[yvonne]

Here's a story from the Palo Alto Times, one of the community newspapers now owned by the Bay Area Newsgroup, which publishes the Merc.

Coach Shaw was about as happy with the run game as we were.
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_18840696

The safety was on the opposite side of the field from me, and I didn't realize that a player was in position to recover the ball for a TD. The score could have been 62-3!

[yvonne]

Here's a story from the Palo Alto Times, one of the community newspapers now owned by the Bay Area Newsgroup, which publishes the Merc.

Coach Shaw was about as happy with the run game as we were.
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_18840696

The safety was on the opposite side of the field from me, and I didn't realize that a player was in position to recover the ball for a TD. The score could have been 62-3!

[mark3k]

Obviously, it wasn't great... but the average yards per carry stats weren't inflated by any 50 yard Luck scrambles week, and were arguably depressed by the fact that we found ourselves in a disproportionate number of __-and-short situations (i.e., when it's 2nd-and-goal from the 1, you can't get more than 1 yard per carry -- and we did manage to convert almost all of our Red Zone opportunities for TDs).  I love that this is our biggest concern after Week 1 (as opposed to some ridiculous upset loss, major injury, or validation of our concerns re: the defensive line)!

[mark3k]

Obviously, it wasn't great... but the average yards per carry stats weren't inflated by any 50 yard Luck scrambles week, and were arguably depressed by the fact that we found ourselves in a disproportionate number of __-and-short situations (i.e., when it's 2nd-and-goal from the 1, you can't get more than 1 yard per carry -- and we did manage to convert almost all of our Red Zone opportunities for TDs).  I love that this is our biggest concern after Week 1 (as opposed to some ridiculous upset loss, major injury, or validation of our concerns re: the defensive line)!

[cardfan09]

Totally agreed, 2loyal.  Of all the questions marks going into the season, I'm most comfortable with this one being resolved over the course of the season.  Now, instead,  imagine if our D-Line had gotten gashed...

[cardfan09]

Totally agreed, 2loyal.  Of all the questions marks going into the season, I'm most comfortable with this one being resolved over the course of the season.  Now, instead,  imagine if our D-Line had gotten gashed...

[Hank 91]

I wrote a piece about this over at Cardinal Report. It's behind the pay wall, but here's something I found kind of interesting:

Stanford ran the ball sixteen times when three yards or less were necessary for either a touchdown or a first down. Taylor got six of those carries and was successful half the time, and Wilkerson was oh for four. Fullback Ryan Hewitt was three for three, and Luck was one for one. Backups Jeremy Stewart and Tyler Gaffney each converted an opportunity in the fourth quarter, but that only helped to make the overall success rate look a bit better. It makes no sense for a team that prides itself on its power running game to have its top two running backs convert only three of ten short yardage situations.

If you watched the game that's probably just confirmation of what your eyes told you, but I was still surprised. I expect they'll be a bit more successful in similar situations this week.

Here's the link to the full piece:
http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1262839

[Hank 91]

I wrote a piece about this over at Cardinal Report. It's behind the pay wall, but here's something I found kind of interesting:

Stanford ran the ball sixteen times when three yards or less were necessary for either a touchdown or a first down. Taylor got six of those carries and was successful half the time, and Wilkerson was oh for four. Fullback Ryan Hewitt was three for three, and Luck was one for one. Backups Jeremy Stewart and Tyler Gaffney each converted an opportunity in the fourth quarter, but that only helped to make the overall success rate look a bit better. It makes no sense for a team that prides itself on its power running game to have its top two running backs convert only three of ten short yardage situations.

If you watched the game that's probably just confirmation of what your eyes told you, but I was still surprised. I expect they'll be a bit more successful in similar situations this week.

Here's the link to the full piece:
http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1262839

[fullmetal]

At least the RBs had a better record than Arizona's backs did last night.  I talked to a Zona guy I know at work--he pointed out the lack of a fullback in Arizona's ground game and the complete lack of commitment to a run game (numbers at the point of attack).  That explains their poor running and decent pass protection.

Back to Stanford--I think it's a blocking thing.  The local TWU chapter needs to start moving bodies off the line and making holes for lead blockers.  I'll be watching for that tomorrow...

[fullmetal]

At least the RBs had a better record than Arizona's backs did last night.  I talked to a Zona guy I know at work--he pointed out the lack of a fullback in Arizona's ground game and the complete lack of commitment to a run game (numbers at the point of attack).  That explains their poor running and decent pass protection.

Back to Stanford--I think it's a blocking thing.  The local TWU chapter needs to start moving bodies off the line and making holes for lead blockers.  I'll be watching for that tomorrow...

[mark3k]

I wrote a piece about this over at Cardinal Report. It's behind the pay wall, but here's something I found kind of interesting:

Stanford ran the ball sixteen times when three yards or less were necessary for either a touchdown or a first down. Taylor got six of those carries and was successful half the time, and Wilkerson was oh for four. Fullback Ryan Hewitt was three for three, and Luck was one for one. Backups Jeremy Stewart and Tyler Gaffney each converted an opportunity in the fourth quarter, but that only helped to make the overall success rate look a bit better. It makes no sense for a team that prides itself on its power running game to have its top two running backs convert only three of ten short yardage situations.

If you watched the game that's probably just confirmation of what your eyes told you, but I was still surprised. I expect they'll be a bit more successful in similar situations this week.

So they were 11-for-16 on short-yardage plays for first downs or TDs via the run...  I think 90+% of knowledgeable  football coaches would be pleased with that success ratio on such "tough yardage" plays (including those of as much as 3 yards, and against field-compressed goal-line defenses)!  The fact that these plays represented 16 of our carries clearly illustrates my point above re: the statistical per-carry average compression effect.  This actually makes me feel even better about the "big disappointment" in our first game performance!  Now we're supposed to quibble about who specifically was successful on those plays (and implicitly ignore the aggregate data, including the success that our line had "moving bodies" for Hewitt, for example)?  Really?!?  I'm glad that our coaches aren't satisfied, and want/expect to do better, but I'm thrilled with Saturday's outcome.... all things considered.

[mark3k]

I wrote a piece about this over at Cardinal Report. It's behind the pay wall, but here's something I found kind of interesting:

Stanford ran the ball sixteen times when three yards or less were necessary for either a touchdown or a first down. Taylor got six of those carries and was successful half the time, and Wilkerson was oh for four. Fullback Ryan Hewitt was three for three, and Luck was one for one. Backups Jeremy Stewart and Tyler Gaffney each converted an opportunity in the fourth quarter, but that only helped to make the overall success rate look a bit better. It makes no sense for a team that prides itself on its power running game to have its top two running backs convert only three of ten short yardage situations.

If you watched the game that's probably just confirmation of what your eyes told you, but I was still surprised. I expect they'll be a bit more successful in similar situations this week.

So they were 11-for-16 on short-yardage plays for first downs or TDs via the run...  I think 90+% of knowledgeable  football coaches would be pleased with that success ratio on such "tough yardage" plays (including those of as much as 3 yards, and against field-compressed goal-line defenses)!  The fact that these plays represented 16 of our carries clearly illustrates my point above re: the statistical per-carry average compression effect.  This actually makes me feel even better about the "big disappointment" in our first game performance!  Now we're supposed to quibble about who specifically was successful on those plays (and implicitly ignore the aggregate data, including the success that our line had "moving bodies" for Hewitt, for example)?  Really?!?  I'm glad that our coaches aren't satisfied, and want/expect to do better, but I'm thrilled with Saturday's outcome.... all things considered.

[Hank 91]

I included the splits for each running back just as a point of information, I suppose. I'm definitely not ready to conclude that Wilkerson should lose carries or anything like that. (I'd actually prefer to see him get MORE carries.) I would argue that power running teams should convert in those situations at a higher clip. Even though it's more difficult to get that tough yardage when the defense knows the run is coming, I think that's how you determine whether or not you're good at running the ball. An elite base runner can steal second base when the entire stadium knows he's going. A basketball MVP can hit the game-winner even when everyone knows he'll be the one to take the shot.

If Stanford is a running team, they have to get those first downs and touchdowns more consistently.

All of that being said, I'm not overly concerned. I'm confident that these problems will get fixed and it will be business as usual for the offensive line before we know it.

[Hank 91]

I included the splits for each running back just as a point of information, I suppose. I'm definitely not ready to conclude that Wilkerson should lose carries or anything like that. (I'd actually prefer to see him get MORE carries.) I would argue that power running teams should convert in those situations at a higher clip. Even though it's more difficult to get that tough yardage when the defense knows the run is coming, I think that's how you determine whether or not you're good at running the ball. An elite base runner can steal second base when the entire stadium knows he's going. A basketball MVP can hit the game-winner even when everyone knows he'll be the one to take the shot.

If Stanford is a running team, they have to get those first downs and touchdowns more consistently.

All of that being said, I'm not overly concerned. I'm confident that these problems will get fixed and it will be business as usual for the offensive line before we know it.

[mark3k]

My quick Googling exercise didn't come up with a truly comparable statistic, but to give you a sense as to why I'm confident that 11-for-16 (69%) is actually a very good conversion rate for these 3-yards-or-less-to-go situations, the 2010 NFL median 4th down conversion rate appears to have been approximately 46% (the 2011 data that they had on their website was not complete).  In fact, the single highest conversion rate in the entire league was 73%.

Now, this undoubtedly includes a few situations in which coaches "had to go for it" from more than 3 yards, but anecdotaly, I think it's pretty safe to assume that most of those situations were within a yard.  How come those "elite" running teams in the NFL can't seem to do better than our "disappointing" run-blockers (3 of whom were starting for the first time, as you and others have noted)?!? 

Contrary to most Hollywood story-lines, I think you'll find that "elite base stealers" don't actually succeed at a higher clip "when the entire stadium knows they're going" either (just as the widely-accepted "hot shooter" theory has been disproven repeatedly in the NBA, with very few exceptions, that don't tend to be highly correlated with MVP trophies).

[mark3k]

My quick Googling exercise didn't come up with a truly comparable statistic, but to give you a sense as to why I'm confident that 11-for-16 (69%) is actually a very good conversion rate for these 3-yards-or-less-to-go situations, the 2010 NFL median 4th down conversion rate appears to have been approximately 46% (the 2011 data that they had on their website was not complete).  In fact, the single highest conversion rate in the entire league was 73%.

Now, this undoubtedly includes a few situations in which coaches "had to go for it" from more than 3 yards, but anecdotaly, I think it's pretty safe to assume that most of those situations were within a yard.  How come those "elite" running teams in the NFL can't seem to do better than our "disappointing" run-blockers (3 of whom were starting for the first time, as you and others have noted)?!? 

Contrary to most Hollywood story-lines, I think you'll find that "elite base stealers" don't actually succeed at a higher clip "when the entire stadium knows they're going" either (just as the widely-accepted "hot shooter" theory has been disproven repeatedly in the NBA, with very few exceptions, that don't tend to be highly correlated with MVP trophies).

[yvonne]

Did you watch the game? Some of those short and goal situations would have been certain touchdowns in the last two years. I hope it improves over the season.

[yvonne]

Did you watch the game? Some of those short and goal situations would have been certain touchdowns in the last two years. I hope it improves over the season.

[Hank 91]

I'm not saying that elite base stealers get better in certain situations. My point was that it's easier to steal a base with a four-run lead in the third inning than in the ninth inning of a tie game. It doesn't get harder because of the pressure, it gets harder because more attention is focused on the runner. Also, I said nothing about hot shooters. My thought was that when the Lakers are down by one with five seconds left, Kobe is still able to get his shot off even though the defense is completely focused on him. He doesn't get better in these situations, but the fact that he's able to maintain a similar level of success on those last second shots is the mark of an elite player.

I know it's kind of like cheating to pull specific data points out of the sample, but if we disregard Luck's touchdown and the high success rate of Hewitt, Stewart, and Gaffney, I'm curious how you feel about one of my points. Does it matter that the two top running backs were three of ten?

[Hank 91]

I'm not saying that elite base stealers get better in certain situations. My point was that it's easier to steal a base with a four-run lead in the third inning than in the ninth inning of a tie game. It doesn't get harder because of the pressure, it gets harder because more attention is focused on the runner. Also, I said nothing about hot shooters. My thought was that when the Lakers are down by one with five seconds left, Kobe is still able to get his shot off even though the defense is completely focused on him. He doesn't get better in these situations, but the fact that he's able to maintain a similar level of success on those last second shots is the mark of an elite player.

I know it's kind of like cheating to pull specific data points out of the sample, but if we disregard Luck's touchdown and the high success rate of Hewitt, Stewart, and Gaffney, I'm curious how you feel about one of my points. Does it matter that the two top running backs were three of ten?

[oman]

Analysis aside, I am getting very stoked for this game!

[oman]

Analysis aside, I am getting very stoked for this game!

[mark3k]

Yes, Yvonne - I did watch the game (as I do virtually all of them).  I just think some of us have rapidly evolved from "we suck" pessimists to "we're so good that every imperfect play is a disappointment" pessimists over the past few years.  I guess that's better at least, if you insist on failing to enjoy the journey.  No football game is played perfectly (ask Auburn, Notre Dame, and several other schools that have legitimate gripes to whine about after week one!), and I just can't believe how hard people seem to want to look for dark clouds in our incredibly blue sky (even when the statistics are misleading, as I think we've established here).

Hank - I get your base-stealing point, and believe we're actually in agreement (for the most part): of course it's harder to steal when everyone knows you're going to do so, which is the same reason that it's hard to run for 5+ yards per carry in short-yardage situations (particularly when you're only a yard from end zone!).  For that exact reason, I was simply suggesting that, in reality, Lou Brock didn't always get that base, simply because he was a great base stealer (in fact, his success rate undoubtedly declined in such situations, as it does for everyone else).  My hot shooter comment wasn't intended to directly address your mythical "MVPs hit the big shots" point (which King Lebron has single-handedly disproven, though I must admit that Kobe seems to be pretty good at the buzzer!).  I was attempting to use another related myth to address it indirectly, but should have "connected the dots" in that line of thinking.

Off to enjoy the game (be damned the statistics!) - Go Cardinal!

[mark3k]

Yes, Yvonne - I did watch the game (as I do virtually all of them).  I just think some of us have rapidly evolved from "we suck" pessimists to "we're so good that every imperfect play is a disappointment" pessimists over the past few years.  I guess that's better at least, if you insist on failing to enjoy the journey.  No football game is played perfectly (ask Auburn, Notre Dame, and several other schools that have legitimate gripes to whine about after week one!), and I just can't believe how hard people seem to want to look for dark clouds in our incredibly blue sky (even when the statistics are misleading, as I think we've established here).

Hank - I get your base-stealing point, and believe we're actually in agreement (for the most part): of course it's harder to steal when everyone knows you're going to do so, which is the same reason that it's hard to run for 5+ yards per carry in short-yardage situations (particularly when you're only a yard from end zone!).  For that exact reason, I was simply suggesting that, in reality, Lou Brock didn't always get that base, simply because he was a great base stealer (in fact, his success rate undoubtedly declined in such situations, as it does for everyone else).  My hot shooter comment wasn't intended to directly address your mythical "MVPs hit the big shots" point (which King Lebron has single-handedly disproven, though I must admit that Kobe seems to be pretty good at the buzzer!).  I was attempting to use another related myth to address it indirectly, but should have "connected the dots" in that line of thinking.

Off to enjoy the game (be damned the statistics!) - Go Cardinal!

[yvonne]

I remember the Colorado game in Walsh II. We won by a touchdown in the final seconds. Because the team had been good the previous year, many people interpreted the high scoring win as a sign of a tough, high powered offense, but failed to notice the inability of the defense to stop the other team from scoring. That weakness plagued us the entire season. The

The inability of a run-first team to establish dominance over a smaller defensive line from a non-AQ conference similarly could portend a season of games in which the offense needs to score quickly to make up for its inability to move the chains on short yardage. It should not be taken lightly.

Do "we suck"? No.

Is the lack of a running game a flaw that should not be overlooked? Absolutely.

This team is probably a bowl team even if it has a mediocre run game. With a good to great run game, it's a BCS contender.

[yvonne]

I remember the Colorado game in Walsh II. We won by a touchdown in the final seconds. Because the team had been good the previous year, many people interpreted the high scoring win as a sign of a tough, high powered offense, but failed to notice the inability of the defense to stop the other team from scoring. That weakness plagued us the entire season. The

The inability of a run-first team to establish dominance over a smaller defensive line from a non-AQ conference similarly could portend a season of games in which the offense needs to score quickly to make up for its inability to move the chains on short yardage. It should not be taken lightly.

Do "we suck"? No.

Is the lack of a running game a flaw that should not be overlooked? Absolutely.

This team is probably a bowl team even if it has a mediocre run game. With a good to great run game, it's a BCS contender.

[mark3k]

Hope/trust that this game is making you all rethink our "lack of a running game"?

[mark3k]

Hope/trust that this game is making you all rethink our "lack of a running game"?

[yvonne]

Yes

[yvonne]

Yes

[mark3k]

Ya'll feelin' a bit better about the running game now, folks?  ;D

[mark3k]

Ya'll feelin' a bit better about the running game now, folks?  ;D

[yvonne]

I think they worked it out.

I stand by this quote, though:

This team is probably a bowl team even if it has a mediocre run game. With a good to great run game, it's a BCS contender.

:D

[yvonne]

I think they worked it out.

I stand by this quote, though:

This team is probably a bowl team even if it has a mediocre run game. With a good to great run game, it's a BCS contender.

:D

[fullmetal]

On the more cautious side of things, maybe Washington's run defense is just terrible.  But against Oregon, if we can control the ball and sustain long drives while chewing up the clock, we really do limit the damage their offense can do, and their offensive mistakes will be magnified to our benefit.

[fullmetal]

On the more cautious side of things, maybe Washington's run defense is just terrible.  But against Oregon, if we can control the ball and sustain long drives while chewing up the clock, we really do limit the damage their offense can do, and their offensive mistakes will be magnified to our benefit.

[Griffins78]

We ran 7 or 8 OL formations what seemed like most of the second half. Seemed like our WRs and TEs barely lined up in the second half.

There was no threat of passing - just goal line-like, we're going to run it straight ahead, so try to stop us.

That may be tough for Oregon as well - since they tend to have smaller, quicker linemen.

[Griffins78]

We ran 7 or 8 OL formations what seemed like most of the second half. Seemed like our WRs and TEs barely lined up in the second half.

There was no threat of passing - just goal line-like, we're going to run it straight ahead, so try to stop us.

That may be tough for Oregon as well - since they tend to have smaller, quicker linemen.

[Nan3cy]

I read before the game (and the commentators were talking about this after the game) that UW's weakness was its passing defense, and its run defense was pretty good (or at least okay).  You would never have known that last night... 8)

[Nan3cy]

I read before the game (and the commentators were talking about this after the game) that UW's weakness was its passing defense, and its run defense was pretty good (or at least okay).  You would never have known that last night... 8)