[76lsjumb]

From today's SF Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...947963.php

This is the interesting/troublesome quote:

Coach David Shaw is already being second-guessed by many Cardinal fans for running Taylor four straight times up the middle from inside the Notre Dame 4-yard line in overtime.
With his back literally up against a wall outside the Stanford locker room, he said he "absolutely" had confidence that Taylor and his offensive line could get the final yards. "It's what we do," he said.

Unfortunately, it seems increasingly clear to me that, this season, the more accurate assessment would be: "It's what we DID."  Maybe I'm misremembering, but, over the course of this season, I recall a number of occasions where the up-the-middle push has either failed to gain the necessary 1-2 yards or just, just barely managed to get them.  Conversely, the short yardage plays that I recall having "worked" are the ones where Nunes has rolled out and taken it in himself, pitched the ball to Young[?], or otherwise done something just a little different than "what we do."

I distinctly remember Shaw, upon being hired, telling everyone that the Orange Bowl trophy was nice, but that we had to put it on the shelf, forget about it, and look forward.  What we did last year wasn't important to winning this year.  That sort of of stuff.  I've got no problem with that, but it also seems to me that reasoning should apply to play-calling as well.  As someone else noted, what's the point in having a laminated play-card the size of a posterboard entirely covered with writing in 10 point fonts when you've got basically one play that you try four times just to get four yards?

"What we do" used to be winning games like the one on Saturday [both last and next].  I certainly hope that's not also going to become simply "what we did."

[76lsjumb]

From today's SF Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...947963.php

This is the interesting/troublesome quote:

Coach David Shaw is already being second-guessed by many Cardinal fans for running Taylor four straight times up the middle from inside the Notre Dame 4-yard line in overtime.
With his back literally up against a wall outside the Stanford locker room, he said he "absolutely" had confidence that Taylor and his offensive line could get the final yards. "It's what we do," he said.

Unfortunately, it seems increasingly clear to me that, this season, the more accurate assessment would be: "It's what we DID."  Maybe I'm misremembering, but, over the course of this season, I recall a number of occasions where the up-the-middle push has either failed to gain the necessary 1-2 yards or just, just barely managed to get them.  Conversely, the short yardage plays that I recall having "worked" are the ones where Nunes has rolled out and taken it in himself, pitched the ball to Young[?], or otherwise done something just a little different than "what we do."

I distinctly remember Shaw, upon being hired, telling everyone that the Orange Bowl trophy was nice, but that we had to put it on the shelf, forget about it, and look forward.  What we did last year wasn't important to winning this year.  That sort of of stuff.  I've got no problem with that, but it also seems to me that reasoning should apply to play-calling as well.  As someone else noted, what's the point in having a laminated play-card the size of a posterboard entirely covered with writing in 10 point fonts when you've got basically one play that you try four times just to get four yards?

"What we do" used to be winning games like the one on Saturday [both last and next].  I certainly hope that's not also going to become simply "what we did."

[socalstanfan1]

I'm a big fan of all the jumbo packages and power football that Harbaugh and company brought to Stanford.  But Shaw's statements, made in August and early in the season, to the effect that the defenses can stack the box all they want, Stanford will continue to run the ball, sounds similar to the statements made by Mike Singletary and his offensive coordinator (Jimmy Ray Hart?) who found that strategy was a recipe for disaster.  In fact, if I were looking around for an offense that the current Cardinal offense resembled, it would be the Niners of the Singletary/Hart era.

It's good to be committed to the run.  Its asinine (to use a recently familiar term) to continue to run in the face of a stacked box, rather than getting imaginative and attacking the defense to force them to back the safeties up.

[socalstanfan1]

I'm a big fan of all the jumbo packages and power football that Harbaugh and company brought to Stanford.  But Shaw's statements, made in August and early in the season, to the effect that the defenses can stack the box all they want, Stanford will continue to run the ball, sounds similar to the statements made by Mike Singletary and his offensive coordinator (Jimmy Ray Hart?) who found that strategy was a recipe for disaster.  In fact, if I were looking around for an offense that the current Cardinal offense resembled, it would be the Niners of the Singletary/Hart era.

It's good to be committed to the run.  Its asinine (to use a recently familiar term) to continue to run in the face of a stacked box, rather than getting imaginative and attacking the defense to force them to back the safeties up.

[fullmetal]

I think it's the blocking schemes on those particular plays that are disastrous.  Straight ahead doesn't work so well when the opposing DL matches your OL for strength and intensity.  Try gaining numbers at the point of attack...pull a trap, counter, toss, sweep, etc., but stop with the Civil War-esque A/B-gap dives...

Sure DeCastro was a pulling guard non pareil, but don't tell me there's no one who can run those plays on this team.

[fullmetal]

I think it's the blocking schemes on those particular plays that are disastrous.  Straight ahead doesn't work so well when the opposing DL matches your OL for strength and intensity.  Try gaining numbers at the point of attack...pull a trap, counter, toss, sweep, etc., but stop with the Civil War-esque A/B-gap dives...

Sure DeCastro was a pulling guard non pareil, but don't tell me there's no one who can run those plays on this team.

[Viking_Guy]

I think the unimaginativeness is what's bothering me most.  In the Harbaugh/Roman version, everything was predicated on gaining an angle, an advantage, some kind of leverage against the defense.  And a LOT of it was by motion, resetting the line, starting the tight end split out wide then bringing him in tight or across the formation to hit the gap as another blocker.  Even when Stanford ran the same traditional power play, they often started in a different formation and forced the defense to shift.

Now, imagination seems to be limited to an unbalanced line (didn't we run both third and fourth down with Toilolo on the left side of an unbalanced line? Is that much of a clue that we'll run right?).

I'm not sure how much is innate conservatism (I also remember a much more conservative play-calling scheme with Luck in 2011 than in 2010) and how much is either not fully trusting Nunes or the O-Line to execute. 

But it seems as if being "committed to the run" has morphed into almost a machismo-laden "committed to the one running play" - and again I reiterate, it's hard to wear a team out when more than 2/3rds of your offensive series are 3 plays or less.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

I think the unimaginativeness is what's bothering me most.  In the Harbaugh/Roman version, everything was predicated on gaining an angle, an advantage, some kind of leverage against the defense.  And a LOT of it was by motion, resetting the line, starting the tight end split out wide then bringing him in tight or across the formation to hit the gap as another blocker.  Even when Stanford ran the same traditional power play, they often started in a different formation and forced the defense to shift.

Now, imagination seems to be limited to an unbalanced line (didn't we run both third and fourth down with Toilolo on the left side of an unbalanced line? Is that much of a clue that we'll run right?).

I'm not sure how much is innate conservatism (I also remember a much more conservative play-calling scheme with Luck in 2011 than in 2010) and how much is either not fully trusting Nunes or the O-Line to execute. 

But it seems as if being "committed to the run" has morphed into almost a machismo-laden "committed to the one running play" - and again I reiterate, it's hard to wear a team out when more than 2/3rds of your offensive series are 3 plays or less.

VG

[doug]

I am being challenged -- perhaps not unreasonably -- in another thread for saying Stanford football this year is boring to watch (no one seems to be challenging my related comment that it is frustrating). VG's comments re the lack of imagination (which I have also characterized as revealing Shaw's conservatism, don't-make-mistakes, play-not-to-lose approach) express perhaps better than I did of what I find boring.

[doug]

I am being challenged -- perhaps not unreasonably -- in another thread for saying Stanford football this year is boring to watch (no one seems to be challenging my related comment that it is frustrating). VG's comments re the lack of imagination (which I have also characterized as revealing Shaw's conservatism, don't-make-mistakes, play-not-to-lose approach) express perhaps better than I did of what I find boring.

[fullmetal]

i'll back doug up.  the OL blocking is mostly boring and unimaginative.  and guess what?  opposing defenses are taking advantage!  VG is correct about the offenses of recent history.  we're missing that right now.

full credit to Stanford for executing a Harbaugh-esque run play on the last scoring play vs. Arizona.  now THAT was a run play as it should be called.

[fullmetal]

i'll back doug up.  the OL blocking is mostly boring and unimaginative.  and guess what?  opposing defenses are taking advantage!  VG is correct about the offenses of recent history.  we're missing that right now.

full credit to Stanford for executing a Harbaugh-esque run play on the last scoring play vs. Arizona.  now THAT was a run play as it should be called.

[ChicagoCard]

I thought Doug's comments in another string on Nunes and the conservative playcalling were good comments. I personally like Stanford's prowess in the defensive front 7 and offensive line, and that with so many spread teams in the Pac-12 that the Stanford identity is unique and a source of pride. Well, there's Oregon St. I think they're in a tough spot in that neither of the starting guards from last year are in those positions any longer. Clearly the o-line will be frightening to opponents next year (Stanford will have 3 excellent tackles and will use them). But there does seem to be something a bit off about some decisions and playcalling. This team has a great defense and the offense just shouldn't be as listless as it has been. I think using Hogan more, not necessarily as the sole starter, would give the team a boost in productivity. But I suppose that's also what makes it interesting, to see if there can be progress offensively through the season.

All threads seem to be going to the same point... http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#lastPost

Edit: Hesitate to mention it but 2011 was the first as offensive coordinator for Hamilton. At the time of Harbaugh's departure I had seen it mentioned in a few places how much an influence in the development of the offense that Greg Roman had had.

[ChicagoCard]

I thought Doug's comments in another string on Nunes and the conservative playcalling were good comments. I personally like Stanford's prowess in the defensive front 7 and offensive line, and that with so many spread teams in the Pac-12 that the Stanford identity is unique and a source of pride. Well, there's Oregon St. I think they're in a tough spot in that neither of the starting guards from last year are in those positions any longer. Clearly the o-line will be frightening to opponents next year (Stanford will have 3 excellent tackles and will use them). But there does seem to be something a bit off about some decisions and playcalling. This team has a great defense and the offense just shouldn't be as listless as it has been. I think using Hogan more, not necessarily as the sole starter, would give the team a boost in productivity. But I suppose that's also what makes it interesting, to see if there can be progress offensively through the season.

All threads seem to be going to the same point... http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...l#lastPost

Edit: Hesitate to mention it but 2011 was the first as offensive coordinator for Hamilton. At the time of Harbaugh's departure I had seen it mentioned in a few places how much an influence in the development of the offense that Greg Roman had had.

[fullmetal]

Haha, no, the offensive coordinator in 2011 was Andrew Luck ;)

[fullmetal]

Haha, no, the offensive coordinator in 2011 was Andrew Luck ;)

[ChicagoCard]

Haha, no, the offensive coordinator in 2011 was Andrew Luck ;)

Oh right, well maybe he'll pursue coaching after his NFL career if not his academic focus.

[ChicagoCard]

Haha, no, the offensive coordinator in 2011 was Andrew Luck ;)

Oh right, well maybe he'll pursue coaching after his NFL career if not his academic focus.

[fullmetal]

He might turn into a hybrid of Harbaugh and Shaw with the best elements of both.

[fullmetal]

He might turn into a hybrid of Harbaugh and Shaw with the best elements of both.

[76lsjumb]

In a couple of years I expect Luck to design his own stadium, in which he will also coach the team AND be its QB, thereby taking over the title of "the most interesting man in the world"...

[76lsjumb]

In a couple of years I expect Luck to design his own stadium, in which he will also coach the team AND be its QB, thereby taking over the title of "the most interesting man in the world"...

[yvonne]

He doesn't always call plays, but when he does, he prefers spider 3 Y banana.

[yvonne]

He doesn't always call plays, but when he does, he prefers spider 3 Y banana.

[fullmetal]

Speaking of spider 3 Y banana, Ryan Hewitt has caught all of two passes this season.  I'm guessing this play doesn't get run very often these days.

[fullmetal]

Speaking of spider 3 Y banana, Ryan Hewitt has caught all of two passes this season.  I'm guessing this play doesn't get run very often these days.

[washingtonismoney]

Speaking of spider 3 Y banana, Ryan Hewitt has caught all of two passes this season.  I'm guessing this play doesn't get run very often these days.

It's been run...just defended. (well, one time it got run Nunes hit Ertz for 15 or so instead.)

[washingtonismoney]

Speaking of spider 3 Y banana, Ryan Hewitt has caught all of two passes this season.  I'm guessing this play doesn't get run very often these days.

It's been run...just defended. (well, one time it got run Nunes hit Ertz for 15 or so instead.)

[stan01]

I was hoping to see some three-tight end formations with frosh Luke Kaumatule as the third guy.

[stan01]

I was hoping to see some three-tight end formations with frosh Luke Kaumatule as the third guy.

[Oasis]

Deception isn't inconsistent with power.  What bothers me about the last series Saturday was the lack of anything to distract the defense from simply putting everybody on the line of scrimmage, knowing we were going to run straight at them.  No subtlety or deception at all.  Stanford's would-be blockers became impediments for Taylor -- who in my opinion scored despite having to fight over the bodies of his teammates to get there.  Ponderous, slow, predictable.  That shouldn't be "what we do."

[Oasis]

Deception isn't inconsistent with power.  What bothers me about the last series Saturday was the lack of anything to distract the defense from simply putting everybody on the line of scrimmage, knowing we were going to run straight at them.  No subtlety or deception at all.  Stanford's would-be blockers became impediments for Taylor -- who in my opinion scored despite having to fight over the bodies of his teammates to get there.  Ponderous, slow, predictable.  That shouldn't be "what we do."

[Hank 91]

Wow -- I had actually forgotten about all the motion we used to see along the offensive line. It would be nice to see some of that again. We all know the obvious problem -- there's no threat of the pass. Even in the old days, with the jumbo package stacked up, there was always the danger of a tight end sneaking out for a pass. There's no reason we couldn't show that from time to time.

What I'd really like to see, though, would be a seven-man line, plus Ryan Hewitt. In the backfield, two backs -- Taylor and Kelsey Young. Motion Hewitt off the line to bring an extra blocker into the backfield. With this look, the defense has to prepare for the usual -- Taylor up the middle -- but there's also the danger of the pitch to fastest player on the field, Kelsey Young.

Something like that wouldn't necessarily keep safeties back, but it would prevent all eleven defenders from fearlessly crashing the line of scrimmage.

[Hank 91]

Wow -- I had actually forgotten about all the motion we used to see along the offensive line. It would be nice to see some of that again. We all know the obvious problem -- there's no threat of the pass. Even in the old days, with the jumbo package stacked up, there was always the danger of a tight end sneaking out for a pass. There's no reason we couldn't show that from time to time.

What I'd really like to see, though, would be a seven-man line, plus Ryan Hewitt. In the backfield, two backs -- Taylor and Kelsey Young. Motion Hewitt off the line to bring an extra blocker into the backfield. With this look, the defense has to prepare for the usual -- Taylor up the middle -- but there's also the danger of the pitch to fastest player on the field, Kelsey Young.

Something like that wouldn't necessarily keep safeties back, but it would prevent all eleven defenders from fearlessly crashing the line of scrimmage.