[winflop]

I'm not buying the excuses. We knew Bright, Marx, and Schultz were all leaving after last season. Why is the dropoff so great? That is on recruiting and player development = coaches.

In addition, Kaden Smith is a consensus high draft pick at TE. We pretty much know he's gone this season. I don't buy that there's a dropoff from Schultz there. The biggest dropoff is at FB but again, the coaches knew he was gone two years ago and haven't recruited/developed a suitable replacement.

Some of the success on first down passing is because of the low frequency - teams prepare for the run and get surprised by the pass. But there's a better mix that produces good and more similar results between running and passing.

[winflop]

I'm not buying the excuses. We knew Bright, Marx, and Schultz were all leaving after last season. Why is the dropoff so great? That is on recruiting and player development = coaches.

In addition, Kaden Smith is a consensus high draft pick at TE. We pretty much know he's gone this season. I don't buy that there's a dropoff from Schultz there. The biggest dropoff is at FB but again, the coaches knew he was gone two years ago and haven't recruited/developed a suitable replacement.

Some of the success on first down passing is because of the low frequency - teams prepare for the run and get surprised by the pass. But there's a better mix that produces good and more similar results between running and passing.

[CTcard]

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

Since BC seems to be very tired and still sleeping, thought I would help out on the und breakdown.

We had 22 first down plays officially plus 3 penalties on first down. Of the three penalties, two were called before type of play became apparent (a delay of game and illegal motion) and one was holding on a pass play.
There was also an interception on first down. I believe that is officially a zero yard play, though of course it is much worse than that.

There were 10 first down runs averaging 7.3 yds/play. Two of those plays went for 0 or negative yards.
There were 12 official first down passes averaging 3.6 yds/play. Seven of those plays went for 0 or negative yards and one INT.
We were officially 5/9, or 55% passing. Also three sacks, the penalty, and an INT.
If you add in the holding penalty, then the pass plays averaged 2.5 yds/play, with 8 plays for 0 or negative yards.

The average for running does rely heavily on the one 39 yard run by Love. Of course the passing average relies heavily on one 31 yard completion to Parkinson.

Neither were great, but running on first down was better than passing in this game by a wide margin. In particular, running avoided devastating sacks and interceptions.
Despite this, or perhaps the cause of this, we passed more than we ran on first downs.

[CTcard]

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

Since BC seems to be very tired and still sleeping, thought I would help out on the und breakdown.

We had 22 first down plays officially plus 3 penalties on first down. Of the three penalties, two were called before type of play became apparent (a delay of game and illegal motion) and one was holding on a pass play.
There was also an interception on first down. I believe that is officially a zero yard play, though of course it is much worse than that.

There were 10 first down runs averaging 7.3 yds/play. Two of those plays went for 0 or negative yards.
There were 12 official first down passes averaging 3.6 yds/play. Seven of those plays went for 0 or negative yards and one INT.
We were officially 5/9, or 55% passing. Also three sacks, the penalty, and an INT.
If you add in the holding penalty, then the pass plays averaged 2.5 yds/play, with 8 plays for 0 or negative yards.

The average for running does rely heavily on the one 39 yard run by Love. Of course the passing average relies heavily on one 31 yard completion to Parkinson.

Neither were great, but running on first down was better than passing in this game by a wide margin. In particular, running avoided devastating sacks and interceptions.
Despite this, or perhaps the cause of this, we passed more than we ran on first downs.

[BostonCard]

I'm not buying the excuses. We knew Bright, Marx, and Schultz were all leaving after last season. Why is the dropoff so great? That is on recruiting and player development = coaches.

In addition, Kaden Smith is a consensus high draft pick at TE. We pretty much know he's gone this season. I don't buy that there's a dropoff from Schultz there. The biggest dropoff is at FB but again, the coaches knew he was gone two years ago and haven't recruited/developed a suitable replacement.

Some of the success on first down passing is because of the low frequency - teams prepare for the run and get surprised by the pass. But there's a better mix that produces good and more similar results between running and passing.

We have three recruited fullbacks on the roster, which is two to three more than most FBS teams.  Marx was our best fullback since Maricec (comparable or better than Hewitt).  Williams, a senior, was behind Marx for 3+ years; it's not surprise there is a drop-off.  Heimuli was on a mission for two years and is a redshirt freshman, and Jay Symonds is a true freshman.  A drop-off can be reasonably expected, just as one could have reasonably expected a drop-off after Hogan graduated; it's the magnitude of the drop-off that is disconcerting.

For CT and others, while I like power/counter a lot, the two critical positions are the fullback and the pulling guard.  We haven't had an excellent pulling guard since Josh Garnett, and while Bright was decent, the drop-off was noticeable.  This year, our left guard position has been a mess, and Herbig's strength is not pulling (though he is better than I thought he would be given his size).  We went from an excellent fullback to a so-so one.  Thus the drop-off from 2015 when we had Garnett pulling and Marx lead blocking to today, when we have Herbig or Fanaika pulling and Williams lead blocking is stark.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm not buying the excuses. We knew Bright, Marx, and Schultz were all leaving after last season. Why is the dropoff so great? That is on recruiting and player development = coaches.

In addition, Kaden Smith is a consensus high draft pick at TE. We pretty much know he's gone this season. I don't buy that there's a dropoff from Schultz there. The biggest dropoff is at FB but again, the coaches knew he was gone two years ago and haven't recruited/developed a suitable replacement.

Some of the success on first down passing is because of the low frequency - teams prepare for the run and get surprised by the pass. But there's a better mix that produces good and more similar results between running and passing.

We have three recruited fullbacks on the roster, which is two to three more than most FBS teams.  Marx was our best fullback since Maricec (comparable or better than Hewitt).  Williams, a senior, was behind Marx for 3+ years; it's not surprise there is a drop-off.  Heimuli was on a mission for two years and is a redshirt freshman, and Jay Symonds is a true freshman.  A drop-off can be reasonably expected, just as one could have reasonably expected a drop-off after Hogan graduated; it's the magnitude of the drop-off that is disconcerting.

For CT and others, while I like power/counter a lot, the two critical positions are the fullback and the pulling guard.  We haven't had an excellent pulling guard since Josh Garnett, and while Bright was decent, the drop-off was noticeable.  This year, our left guard position has been a mess, and Herbig's strength is not pulling (though he is better than I thought he would be given his size).  We went from an excellent fullback to a so-so one.  Thus the drop-off from 2015 when we had Garnett pulling and Marx lead blocking to today, when we have Herbig or Fanaika pulling and Williams lead blocking is stark.

BC

[Hulk01]

Bright, Marx and Schultz at the least gave us the threat of running a credible Power. 
We don't have that threat now.
Wilson is probably our best puller but it's telling that we don't play him on the OL at all.

[Hulk01]

Bright, Marx and Schultz at the least gave us the threat of running a credible Power. 
We don't have that threat now.
Wilson is probably our best puller but it's telling that we don't play him on the OL at all.

[CTcard]

For CT and others, while I like power/counter a lot, the two critical positions are the fullback and the pulling guard. ... This year, our left guard position has been a mess, and Herbig's strength is not pulling (though he is better than I thought he would be given his size).  We went from an excellent fullback to a so-so one.  Thus the drop-off from 2015 when we had Garnett pulling and Marx lead blocking to today, when we have Herbig or Fanaika pulling and Williams lead blocking is stark.

Bright, Marx and Schultz at the least gave us the threat of running a credible Power. 
We don't have that threat now.

I would say both of these statement are true, nevertheless my observation has been that when we have run Power it has been on average slightly better to even with other run plays.

It's clearly not all of our good runs (Love's big run vs und was an inside zone play out of a single back formation), and it's clearly not working great (nothing in the run game is working) - but as a relative matter I haven't seen it any worse than the inside zone plays (and most of our stretch plays have been disasters).

[CTcard]

For CT and others, while I like power/counter a lot, the two critical positions are the fullback and the pulling guard. ... This year, our left guard position has been a mess, and Herbig's strength is not pulling (though he is better than I thought he would be given his size).  We went from an excellent fullback to a so-so one.  Thus the drop-off from 2015 when we had Garnett pulling and Marx lead blocking to today, when we have Herbig or Fanaika pulling and Williams lead blocking is stark.

Bright, Marx and Schultz at the least gave us the threat of running a credible Power. 
We don't have that threat now.

I would say both of these statement are true, nevertheless my observation has been that when we have run Power it has been on average slightly better to even with other run plays.

It's clearly not all of our good runs (Love's big run vs und was an inside zone play out of a single back formation), and it's clearly not working great (nothing in the run game is working) - but as a relative matter I haven't seen it any worse than the inside zone plays (and most of our stretch plays have been disasters).

[OutsiderFan]

Defenses have a very binary choice with Stanford, and then, based on down, distance, and score, they can pretty accurately guess what they are going to get.  

I was DYING to see a play-action pass off heavy run action to Love on the first play of the game, given all the talk was Stanford would make a concerted effort to get Love going. Instead, how did the ND game start? Two run plays for nothing and an incompletion. 

When the defense is expecting run, you simply must pass a meaningful percentage of the time, preferably while making it look like a run. When the defense is expecting pass, you simply must run a meaningful percentage of the time out of pass formations.

I haven't yet this season seen what I would call a well-conceived game plan on offense, based on how defenses are defending Stanford.  What I have seen is Stanford being re-active and not proactive.  It's borne out of the "we do what we do and don't worry about what the opponent does" mentality.  That's probably a good approach against team you have a talent advantage over, but when it's close or the other team might be or clearly is better, the coaching staff has to identify weaknesses in the opponent and attack them.

Look, my criticism is based on what I see as an extremely talented roster of players on offense not living up to what I expect of them, the sum not being greater than the individual parts.  I'm not nearly as harsh on the defense because I don't see equivalent talent on that side of the ball.  When you don't have the physical talent available, you will get beat.  But I simply don't buy ND's defense should be holding Stanford to 17 points, nor USC's for that matter.

[OutsiderFan]

Defenses have a very binary choice with Stanford, and then, based on down, distance, and score, they can pretty accurately guess what they are going to get.  

I was DYING to see a play-action pass off heavy run action to Love on the first play of the game, given all the talk was Stanford would make a concerted effort to get Love going. Instead, how did the ND game start? Two run plays for nothing and an incompletion. 

When the defense is expecting run, you simply must pass a meaningful percentage of the time, preferably while making it look like a run. When the defense is expecting pass, you simply must run a meaningful percentage of the time out of pass formations.

I haven't yet this season seen what I would call a well-conceived game plan on offense, based on how defenses are defending Stanford.  What I have seen is Stanford being re-active and not proactive.  It's borne out of the "we do what we do and don't worry about what the opponent does" mentality.  That's probably a good approach against team you have a talent advantage over, but when it's close or the other team might be or clearly is better, the coaching staff has to identify weaknesses in the opponent and attack them.

Look, my criticism is based on what I see as an extremely talented roster of players on offense not living up to what I expect of them, the sum not being greater than the individual parts.  I'm not nearly as harsh on the defense because I don't see equivalent talent on that side of the ball.  When you don't have the physical talent available, you will get beat.  But I simply don't buy ND's defense should be holding Stanford to 17 points, nor USC's for that matter.

[winflop]

Bright, Marx and Schultz at the least gave us the threat of running a credible Power. 
We don't have that threat now.
Wilson is probably our best puller but it's telling that we don't play him on the OL at all.

These things were all known before spring camp. Why weren't enough scheme adjustments made to fit the offense to the strengths (and weaknesses) of the offensive line?

[winflop]

Bright, Marx and Schultz at the least gave us the threat of running a credible Power. 
We don't have that threat now.
Wilson is probably our best puller but it's telling that we don't play him on the OL at all.

These things were all known before spring camp. Why weren't enough scheme adjustments made to fit the offense to the strengths (and weaknesses) of the offensive line?

[BostonCard]

Bright, Marx and Schultz at the least gave us the threat of running a credible Power. 
We don't have that threat now.
Wilson is probably our best puller but it's telling that we don't play him on the OL at all.

These things were all known before spring camp. Why weren't enough scheme adjustments made to fit the offense to the strengths (and weaknesses) of the offensive line?

I’m curious what you think are strengths of the offensive line.  They are better in pass protection than in run blocking, but we are one of the few top-25 teams that pass more often than we run, so it seems those adjustments have been made.  When we do run, We run Power less than we used to, which sounds like an adjustment to me.

There is no magical fix here that I can see beyond passing more than running.  Many people are calling for more trick plays, such as play action passes, but as has been pointed out by others, those plays don’t tend to work when the defense is able to defend the run “straight up”, and when you are not sure your line can hold for the extra amount of time it takes to make the fake.  The same is true with other types of misdirection plays.  They tend to work when the defense is gambling or overpursuing, something that is unnecessary against our offensive line.

BC

[BostonCard]

Bright, Marx and Schultz at the least gave us the threat of running a credible Power. 
We don't have that threat now.
Wilson is probably our best puller but it's telling that we don't play him on the OL at all.

These things were all known before spring camp. Why weren't enough scheme adjustments made to fit the offense to the strengths (and weaknesses) of the offensive line?

I’m curious what you think are strengths of the offensive line.  They are better in pass protection than in run blocking, but we are one of the few top-25 teams that pass more often than we run, so it seems those adjustments have been made.  When we do run, We run Power less than we used to, which sounds like an adjustment to me.

There is no magical fix here that I can see beyond passing more than running.  Many people are calling for more trick plays, such as play action passes, but as has been pointed out by others, those plays don’t tend to work when the defense is able to defend the run “straight up”, and when you are not sure your line can hold for the extra amount of time it takes to make the fake.  The same is true with other types of misdirection plays.  They tend to work when the defense is gambling or overpursuing, something that is unnecessary against our offensive line.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Play action passes are not trick plays. They are staples in well-conceived pro-style offensive systems. There should be a play action pass off every run in the west coast system, some straight drop-backs, some roll-outs, some bootlegs.  Another thing play-action passes do is get the RB involved as an outlet receiver.  One of the greatest failings of this 2018 Stanford offense is its inability to get Bryce Love the ball in space.  Play action passes would help this cause as he could often be an outlet receiver covered by linebackers.

[OutsiderFan]

Play action passes are not trick plays. They are staples in well-conceived pro-style offensive systems. There should be a play action pass off every run in the west coast system, some straight drop-backs, some roll-outs, some bootlegs.  Another thing play-action passes do is get the RB involved as an outlet receiver.  One of the greatest failings of this 2018 Stanford offense is its inability to get Bryce Love the ball in space.  Play action passes would help this cause as he could often be an outlet receiver covered by linebackers.

[stupac2]

Play action passes are not trick plays. They are staples in well-conceived pro-style offensive systems. There should be a play action pass off every run in the west coast system, some straight drop-backs, some roll-outs, some bootlegs.  Another thing play-action passes do is get the RB involved as an outlet receiver.  One of the greatest failings of this 2018 Stanford offense is its inability to get Bryce Love the ball in space.  Play action passes would help this cause as he could often be an outlet receiver covered by linebackers.

Right, but you need a guy who can sell the fake and then execute it. Costello might not be that guy. Similar, for bootlegs you need a QB who can throw on the run, and right now Costello isn't running at all. We've speculated that he might still have some lingering effects from his injury/surgery last season, which could explain a lot of this.

Also, we've certainly tried getting Love the ball in space, but since the defense is keying in on him it might just not be the right play. Without going through and charting this stuff it's hard to say.

[stupac2]

Play action passes are not trick plays. They are staples in well-conceived pro-style offensive systems. There should be a play action pass off every run in the west coast system, some straight drop-backs, some roll-outs, some bootlegs.  Another thing play-action passes do is get the RB involved as an outlet receiver.  One of the greatest failings of this 2018 Stanford offense is its inability to get Bryce Love the ball in space.  Play action passes would help this cause as he could often be an outlet receiver covered by linebackers.

Right, but you need a guy who can sell the fake and then execute it. Costello might not be that guy. Similar, for bootlegs you need a QB who can throw on the run, and right now Costello isn't running at all. We've speculated that he might still have some lingering effects from his injury/surgery last season, which could explain a lot of this.

Also, we've certainly tried getting Love the ball in space, but since the defense is keying in on him it might just not be the right play. Without going through and charting this stuff it's hard to say.

[OutsiderFan]

The reality is the strength of Stanford's program is suppose to be the OL. If they aren't performing, something is likely wrong in the coaching department.

[OutsiderFan]

The reality is the strength of Stanford's program is suppose to be the OL. If they aren't performing, something is likely wrong in the coaching department.

[fullmetal]

The reality is the strength of Stanford's program is suppose to be the OL. If they aren't performing, something is likely wrong in the coaching department.

Or everyone's hurt.  Or both.

[fullmetal]

The reality is the strength of Stanford's program is suppose to be the OL. If they aren't performing, something is likely wrong in the coaching department.

Or everyone's hurt.  Or both.

[Mick]

Play action passes are not trick plays. They are staples in well-conceived pro-style offensive systems. There should be a play action pass off every run in the west coast system, some straight drop-backs, some roll-outs, some bootlegs.  Another thing play-action passes do is get the RB involved as an outlet receiver.  One of the greatest failings of this 2018 Stanford offense is its inability to get Bryce Love the ball in space.  Play action passes would help this cause as he could often be an outlet receiver covered by linebackers.

Right, but you need a guy who can sell the fake and then execute it. Costello might not be that guy. Similar, for bootlegs you need a QB who can throw on the run, and right now Costello isn't running at all. We've speculated that he might still have some lingering effects from his injury/surgery last season, which could explain a lot of this.

Also, we've certainly tried getting Love the ball in space, but since the defense is keying in on him it might just not be the right play. Without going through and charting this stuff it's hard to say.

I was watching CJ Beathard over the weekend.  Man, can he sell a fake, same with his RBs.  It's been a long time since I've seen Costello really sell a fake.

[Mick]

Play action passes are not trick plays. They are staples in well-conceived pro-style offensive systems. There should be a play action pass off every run in the west coast system, some straight drop-backs, some roll-outs, some bootlegs.  Another thing play-action passes do is get the RB involved as an outlet receiver.  One of the greatest failings of this 2018 Stanford offense is its inability to get Bryce Love the ball in space.  Play action passes would help this cause as he could often be an outlet receiver covered by linebackers.

Right, but you need a guy who can sell the fake and then execute it. Costello might not be that guy. Similar, for bootlegs you need a QB who can throw on the run, and right now Costello isn't running at all. We've speculated that he might still have some lingering effects from his injury/surgery last season, which could explain a lot of this.

Also, we've certainly tried getting Love the ball in space, but since the defense is keying in on him it might just not be the right play. Without going through and charting this stuff it's hard to say.

I was watching CJ Beathard over the weekend.  Man, can he sell a fake, same with his RBs.  It's been a long time since I've seen Costello really sell a fake.

[Goose]

I was watching CJ Beathard over the weekend.  Man, can he sell a fake, same with his RBs.  It's been a long time since I've seen Costello really sell a fake.

Part of the problem is that we don't use handoffs nearly as much as we used to. We use a short toss to Love very frequently. The main place we use handoffs now seems to be on a zone read play. This play requires the defensive player to see the ball so they are forced to commit to either the QB or the RB. However, since Costello never runs, this play is just a slow handoff to Love. You can pass from this play, but there really isn't a "fake" involved. It is right out in the open. For these reasons, we don't have lots of opportunities to fake a handoff. How good KJ is at this is another question. It has been a long time since we have done this enough to really know, I think. The coaches may know however, and that is why we don't do it much.

[Goose]

I was watching CJ Beathard over the weekend.  Man, can he sell a fake, same with his RBs.  It's been a long time since I've seen Costello really sell a fake.

Part of the problem is that we don't use handoffs nearly as much as we used to. We use a short toss to Love very frequently. The main place we use handoffs now seems to be on a zone read play. This play requires the defensive player to see the ball so they are forced to commit to either the QB or the RB. However, since Costello never runs, this play is just a slow handoff to Love. You can pass from this play, but there really isn't a "fake" involved. It is right out in the open. For these reasons, we don't have lots of opportunities to fake a handoff. How good KJ is at this is another question. It has been a long time since we have done this enough to really know, I think. The coaches may know however, and that is why we don't do it much.