[OutsiderFan]

https://theathletic.com/980870/2019/07/2...ad-either/

If you don't subscribe to the Athletic and you are a football fan, it's worth the subscription just to read this one article.

Many Stanford fans have over the last few years (self included) have implored David Shaw to have his team pass more. Some (like myself) even suggested using more play-action passing to take advantage of the fact teams expect Stanford to run on early downs.

Those who viscerally defend everything the Head Coach does, would call nonsense, by claiming there must be an effective run game for play-action passing to work, or that you have to establish the run to win games in Stanford's offense.

This article blows all those notions totally away by hard academic research of NFL games. It is simply a fact that more passing leads to more winning, and YPA differential - not rush differential - is the greatest predictor of winning.  Now you could claim the same realities don't apply to college football, but that's just not true.  The rules are very similar. Plus, the NFL has gone more to college concepts over the last few years. The trend is continuing. The Arizona Cardinals are actually using the Air Raid now.

It won't be long before Mike Leach is coaching an NFL team.  

I was willing to go out on a limb and say last year's Stanford offense that featured much more passing was an indication Shaw is finally getting it, and that represented a shift in philosophy happening. You look at the emphasis on OT, OLB, WR, and DB in recruiting, and even the fact the RBs are now all capable pass catchers (including EJ Smith, Nathaniel Peat, and Austin Jones) and I think you can tell Shaw has realized his "we're going to pound the ball" offense just is not going go have any chance against Mike Leach's Air Raid or other teams that understand passing is more valuable than running.  Stanford has lost three in a row and was real close to having a 4-game losing streak to the Cougs.

Throw in the fact Shaw now has "an analytics guy" and it seems we can make book that Stanford is going to become a much more pass-oriented team as the years unfold from last year.

[OutsiderFan]

https://theathletic.com/980870/2019/07/2...ad-either/

If you don't subscribe to the Athletic and you are a football fan, it's worth the subscription just to read this one article.

Many Stanford fans have over the last few years (self included) have implored David Shaw to have his team pass more. Some (like myself) even suggested using more play-action passing to take advantage of the fact teams expect Stanford to run on early downs.

Those who viscerally defend everything the Head Coach does, would call nonsense, by claiming there must be an effective run game for play-action passing to work, or that you have to establish the run to win games in Stanford's offense.

This article blows all those notions totally away by hard academic research of NFL games. It is simply a fact that more passing leads to more winning, and YPA differential - not rush differential - is the greatest predictor of winning.  Now you could claim the same realities don't apply to college football, but that's just not true.  The rules are very similar. Plus, the NFL has gone more to college concepts over the last few years. The trend is continuing. The Arizona Cardinals are actually using the Air Raid now.

It won't be long before Mike Leach is coaching an NFL team.  

I was willing to go out on a limb and say last year's Stanford offense that featured much more passing was an indication Shaw is finally getting it, and that represented a shift in philosophy happening. You look at the emphasis on OT, OLB, WR, and DB in recruiting, and even the fact the RBs are now all capable pass catchers (including EJ Smith, Nathaniel Peat, and Austin Jones) and I think you can tell Shaw has realized his "we're going to pound the ball" offense just is not going go have any chance against Mike Leach's Air Raid or other teams that understand passing is more valuable than running.  Stanford has lost three in a row and was real close to having a 4-game losing streak to the Cougs.

Throw in the fact Shaw now has "an analytics guy" and it seems we can make book that Stanford is going to become a much more pass-oriented team as the years unfold from last year.

[BobK]

So wrong to run Love and McCaffrey and all

The college game isn’t the pass pass nfl.

Yes should throw more to RBs.

[BobK]

So wrong to run Love and McCaffrey and all

The college game isn’t the pass pass nfl.

Yes should throw more to RBs.

[OutsiderFan]

So wrong to run Love and McCaffrey and all

The college game isn’t the pass pass nfl.

Yes should throw more to RBs.

C'mon, Bob, don't be the guy who comments without reading the article. At least ask questions about it.

Nobody says to stop running completely. And if you can run every time for 5+ YPC in the Red Zone, sure, run the ball more than pass it. But don't run into 8 man boxes and don't be too predictable about what you are doing on offense either.

One of the main concerns about running the ball is it takes a lot of practice time to coordinate a physical run game to operate effectively.  It is just a reality that practice time has been reduced.  So when OL go down to injury, the whole run game can falter. It's OK for a defense to give up rushing yards between the 20s, but when the field shrinks and they play for the run to stop it, and can, that results in too many FGs, not TDs. 

It's far more effective to use the pass to setup the run than the other way around. Bill Walsh was ahead of his time in this regard.

[OutsiderFan]

So wrong to run Love and McCaffrey and all

The college game isn’t the pass pass nfl.

Yes should throw more to RBs.

C'mon, Bob, don't be the guy who comments without reading the article. At least ask questions about it.

Nobody says to stop running completely. And if you can run every time for 5+ YPC in the Red Zone, sure, run the ball more than pass it. But don't run into 8 man boxes and don't be too predictable about what you are doing on offense either.

One of the main concerns about running the ball is it takes a lot of practice time to coordinate a physical run game to operate effectively.  It is just a reality that practice time has been reduced.  So when OL go down to injury, the whole run game can falter. It's OK for a defense to give up rushing yards between the 20s, but when the field shrinks and they play for the run to stop it, and can, that results in too many FGs, not TDs. 

It's far more effective to use the pass to setup the run than the other way around. Bill Walsh was ahead of his time in this regard.

[Phogge]

I love Leach. Stanford would never hire him. I think he could make Cal a national power. He however is too quirky for the type of person who owns an NFL team. I'd love to sit around a table peppered with cocktails with him and Ted Williams, Carl Hiaasen, Charlie Kuralt and Ring Lardner.

[Phogge]

I love Leach. Stanford would never hire him. I think he could make Cal a national power. He however is too quirky for the type of person who owns an NFL team. I'd love to sit around a table peppered with cocktails with him and Ted Williams, Carl Hiaasen, Charlie Kuralt and Ring Lardner.

[SamuelMcF]

I love Leach. Stanford would never hire him. I think he could make Cal a national power. He however is too quirky for the type of person who owns an NFL team.

Tennessee (U, not the Titans) wanted him BAD. Of course their HC search was a dumpster fire and they screwed it up.

Oh, and OF, FWIW I mostly agree with you. However I don't think this is a full-time shift to a pass-first attack. Coaches adjusted to a beat-up line by pass blocking more (harder to win at the point of attack when you're dealing with nagging injuries). You could see it in the uninspired pass scheming (If there even WAS pass scheming) - they weren't expecting to pass so much. At all. We ran like the same 5 pass plays all season.

I saw some nice (attempted) wrinkles in the screen game, but it wasn't convincing.

[SamuelMcF]

I love Leach. Stanford would never hire him. I think he could make Cal a national power. He however is too quirky for the type of person who owns an NFL team.

Tennessee (U, not the Titans) wanted him BAD. Of course their HC search was a dumpster fire and they screwed it up.

Oh, and OF, FWIW I mostly agree with you. However I don't think this is a full-time shift to a pass-first attack. Coaches adjusted to a beat-up line by pass blocking more (harder to win at the point of attack when you're dealing with nagging injuries). You could see it in the uninspired pass scheming (If there even WAS pass scheming) - they weren't expecting to pass so much. At all. We ran like the same 5 pass plays all season.

I saw some nice (attempted) wrinkles in the screen game, but it wasn't convincing.

[OL84]

I am not sure college is the same as to pros.  If you have all the right personnel, then it's reasonably that an effective pass game might average more yards and increase the chances of winning, but there are a lot of variables.  Fewer college teams have the personnel, and the most successful teams all know how to take advantages of opportunities presented by the defense.  It's not pass vs. run, but, all things considered, a fully effective pass game does provide more opportunities.

[OL84]

I am not sure college is the same as to pros.  If you have all the right personnel, then it's reasonably that an effective pass game might average more yards and increase the chances of winning, but there are a lot of variables.  Fewer college teams have the personnel, and the most successful teams all know how to take advantages of opportunities presented by the defense.  It's not pass vs. run, but, all things considered, a fully effective pass game does provide more opportunities.

[BobK]

Last season Costello has the 4th most pass attempts in Stanford history

I rest my case that we did pass last season. A lot!

[BobK]

Last season Costello has the 4th most pass attempts in Stanford history

I rest my case that we did pass last season. A lot!

[StanfordMatt]

Zero chance that Leach ever coaches in the NFL. Maybe post-retirement he takes a consulting gig with an NFL team for a few weeks but he will never be a full-time NFL coach. As Phogge mentioned, NFL owners have way too much invested in their brands to ever let Leach be the face of a franchise.

[StanfordMatt]

Zero chance that Leach ever coaches in the NFL. Maybe post-retirement he takes a consulting gig with an NFL team for a few weeks but he will never be a full-time NFL coach. As Phogge mentioned, NFL owners have way too much invested in their brands to ever let Leach be the face of a franchise.

[stupac2]

Others have mentioned this, but this article is explicitly about the NFL and the college game is pretty different. IIRC analyses similar to the ones mentioned run on CFB find running to be closer to passing. Still worse, in general, but less bad than the NFL. That said, there are other mitigation rationales for running (personnel, having a system to recruit to, etc). But I do think some of these summary points from the article are valid for the college game:

1. Don’t invest heavily in your run game because it doesn’t correlate with winning
2. Use more play action because it’s more effective than drop-back passing and it has proved to work without having to “establish the run”
3. Don’t run the ball into eight-man boxes
4. Test the limits of passing, don’t force the run “unnecessarily”
5. Use the pass to set up the run (run when defenses start to adjust to pass)
6. Deception in all its forms is the most important element in offense
7. The run game is valuable in short-yardage situations, in the red zone and for running out the clock.

If I were to try to get Shaw to understand some of these points, #3 and #4 seem the most important. I'm not sure #1 applies at all in college, and the rest all seem likely to be true, but secondary to 3 and 4.

[stupac2]

Others have mentioned this, but this article is explicitly about the NFL and the college game is pretty different. IIRC analyses similar to the ones mentioned run on CFB find running to be closer to passing. Still worse, in general, but less bad than the NFL. That said, there are other mitigation rationales for running (personnel, having a system to recruit to, etc). But I do think some of these summary points from the article are valid for the college game:

1. Don’t invest heavily in your run game because it doesn’t correlate with winning
2. Use more play action because it’s more effective than drop-back passing and it has proved to work without having to “establish the run”
3. Don’t run the ball into eight-man boxes
4. Test the limits of passing, don’t force the run “unnecessarily”
5. Use the pass to set up the run (run when defenses start to adjust to pass)
6. Deception in all its forms is the most important element in offense
7. The run game is valuable in short-yardage situations, in the red zone and for running out the clock.

If I were to try to get Shaw to understand some of these points, #3 and #4 seem the most important. I'm not sure #1 applies at all in college, and the rest all seem likely to be true, but secondary to 3 and 4.

[Goose]

FWIW, Chip Kelly commented at length during his media day session regarding the de-emphasis of the running back position in the NFL. He pointed out that the rule changes contributed to this approach, but that it was mostly a matter of money. The pass offense consumes most of the money, because 1) you have no chance if you can't pass at all, and 2) you need (at least 6 including tight ends) good receivers. More people. The pass defense consumes a lot of people (money) as well, for the same reasons. What is left is for the linemen and the RBs. You have to pass block since you bought the passer and receivers. That leaves less for the RBs. You have to settle for what you can afford. The really athletic guys that can play several positions choose the ones where they can make the most money (and probably play the longest).

The NFL teams get to draft/recruit whoever they want, subject to the salary cap. Each team can decide what kind of offense they want without worrying much about getting the players to run it. God knows some teams manage to screw it up, but not because the right players are not available. They just make bad choices. College is different. You have to play with the players you can convince to play at your school and who also can get admitted. That affects the offense you can run. A few years ago, Stanford differentiated itself by being a "run first", power team, mostly because they could recruit big, strong run blockers who could be admitted and also a few good running backs. It was a definite choice in which who we could get played a large role. Today, the pool of available players is different. Shaw et al has to respond to that fact, independent of their personal preferences.

Years ago, the "run and shoot" / "air raid" was adopted by schools who couldn't hope to recruit a powerful run-oriented offensive line and running backs. These offenses were the football equivalent of mines and submarines, the weapons of the weak. Today, that isn't true. The high schools are turning out many recruits who can play in those offenses, but few who can play in the "power" offenses. For almost a decade, we we successful by recruiting enough of the few and overpowering the rest of the conference. We can't do that reliably today.

[Goose]

FWIW, Chip Kelly commented at length during his media day session regarding the de-emphasis of the running back position in the NFL. He pointed out that the rule changes contributed to this approach, but that it was mostly a matter of money. The pass offense consumes most of the money, because 1) you have no chance if you can't pass at all, and 2) you need (at least 6 including tight ends) good receivers. More people. The pass defense consumes a lot of people (money) as well, for the same reasons. What is left is for the linemen and the RBs. You have to pass block since you bought the passer and receivers. That leaves less for the RBs. You have to settle for what you can afford. The really athletic guys that can play several positions choose the ones where they can make the most money (and probably play the longest).

The NFL teams get to draft/recruit whoever they want, subject to the salary cap. Each team can decide what kind of offense they want without worrying much about getting the players to run it. God knows some teams manage to screw it up, but not because the right players are not available. They just make bad choices. College is different. You have to play with the players you can convince to play at your school and who also can get admitted. That affects the offense you can run. A few years ago, Stanford differentiated itself by being a "run first", power team, mostly because they could recruit big, strong run blockers who could be admitted and also a few good running backs. It was a definite choice in which who we could get played a large role. Today, the pool of available players is different. Shaw et al has to respond to that fact, independent of their personal preferences.

Years ago, the "run and shoot" / "air raid" was adopted by schools who couldn't hope to recruit a powerful run-oriented offensive line and running backs. These offenses were the football equivalent of mines and submarines, the weapons of the weak. Today, that isn't true. The high schools are turning out many recruits who can play in those offenses, but few who can play in the "power" offenses. For almost a decade, we we successful by recruiting enough of the few and overpowering the rest of the conference. We can't do that reliably today.

[BostonCard]

If only Shaw hadn’t had Costello drop back to pass more often than any other QB in the last 10 years, and hadn’t called a pass on a larger share of our offensive downs than he called a run, something we hadn’t done at any other point in the last 10 years, maybe your criticism would have some salience, but alas, last year we were a passing team so the criticism seems misguided.

BC

[BostonCard]

If only Shaw hadn’t had Costello drop back to pass more often than any other QB in the last 10 years, and hadn’t called a pass on a larger share of our offensive downs than he called a run, something we hadn’t done at any other point in the last 10 years, maybe your criticism would have some salience, but alas, last year we were a passing team so the criticism seems misguided.

BC