions of him were so good and our expectations so high.  If he was playing at that level, we'd be running a bit better because of it. 

To a lesser extent, ditto Herbig.  He's doing a nice job, but he isn't Decastro, Garnett, or Yankey yet. 

It's not much fun, I assure you.  Startling at first, then discouraging.  The hope is that they're trending up.  ND, which I haven't rewatched, looked a bit better and Love had some room at times.  Not the of immense proportions holes we saw last year, but room.

---

"How long have we been running Power?  10 years?  Marecic was leading Toby through the hole in 2009.

That's a long time for defenses to catch up.  The same way they caught up to bubble screens and jet sweeps.

The rest of college football has adapted.  We haven't."


Power? 

How often do we run Power?  
(Power isn't a scheme, it's a play: pulling guard, lead block from a back, double teams on the play side.)

Are our results when we do run Power--not often--worse than our results on other plays?

Is there an NFL team that doesn't run Power?  

Over Love's career, over 60% of his big plays have come running behind a fullback.  
Not sure how many of those plays have been Power, but quite a few.

Defenses have not adapted to successfully stop Power and force teams away from using the play.  It's still a staple; it's very hard to defend and it's good for attitude.

Great post, Hulk.  While I continue to believe that running against numbers and not forcing the D the defend the field are the biggest problems, your critique of the OL is right on.

[OL84]

All of you are capable of doing this.

Rewatch the SC game. 
Focus on one OL at a time.
Keep the pause button handy, or slow motion--even better--if you have it.
Ask three questions of the guy:

1.  Does he move his feet well?  Does he have quick feet and a nice first step? 
Does he move well and decisively on pulls?.

2.  Does he deliver a strong blow, tight hands, hard to the defender's pecs?

3.  Is he able to drive his man after the blow?  Is he moving him, drawing stalemates, or even being pushed back (if he's standing tall and near erect, he's getting pushed. If his shoulders are ahead of his hips, he's winning.)

I recommend starting with Little, because our impressions of him were so good and our expectations so high.  If he was playing at that level, we'd be running a bit better because of it. 

To a lesser extent, ditto Herbig.  He's doing a nice job, but he isn't Decastro, Garnett, or Yankey yet. 

It's not much fun, I assure you.  Startling at first, then discouraging.  The hope is that they're trending up.  ND, which I haven't rewatched, looked a bit better and Love had some room at times.  Not the of immense proportions holes we saw last year, but room.

---

"How long have we been running Power?  10 years?  Marecic was leading Toby through the hole in 2009.

That's a long time for defenses to catch up.  The same way they caught up to bubble screens and jet sweeps.

The rest of college football has adapted.  We haven't."


Power? 

How often do we run Power?  
(Power isn't a scheme, it's a play: pulling guard, lead block from a back, double teams on the play side.)

Are our results when we do run Power--not often--worse than our results on other plays?

Is there an NFL team that doesn't run Power?  

Over Love's career, over 60% of his big plays have come running behind a fullback.  
Not sure how many of those plays have been Power, but quite a few.

Defenses have not adapted to successfully stop Power and force teams away from using the play.  It's still a staple; it's very hard to defend and it's good for attitude.

Great post, Hulk.  While I continue to believe that running against numbers and not forcing the D the defend the field are the biggest problems, your critique of the OL is right on.

[Austroturf]

Great analysis by Hulk.   One other interesting data point can be added to the mix.  Stanford clearly lost the TOP battle in the last two games, which is normally a sign that we are NOT controlling the line-of-scrimmage.  The data:

ND: 34:23  Stanford: 25:37

Oregon: 35:42  Stanford: 24:18

When the opponent has the ball longer than we do, it is an indication that our team is unable to play "Stanford football".  One of the most masterful games of Stanford football was the 2013 Oregon game.  TOP:  Stanford 42:21   Oregon 16:51.  Another favorite of mine was UCLA in 2014: Stanford 37:49  UCLA 22:02.  This is the way Shaw would always like to play, but right now it simply is not clicking.  To do so requires a well-choreographed O-line pushing back the opponent and opening up running lanes for 4, 5 and 6 yards a pop.  Not happening right now.

---

Great analysis by Hulk.   One other interesting data point can be added to the mix.  Stanford clearly lost the TOP battle in the last two games, which is normally a sign that we are NOT controlling the line-of-scrimmage.  The data:

ND: 34:23  Stanford: 25:37

Oregon: 35:42  Stanford: 24:18

When the opponent has the ball longer than we do, it is an indication that our team is unable to play "Stanford football".  One of the most masterful games of Stanford football was the 2013 Oregon game.  TOP:  Stanford 42:21   Oregon 16:51.  Another favorite of mine was UCLA in 2014: Stanford 37:49  UCLA 22:02.  This is the way Shaw would always like to play, but right now it simply is not clicking.  To do so requires a well-choreographed O-line pushing back the opponent and opening up running lanes for 4, 5 and 6 yards a pop.  Not happening right now.

And a D that gets of the field quickly is also key to this MO.  Also not happening.

[Austroturf]

Great analysis by Hulk.   One other interesting data point can be added to the mix.  Stanford clearly lost the TOP battle in the last two games, which is normally a sign that we are NOT controlling the line-of-scrimmage.  The data:

ND: 34:23  Stanford: 25:37

Oregon: 35:42  Stanford: 24:18

When the opponent has the ball longer than we do, it is an indication that our team is unable to play "Stanford football".  One of the most masterful games of Stanford football was the 2013 Oregon game.  TOP:  Stanford 42:21   Oregon 16:51.  Another favorite of mine was UCLA in 2014: Stanford 37:49  UCLA 22:02.  This is the way Shaw would always like to play, but right now it simply is not clicking.  To do so requires a well-choreographed O-line pushing back the opponent and opening up running lanes for 4, 5 and 6 yards a pop.  Not happening right now.

---

Great analysis by Hulk.   One other interesting data point can be added to the mix.  Stanford clearly lost the TOP battle in the last two games, which is normally a sign that we are NOT controlling the line-of-scrimmage.  The data:

ND: 34:23  Stanford: 25:37

Oregon: 35:42  Stanford: 24:18

When the opponent has the ball longer than we do, it is an indication that our team is unable to play "Stanford football".  One of the most masterful games of Stanford football was the 2013 Oregon game.  TOP:  Stanford 42:21   Oregon 16:51.  Another favorite of mine was UCLA in 2014: Stanford 37:49  UCLA 22:02.  This is the way Shaw would always like to play, but right now it simply is not clicking.  To do so requires a well-choreographed O-line pushing back the opponent and opening up running lanes for 4, 5 and 6 yards a pop.  Not happening right now.

And a D that gets of the field quickly is also key to this MO.  Also not happening.

[CTcard]

I see many have chimed in in agreement with Hulk's comments on the OL. So I will merely say "me too" and let it go at that. 

But a few additions. 

While the loss of Bright, Schultz, and Marx has clearly hurt the run game, problems were brewing last year with them. Everyone noted the boom or bust nature of our run game, and Hulk and others have discussed stats like stuff rate at length. The OL has been developing issues (of different sorts) since the end of 2015. 


Though I have not charted it, my impression is that Power is probably still our most consistent run play (or at least Power plus Counter). However, we now run more inside zone than Power, which looks less effective. And, the inside zone-read out of the shotgun isn't really a read as I think there is never any intention for Costello to keep. 

We only called run plays on 37% of our snaps on Saturday. We saw in the second half what that leads to as any semblance of a pocket disappeared. 

I am not sure what the solution is. The OL is not going to get fundamentally strong and sound mid-season, though I am hoping improving health will lead to some improvement and better synchronization. Playing less stout defensive fronts would help - we'll see some of those but not all. Personally, I would like to see more Power when we run and when we pass against a stacked box more routes that hit the receivers on the run (hopefully running away from defenders). But that's no cure-all. 

Fortunately, we won't have to be particularly great on offense to find wins in most of our remaining games.

[CTcard]

I see many have chimed in in agreement with Hulk's comments on the OL. So I will merely say "me too" and let it go at that. 

But a few additions. 

While the loss of Bright, Schultz, and Marx has clearly hurt the run game, problems were brewing last year with them. Everyone noted the boom or bust nature of our run game, and Hulk and others have discussed stats like stuff rate at length. The OL has been developing issues (of different sorts) since the end of 2015. 


Though I have not charted it, my impression is that Power is probably still our most consistent run play (or at least Power plus Counter). However, we now run more inside zone than Power, which looks less effective. And, the inside zone-read out of the shotgun isn't really a read as I think there is never any intention for Costello to keep. 

We only called run plays on 37% of our snaps on Saturday. We saw in the second half what that leads to as any semblance of a pocket disappeared. 

I am not sure what the solution is. The OL is not going to get fundamentally strong and sound mid-season, though I am hoping improving health will lead to some improvement and better synchronization. Playing less stout defensive fronts would help - we'll see some of those but not all. Personally, I would like to see more Power when we run and when we pass against a stacked box more routes that hit the receivers on the run (hopefully running away from defenders). But that's no cure-all. 

Fortunately, we won't have to be particularly great on offense to find wins in most of our remaining games.