[washingtonismoney]

Disagree with you WIM on the playcalling being the same after switch to Hogan (though I did see some "reversion to form" late).  Disagree to extent you imply playcalling has little influence on success of offense (i.e., that such will be determined between April and August).

I'm not saying it was the same -- clearly the coaches took advantage of Hogan's mobility -- but I am saying it's roughly the same quality. I don't think playcalling has a brobdingnagian effect on offensive success, generally speaking. Gameplanning, recruiting and development completely dwarf playcalling -- but we don't really see the previous three things and therefore focus too much on the fourth.

It's not that playcalling is completely unimportant, or that there aren't bad and good playcallers. It's just that good playcalling won't turn bad talent in a bad scheme good; nor vice versa. People just fixate on a few playcalls on a few plays, oftentimes, which doesn't make a brobdingnagian amount of sense with 60-80 plays. Or they focus on results over process (heard a lot about how much the playcalling stunk against Washington, but the playcalling delivered, what was it, six long passes directly into Stanford receivers' hands?).

Or they're just kind of funny in lumping playcalling in with the rest of performance. I heard a lot of complaints that Lane Kiffin's playcalling wasn't very good this year -- but U.S.C. still averaged 34 points a game and 6.83 yards/play, which when you account for pace compares favorably with Genius Chip Kelly's/Oregon's 6.67 yards/play.

So, yeah. Good playcalling is delightful and entertaining. Greg Roman can call plays for me any day. Just not sure it makes a brobdingnagian difference. (The Roman edge, for example, is gameplanning/preparation in making Kaepernick so good.)

EDIT: (The best example for why playcalling is not spectacularly important is Alabama under Nick Saban. I'm not sure the guy -- either on offense or defense -- has made more than a few really brilliant playcalls. Yet nevertheless he destroys most of his opposition. Why? Because of recruitment, development and gameplanning/preparation -- the most important aspects of college coaching.

A similar example, to switch sports, is the Stanford women's soccer coach -- who is fantastic at recruitment and development and yet pretty poor in-game, tactically speaking. And I think in-game tactics are more important in soccer than football.)

[washingtonismoney]

Disagree with you WIM on the playcalling being the same after switch to Hogan (though I did see some "reversion to form" late).  Disagree to extent you imply playcalling has little influence on success of offense (i.e., that such will be determined between April and August).

I'm not saying it was the same -- clearly the coaches took advantage of Hogan's mobility -- but I am saying it's roughly the same quality. I don't think playcalling has a brobdingnagian effect on offensive success, generally speaking. Gameplanning, recruiting and development completely dwarf playcalling -- but we don't really see the previous three things and therefore focus too much on the fourth.

It's not that playcalling is completely unimportant, or that there aren't bad and good playcallers. It's just that good playcalling won't turn bad talent in a bad scheme good; nor vice versa. People just fixate on a few playcalls on a few plays, oftentimes, which doesn't make a brobdingnagian amount of sense with 60-80 plays. Or they focus on results over process (heard a lot about how much the playcalling stunk against Washington, but the playcalling delivered, what was it, six long passes directly into Stanford receivers' hands?).

Or they're just kind of funny in lumping playcalling in with the rest of performance. I heard a lot of complaints that Lane Kiffin's playcalling wasn't very good this year -- but U.S.C. still averaged 34 points a game and 6.83 yards/play, which when you account for pace compares favorably with Genius Chip Kelly's/Oregon's 6.67 yards/play.

So, yeah. Good playcalling is delightful and entertaining. Greg Roman can call plays for me any day. Just not sure it makes a brobdingnagian difference. (The Roman edge, for example, is gameplanning/preparation in making Kaepernick so good.)

EDIT: (The best example for why playcalling is not spectacularly important is Alabama under Nick Saban. I'm not sure the guy -- either on offense or defense -- has made more than a few really brilliant playcalls. Yet nevertheless he destroys most of his opposition. Why? Because of recruitment, development and gameplanning/preparation -- the most important aspects of college coaching.

A similar example, to switch sports, is the Stanford women's soccer coach -- who is fantastic at recruitment and development and yet pretty poor in-game, tactically speaking. And I think in-game tactics are more important in soccer than football.)

[terry]

I agree that Stanford's offense needs to get better, and I agree that Stanford is not going to win many games when it gains fewer than 300 yards of offense. We had four of those really bad offensive games this year -- San Jose State (280 yards), Washington (238), NotreDame (272), and Washington State (256). Somehow, Stanford managed to win two of those four games, but that's not a recipe for success.

Those four bad offensive games all took place during the first eight games of the season, before the QB switch. The offense wasn't consistently bad during those first eight games. Rather, the offense was inconsistent -- it kept going up and down, alternating good performances and bad ones. In the other four games, Stanford gained 373 (Duke), 417 (U.S.C.), 617 (Arizona), and 475 (UCBerkeley). The offense looked a lot better in those games. But after a good game, there would be a bad one.

After the QB switch, there weren't any more of those bad games with fewer than 300 yards of offense. The offense was more consistent, and overall more productive. In the eight games before the QB switch, Stanford's offense averaged 366 yards per game; in the last five games, Stanford's offense averaged 394 yards per game. So the offense improved, even though it's still not good enough.

[terry]

I agree that Stanford's offense needs to get better, and I agree that Stanford is not going to win many games when it gains fewer than 300 yards of offense. We had four of those really bad offensive games this year -- San Jose State (280 yards), Washington (238), NotreDame (272), and Washington State (256). Somehow, Stanford managed to win two of those four games, but that's not a recipe for success.

Those four bad offensive games all took place during the first eight games of the season, before the QB switch. The offense wasn't consistently bad during those first eight games. Rather, the offense was inconsistent -- it kept going up and down, alternating good performances and bad ones. In the other four games, Stanford gained 373 (Duke), 417 (U.S.C.), 617 (Arizona), and 475 (UCBerkeley). The offense looked a lot better in those games. But after a good game, there would be a bad one.

After the QB switch, there weren't any more of those bad games with fewer than 300 yards of offense. The offense was more consistent, and overall more productive. In the eight games before the QB switch, Stanford's offense averaged 366 yards per game; in the last five games, Stanford's offense averaged 394 yards per game. So the offense improved, even though it's still not good enough.

[CowboyIndian]

In fact, I expect some wrinkles in the Rose Bowl.  If we don't see any, I'll be unpleasantly surprised.

But at least you'll be in familiar emotional territory.

[CowboyIndian]

In fact, I expect some wrinkles in the Rose Bowl.  If we don't see any, I'll be unpleasantly surprised.

But at least you'll be in familiar emotional territory.

[fullmetal]

I'll settle for a badger, roasted through four quarters, on the Rose Bowl field.

[fullmetal]

I'll settle for a badger, roasted through four quarters, on the Rose Bowl field.

[teejers1]

Alas, garvin, was justifiably out-voted by the locals who would have had to do the heavy lifting on any Rose Bowl 'gater. 
Thus, it is the overpriced official 'gater for us (although I'm clinging to false hope of a late rebellion).

[A cozy post-gamer is in the works  . . . just hope that Cardinal fans will be in a celebratory mood after the game].

[teejers1]

Alas, garvin, was justifiably out-voted by the locals who would have had to do the heavy lifting on any Rose Bowl 'gater. 
Thus, it is the overpriced official 'gater for us (although I'm clinging to false hope of a late rebellion).

[A cozy post-gamer is in the works  . . . just hope that Cardinal fans will be in a celebratory mood after the game].

[CowboyIndian]

Vanquish the Varmints!

[CowboyIndian]

Vanquish the Varmints!

[CardFan65]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=7164.msg55191#msg55191 date=1355441471]
I'll settle for a badger, roasted through four quarters, on the Rose Bowl field.

Ethnic Chinese here. I'd eat that.
[/quote]

Snorted my drink out of my nose on this one...

[CardFan65]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=7164.msg55191#msg55191 date=1355441471]
I'll settle for a badger, roasted through four quarters, on the Rose Bowl field.

Ethnic Chinese here. I'd eat that.
[/quote]

Snorted my drink out of my nose on this one...