[CTcard]

Some data connected to the recent themes. 

First, msqueri listed various X ranked offense and defenses. I don't know exactly what rankings used there. While there is no such thing as a single number that can describe something as complex as how good an offense is, but I feel that the best attempt at such a thing is probably FEI, which is basically points per drive adjusted in complicated ways for strength of schedule and particularly bad things like turnovers. 

So, under Shaw, Stanford's rankings in offense and defense FEI have been:
Year    OFEI    DFEI
2011       3       18 
2012     46         7
2013     21         9 
2014     45         8 
2015       2       43
2016     65       15
2017     17       52
2018     37       42
2019     67       79
2020     21     111
2021     82       94

Some notes:
2012, 2014, 2016 were years the defense was significantly better than offense (by this rating).
2015, 2017, 2020, and borderline 2011 were years when the offense was significantly better than the defense. 
Seven out of eleven years the offense was ranked better than the defense. 
As an average, the offense ranked about 6.5 spots better than the defense. 

I worry about arguments concerning out/under-performing talent because there is too much of a chicken/egg issue there.


Another comment above was Stanford playing a bend but don't break defense. At least for our best defensive years of this stretch, that wasn't the case. Stats that would indicate more of an attacking, don't bend, defense would be a low yards/play and lot of sacks and tackles for loss. 
For Stanford, we had the following conference rankings for the defense:
Year   yds/play allowed      sacks    TFL
2011             5th                2nd     3rd
2012             1st                 1st      1st
2013             2nd                1st      1st
2014             1st                 3rd      4th
2015             4th                 5th      7th
2016             4th                 3rd      4th
None of those look like a bend but don't break defense, and in the earlier years like a significantly aggressive defense. 


But I don't think any of this matters to discussions of whether slow down was a good strategy or not. I don't see any particular logic that having a good defense, or an attacking defense, has anything to do with whether a slow-down strategy is a good idea. 
Depth of the defense might. I don't remember the 2011-13 defenses being particularly thin. Starting in 2014 depth issues along the DL have been an almost constant concern. But that would be just one of many issues.

[CTcard]

Some data connected to the recent themes. 

First, msqueri listed various X ranked offense and defenses. I don't know exactly what rankings used there. While there is no such thing as a single number that can describe something as complex as how good an offense is, but I feel that the best attempt at such a thing is probably FEI, which is basically points per drive adjusted in complicated ways for strength of schedule and particularly bad things like turnovers. 

So, under Shaw, Stanford's rankings in offense and defense FEI have been:
Year    OFEI    DFEI
2011       3       18 
2012     46         7
2013     21         9 
2014     45         8 
2015       2       43
2016     65       15
2017     17       52
2018     37       42
2019     67       79
2020     21     111
2021     82       94

Some notes:
2012, 2014, 2016 were years the defense was significantly better than offense (by this rating).
2015, 2017, 2020, and borderline 2011 were years when the offense was significantly better than the defense. 
Seven out of eleven years the offense was ranked better than the defense. 
As an average, the offense ranked about 6.5 spots better than the defense. 

I worry about arguments concerning out/under-performing talent because there is too much of a chicken/egg issue there.


Another comment above was Stanford playing a bend but don't break defense. At least for our best defensive years of this stretch, that wasn't the case. Stats that would indicate more of an attacking, don't bend, defense would be a low yards/play and lot of sacks and tackles for loss. 
For Stanford, we had the following conference rankings for the defense:
Year   yds/play allowed      sacks    TFL
2011             5th                2nd     3rd
2012             1st                 1st      1st
2013             2nd                1st      1st
2014             1st                 3rd      4th
2015             4th                 5th      7th
2016             4th                 3rd      4th
None of those look like a bend but don't break defense, and in the earlier years like a significantly aggressive defense. 


But I don't think any of this matters to discussions of whether slow down was a good strategy or not. I don't see any particular logic that having a good defense, or an attacking defense, has anything to do with whether a slow-down strategy is a good idea. 
Depth of the defense might. I don't remember the 2011-13 defenses being particularly thin. Starting in 2014 depth issues along the DL have been an almost constant concern. But that would be just one of many issues.

[BostonCard]

My recollection of those years is that we had elite offenses at times and elite defenses at times, but we could never quite get both of them together.

BC

[BostonCard]

My recollection of those years is that we had elite offenses at times and elite defenses at times, but we could never quite get both of them together.

BC

[Goose]

While there is no such thing as a single number that can describe something as complex as how good an offense is, but I feel that the best attempt at such a thing is probably FEI, which is basically points per drive adjusted in complicated ways for strength of schedule and particularly bad things like turnovers.

While I can't claim to really "understand" FEI, I agree that what it attempts to do is probably the best "one number" approach I am aware of.

I worry about arguments concerning out/under-performing talent because there is too much of a chicken/egg issue there.

I agree, especially given the large number of NFL draft choices that don't work out. In the NFL you have full time professionals looking at players that are no longer "kids" playing on a somewhat level playing field (unlike High School, where the competition is often very unbalanced) and these players still out/under-perform regularly.

Another comment above was Stanford playing a bend but don't break defense. At least for our best defensive years of this stretch, that wasn't the case. Stats that would indicate more of an attacking, don't bend, defense would be a low yards/play and lot of sacks and tackles for loss.

As one might expect, here I disagree. I perhaps should have described Stanford's defensive strategy as read-react with special attention to preventing big plays (bend but don't break). Both read-react defenses and attacking defenses can turn in good stats like low yards/play and TFL. They use different methodology to accomplish it. Attacking defenses have a strategy they are going to use on a given play. It may be a blitz, it may be a stunt/stem, it may be base defense, but it is predetermined. A read/react defense may have a "plan" but depending on formation, personnel, tendencies, "keys" or gut feel, the plan may be changed before the snap. The defense will then "read" what the offense appears to be doing to choose their defensive response. 

That was very much Stanford in 2012. Stanford had Ben Gardner who was going to win some of the battles with the OL and make a TFL no matter what defense Stanford played, but basically the three first string defensive linemen were hard to move. They clogged up the middle and kept the linebackers "clean". All 4 starting linebackers were pretty good. One of those linebackers was Skov, who repeatedly demonstrated he knew what the offense was going to do before they did it. His anticipation on the snap count was legendary, but there is a video (that I can't find right now) entitled "Skov beats Oregon to the spot". He knew where the back was going and went there before he could be blocked. TFL. He wasn't the biggest, or the fastest (actually he was considered a bit "slow"), but he was always in exactly the right place. Read and react. As Mora said about our 2012 defense:

"But probably the most important thing is the way they pursue the football."

Against Oregon in 2012, Mariota actually completed quite a few passes but they were short passes. We "bent". But no long scoring passes. We didn't "break". So yes, a well-executed read and react defense can put up great statistics. It can be the best choice if you have somebody like Skov playing linebacker. Quoting him on the Oregon game:

"I think they had opportunities. We just did a great job of tackling and minimizing those opportunities. Guys were flying around. When they had a six-yard gain, with a chance to make it a 15- or 20-yard gain, we closed those windows and minimized that opportunities."

So I think that kind of speaks for itself. We undoubtedly were playing a read and react with special emphasis on limiting big plays. We were however doing it very well.

But I don't think any of this matters to discussions of whether slow down was a good strategy or not. I don't see any particular logic that having a good defense, or an attacking defense, has anything to do with whether a slow-down strategy is a good idea. 

Depth of the defense might. I don't remember the 2011-13 defenses being particularly thin. Starting in 2014 depth issues along the DL have been an almost constant concern. But that would be just one of many issues.

Certainly you can have a good defense that is an attacking defense, and certainly you can have one that is read-react. IMHO depth and skill set of the defense does have a large effect on how important it is to keep them rested. In 2011 the fact that Skov was not 100% unquestionably hurt our defense. In 2012 he was at full speed and it made a big difference. Several opponents commented on this. In the years 2011-2014, we had David Parry at Defensive Tackle. As I recall, he played the vast majority of the snaps as the years went on. We had several defensive ends during those years that were very good and passable depth behind them. Not so much at DT. Even as early as 2012 this was a bit of an issue.

[Goose]

While there is no such thing as a single number that can describe something as complex as how good an offense is, but I feel that the best attempt at such a thing is probably FEI, which is basically points per drive adjusted in complicated ways for strength of schedule and particularly bad things like turnovers.

While I can't claim to really "understand" FEI, I agree that what it attempts to do is probably the best "one number" approach I am aware of.

I worry about arguments concerning out/under-performing talent because there is too much of a chicken/egg issue there.

I agree, especially given the large number of NFL draft choices that don't work out. In the NFL you have full time professionals looking at players that are no longer "kids" playing on a somewhat level playing field (unlike High School, where the competition is often very unbalanced) and these players still out/under-perform regularly.

Another comment above was Stanford playing a bend but don't break defense. At least for our best defensive years of this stretch, that wasn't the case. Stats that would indicate more of an attacking, don't bend, defense would be a low yards/play and lot of sacks and tackles for loss.

As one might expect, here I disagree. I perhaps should have described Stanford's defensive strategy as read-react with special attention to preventing big plays (bend but don't break). Both read-react defenses and attacking defenses can turn in good stats like low yards/play and TFL. They use different methodology to accomplish it. Attacking defenses have a strategy they are going to use on a given play. It may be a blitz, it may be a stunt/stem, it may be base defense, but it is predetermined. A read/react defense may have a "plan" but depending on formation, personnel, tendencies, "keys" or gut feel, the plan may be changed before the snap. The defense will then "read" what the offense appears to be doing to choose their defensive response. 

That was very much Stanford in 2012. Stanford had Ben Gardner who was going to win some of the battles with the OL and make a TFL no matter what defense Stanford played, but basically the three first string defensive linemen were hard to move. They clogged up the middle and kept the linebackers "clean". All 4 starting linebackers were pretty good. One of those linebackers was Skov, who repeatedly demonstrated he knew what the offense was going to do before they did it. His anticipation on the snap count was legendary, but there is a video (that I can't find right now) entitled "Skov beats Oregon to the spot". He knew where the back was going and went there before he could be blocked. TFL. He wasn't the biggest, or the fastest (actually he was considered a bit "slow"), but he was always in exactly the right place. Read and react. As Mora said about our 2012 defense:

"But probably the most important thing is the way they pursue the football."

Against Oregon in 2012, Mariota actually completed quite a few passes but they were short passes. We "bent". But no long scoring passes. We didn't "break". So yes, a well-executed read and react defense can put up great statistics. It can be the best choice if you have somebody like Skov playing linebacker. Quoting him on the Oregon game:

"I think they had opportunities. We just did a great job of tackling and minimizing those opportunities. Guys were flying around. When they had a six-yard gain, with a chance to make it a 15- or 20-yard gain, we closed those windows and minimized that opportunities."

So I think that kind of speaks for itself. We undoubtedly were playing a read and react with special emphasis on limiting big plays. We were however doing it very well.

But I don't think any of this matters to discussions of whether slow down was a good strategy or not. I don't see any particular logic that having a good defense, or an attacking defense, has anything to do with whether a slow-down strategy is a good idea. 

Depth of the defense might. I don't remember the 2011-13 defenses being particularly thin. Starting in 2014 depth issues along the DL have been an almost constant concern. But that would be just one of many issues.

Certainly you can have a good defense that is an attacking defense, and certainly you can have one that is read-react. IMHO depth and skill set of the defense does have a large effect on how important it is to keep them rested. In 2011 the fact that Skov was not 100% unquestionably hurt our defense. In 2012 he was at full speed and it made a big difference. Several opponents commented on this. In the years 2011-2014, we had David Parry at Defensive Tackle. As I recall, he played the vast majority of the snaps as the years went on. We had several defensive ends during those years that were very good and passable depth behind them. Not so much at DT. Even as early as 2012 this was a bit of an issue.

[BostonCard]

When you were talking about Skov, I thought you were going to recount the play where he timed the snap so well, Notre Dame thought he must have been offsides.

https://youtu.be/wSkn7uB4QJE

48 seconds into the video.

BC

[BostonCard]

When you were talking about Skov, I thought you were going to recount the play where he timed the snap so well, Notre Dame thought he must have been offsides.

https://youtu.be/wSkn7uB4QJE

48 seconds into the video.

BC

[Goose]

When you were talking about Skov, I thought you were going to recount the play where he timed the snap so well, Notre Dame thought he must have been offsides.

https://youtu.be/wSkn7uB4QJE

48 seconds into the video.

BC

I think he was offside. I think he knew it too because he let up a bit in the ND backfield. However, play to the whistle, which he did. He was a master at anticipating the snap count.

I did find the article that shows him beating two blockers to the spot and tackling the running back. Article makes a lot of good points IMHO.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1849...weaknesses

[Goose]

When you were talking about Skov, I thought you were going to recount the play where he timed the snap so well, Notre Dame thought he must have been offsides.

https://youtu.be/wSkn7uB4QJE

48 seconds into the video.

BC

I think he was offside. I think he knew it too because he let up a bit in the ND backfield. However, play to the whistle, which he did. He was a master at anticipating the snap count.

I did find the article that shows him beating two blockers to the spot and tackling the running back. Article makes a lot of good points IMHO.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1849...weaknesses

[BostonCard]

Watch the slow mo at :57 from the opposite angle. You can see when the snap occurred; I don’t think Skov had crossed yet.  Really hard to tell because he was on a full on sprint, but I think he was still onsides.

BC

---

Running it back and forth, Skov is behind the line of scrimmage when the snap starts, but we’ll into the neutral zone when it ended (ball left the center’s hands).  I think the offsides definition requires the defender be in the neutral zone before the snap, which I take to mean before the snap starts.

BC

[BostonCard]

Watch the slow mo at :57 from the opposite angle. You can see when the snap occurred; I don’t think Skov had crossed yet.  Really hard to tell because he was on a full on sprint, but I think he was still onsides.

BC

---

Running it back and forth, Skov is behind the line of scrimmage when the snap starts, but we’ll into the neutral zone when it ended (ball left the center’s hands).  I think the offsides definition requires the defender be in the neutral zone before the snap, which I take to mean before the snap starts.

BC

[Goose]

Watch the slow mo at :57 from the opposite angle. You can see when the snap occurred; I don’t think Skov had crossed yet.  Really hard to tell because he was on a full on sprint, but I think he was still onsides.

BC

---

Running it back and forth, Skov is behind the line of scrimmage when the snap starts, but we’ll into the neutral zone when it ended (ball left the center’s hands).  I think the offsides definition requires the defender be in the neutral zone before the snap, which I take to mean before the snap starts.

BC

I read it that the center started to snap the ball when Skov entered the neutral zone. They center is trained to do that to prevent the player who violated the neutral zone from getting back "on side" without touching an offensive player. That said, it is such a close play that a call or a no-call could in my mind be justified. Obviously, this one went our way. I will take it.

[Goose]

Watch the slow mo at :57 from the opposite angle. You can see when the snap occurred; I don’t think Skov had crossed yet.  Really hard to tell because he was on a full on sprint, but I think he was still onsides.

BC

---

Running it back and forth, Skov is behind the line of scrimmage when the snap starts, but we’ll into the neutral zone when it ended (ball left the center’s hands).  I think the offsides definition requires the defender be in the neutral zone before the snap, which I take to mean before the snap starts.

BC

I read it that the center started to snap the ball when Skov entered the neutral zone. They center is trained to do that to prevent the player who violated the neutral zone from getting back "on side" without touching an offensive player. That said, it is such a close play that a call or a no-call could in my mind be justified. Obviously, this one went our way. I will take it.

[BostonCard]

The snap started before Skov entered the neutral zone, so it could not have been a reaction to Skov being in the neutral zone.  If you advance the reverse angle frame by frame, Skov hasn’t crossed the plane of the neutral zone when the snap has started the ball’s backward motion.

BC

[BostonCard]

The snap started before Skov entered the neutral zone, so it could not have been a reaction to Skov being in the neutral zone.  If you advance the reverse angle frame by frame, Skov hasn’t crossed the plane of the neutral zone when the snap has started the ball’s backward motion.

BC

[Goose]

The snap started before Skov entered the neutral zone, so it could not have been a reaction to Skov being in the neutral zone.  If you advance the reverse angle frame by frame, Skov hasn’t crossed the plane of the neutral zone when the snap has started the ball’s backward motion.

BC

I think you are correct. The snap was not a reaction to Skov. Skov just timed it perfectly. The fact the QB was not surprised when the ball got to him pretty much confirms that interpretation. It appears it was a running play because the back tries to cross in front of the QB to receive/fake receiving a hand-off but Skov got there first! Amazing.

[Goose]

The snap started before Skov entered the neutral zone, so it could not have been a reaction to Skov being in the neutral zone.  If you advance the reverse angle frame by frame, Skov hasn’t crossed the plane of the neutral zone when the snap has started the ball’s backward motion.

BC

I think you are correct. The snap was not a reaction to Skov. Skov just timed it perfectly. The fact the QB was not surprised when the ball got to him pretty much confirms that interpretation. It appears it was a running play because the back tries to cross in front of the QB to receive/fake receiving a hand-off but Skov got there first! Amazing.