[OutsiderFan]

With the exception of the curious wasting of time at the end of the first half, and running wildcat on 1st down from the ASU 11 after the long Rector pass play on 2nd and 20, that was the most awesome game plan and play calling from Stanford's offense all season.  But man was the execution great as well. 

Some may have hated the play-action passes that led to sacks and wished those were runs, but it was all done to keep ASU off balance and make them pay for their aggressiveness. Hogan was fantastic with his long ball accuracy, and over 10 yds per attempt is crazy productive. 

How many stretch plays has Stanford run with Gaffney this year?  How many on 2nd and 17?  Loved the end around to Montgomery.  ASU was expecting a QB run on the 78 yd back breaker to Cajuste.  Just an awesome job by Stanford's offense, and for me, their best of the season.  brobdingnagian props to Shaw, Bloomgren, Pritchard and Sanford!

[OutsiderFan]

With the exception of the curious wasting of time at the end of the first half, and running wildcat on 1st down from the ASU 11 after the long Rector pass play on 2nd and 20, that was the most awesome game plan and play calling from Stanford's offense all season.  But man was the execution great as well. 

Some may have hated the play-action passes that led to sacks and wished those were runs, but it was all done to keep ASU off balance and make them pay for their aggressiveness. Hogan was fantastic with his long ball accuracy, and over 10 yds per attempt is crazy productive. 

How many stretch plays has Stanford run with Gaffney this year?  How many on 2nd and 17?  Loved the end around to Montgomery.  ASU was expecting a QB run on the 78 yd back breaker to Cajuste.  Just an awesome job by Stanford's offense, and for me, their best of the season.  brobdingnagian props to Shaw, Bloomgren, Pritchard and Sanford!

[stupac2]

My one complaint was that there was no check-down option (that I could see, at least) on some of those sacks. With a defense as aggressive as ASU a quick throw to a RB can easily gain oodles of yards. But oh well, by and large it was great.

[stupac2]

My one complaint was that there was no check-down option (that I could see, at least) on some of those sacks. With a defense as aggressive as ASU a quick throw to a RB can easily gain oodles of yards. But oh well, by and large it was great.

[Gauss]

I still think people are way too influenced by the outcome (which also depends on the execution) of the play. This game's play calling was, perhaps even somewhat better that in other games, but not by much. The big difference is that in this case we made the plays (helped by the comeback of Cajuste, among other things), and in other games we did not execute (see Ty's drops Vs SC).

If you went by some people's reactions, you'd think Shaw's changes from being a genius to his silly evil twin week by week.

With the exception of the curious wasting of time at the end of the first half.

That, in my opinion, was the right call, and in this case, the outcome even proved it to be so!
We had a 3rd and 7 with 34 seconds to go, and ASU had all 3 timeouts. If we had called a timeout right there, and missed the 3rd down conversion (as we did), we would have punted. ASU would call a TO, and have 30 seconds + 2 timeouts to try to get points.

Unlikely they'd drive 70 yards in 30 seconds, but I prefer the chances of ensuring them not getting points + us perhaps getting the hail mary.

My one complaint was that there was no check-down option (that I could see, at least) on some of those sacks. With a defense as aggressive as ASU a quick throw to a RB can easily gain oodles of yards. But oh well, by and large it was great.

The RBs had more than they could handle stopping ASU's blitzing. Not sure we could spare a check-down option.

[Gauss]

I still think people are way too influenced by the outcome (which also depends on the execution) of the play. This game's play calling was, perhaps even somewhat better that in other games, but not by much. The big difference is that in this case we made the plays (helped by the comeback of Cajuste, among other things), and in other games we did not execute (see Ty's drops Vs SC).

If you went by some people's reactions, you'd think Shaw's changes from being a genius to his silly evil twin week by week.

With the exception of the curious wasting of time at the end of the first half.

That, in my opinion, was the right call, and in this case, the outcome even proved it to be so!
We had a 3rd and 7 with 34 seconds to go, and ASU had all 3 timeouts. If we had called a timeout right there, and missed the 3rd down conversion (as we did), we would have punted. ASU would call a TO, and have 30 seconds + 2 timeouts to try to get points.

Unlikely they'd drive 70 yards in 30 seconds, but I prefer the chances of ensuring them not getting points + us perhaps getting the hail mary.

My one complaint was that there was no check-down option (that I could see, at least) on some of those sacks. With a defense as aggressive as ASU a quick throw to a RB can easily gain oodles of yards. But oh well, by and large it was great.

The RBs had more than they could handle stopping ASU's blitzing. Not sure we could spare a check-down option.

[OutsiderFan]

There is more than one way to skin a cat.  Whereas a team like Auburn has a handful of plays, Stanford has a bushel of them.  This means for Stanford play calling is a much bigger deal.  Execution is important no matter what the style, but Stanford can't line up in heavy sets and be effective unless it can mix up the play calling.

Even having Gaffney appear to have a designed throw out of the wildcat was great.  Too bad he didn't see how open Hewitt was, but that is a great play call, even though it wasn't executed well.  There were lots of examples of breaking tendencies in the game, and that speaks to game planning and play calling.  Even the WR screen to Rector was a great call because how many times has Rector caught a WR screen this year?  All his receptions have been down the field this year to date IIRC.

I'm pretty sure if you asked ASU's defenders they'd say Stanford did many things on offense they hadn't seen on video before, both in terms of plays called and plays called in certain down and distances based on formation and personnel groupings.

I don't think this point is easily glossed over.  Not only do you have to know yourself, but you have to know the other team to even be in position to draw up a great game plan.  Stanford was prepared for every situation it faced last night, and because of that they executed almost flawlessly on offense. That means this game was won in video study, in coaching meetings and in practice last week, particularly on the offensive side of things.  Because we didn't hear much about ASU missing Grice this week.  All we heard about was ASU having three new guys they didn't have on defense in the first meeting and how they had won 7 home games in a row, etc.

Maybe ASU should have kept the same personnel as in September, because they lost by a wider margin in December.  IMO it was in large part due to a tremendous offensive game plan, great play calling, and superior execution as a result of being incredibly well prepared.  The outcomes didn't make the play calling great.  The great preparation and play calling enabled the outcomes.

I'll even go one step further...

Because this was such a clear demonstration of a win by superior game planning and preparation, it demonstrates growth in David Shaw as a head coach, and solidifies him as the #1 head football coach in the PAC-12. 

[OutsiderFan]

There is more than one way to skin a cat.  Whereas a team like Auburn has a handful of plays, Stanford has a bushel of them.  This means for Stanford play calling is a much bigger deal.  Execution is important no matter what the style, but Stanford can't line up in heavy sets and be effective unless it can mix up the play calling.

Even having Gaffney appear to have a designed throw out of the wildcat was great.  Too bad he didn't see how open Hewitt was, but that is a great play call, even though it wasn't executed well.  There were lots of examples of breaking tendencies in the game, and that speaks to game planning and play calling.  Even the WR screen to Rector was a great call because how many times has Rector caught a WR screen this year?  All his receptions have been down the field this year to date IIRC.

I'm pretty sure if you asked ASU's defenders they'd say Stanford did many things on offense they hadn't seen on video before, both in terms of plays called and plays called in certain down and distances based on formation and personnel groupings.

I don't think this point is easily glossed over.  Not only do you have to know yourself, but you have to know the other team to even be in position to draw up a great game plan.  Stanford was prepared for every situation it faced last night, and because of that they executed almost flawlessly on offense. That means this game was won in video study, in coaching meetings and in practice last week, particularly on the offensive side of things.  Because we didn't hear much about ASU missing Grice this week.  All we heard about was ASU having three new guys they didn't have on defense in the first meeting and how they had won 7 home games in a row, etc.

Maybe ASU should have kept the same personnel as in September, because they lost by a wider margin in December.  IMO it was in large part due to a tremendous offensive game plan, great play calling, and superior execution as a result of being incredibly well prepared.  The outcomes didn't make the play calling great.  The great preparation and play calling enabled the outcomes.

I'll even go one step further...

Because this was such a clear demonstration of a win by superior game planning and preparation, it demonstrates growth in David Shaw as a head coach, and solidifies him as the #1 head football coach in the PAC-12. 

[tfeldstein]

OF, nice post.  Was a great game plan and augers well for the RB. When Stanford prepares it's execution is stunning. I think in reality David plays it very very close to the vest and wants to be sure he has bullets left for games like this. It means that we win a lot of close games we should have more comfortable margins and we play it so close to the line that we lose to WA and ND in 12 and Utah and SC in 13 when a play or two goes the wrong way. I can live with that if it works 10 out of 12 times and yields 3 BCS games in a row. Going to the Natty requires an easy schedule or incredible luck and we don't have either. 

[tfeldstein]

OF, nice post.  Was a great game plan and augers well for the RB. When Stanford prepares it's execution is stunning. I think in reality David plays it very very close to the vest and wants to be sure he has bullets left for games like this. It means that we win a lot of close games we should have more comfortable margins and we play it so close to the line that we lose to WA and ND in 12 and Utah and SC in 13 when a play or two goes the wrong way. I can live with that if it works 10 out of 12 times and yields 3 BCS games in a row. Going to the Natty requires an easy schedule or incredible luck and we don't have either. 

[stupac2]

The RBs had more than they could handle stopping ASU's blitzing. Not sure we could spare a check-down option.

A checkdown doesn't necessarily have to be an RB, you could have some kind of safety valve like a short WR route. It looked to me like every single sack had two long-developing passes and nothing else, where a short slant would've gone for brobdingnagian yards because there was no one in the middle of the field.

Like I said it's a minor quibble because you don't necessarily know they're going to bring a jailbreak blitz on that particular play, but it seemed pretty consistent. It also probably doesn't matter going forward because I don't think MSU blitzes like that.

[stupac2]

The RBs had more than they could handle stopping ASU's blitzing. Not sure we could spare a check-down option.

A checkdown doesn't necessarily have to be an RB, you could have some kind of safety valve like a short WR route. It looked to me like every single sack had two long-developing passes and nothing else, where a short slant would've gone for brobdingnagian yards because there was no one in the middle of the field.

Like I said it's a minor quibble because you don't necessarily know they're going to bring a jailbreak blitz on that particular play, but it seemed pretty consistent. It also probably doesn't matter going forward because I don't think MSU blitzes like that.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=Gauss link=topic=9070.msg77197#msg77197 date=1386486503]The RBs had more than they could handle stopping ASU's blitzing. Not sure we could spare a check-down option.

A checkdown doesn't necessarily have to be an RB, you could have some kind of safety valve like a short WR route. It looked to me like every single sack had two long-developing passes and nothing else, where a short slant would've gone for brobdingnagian yards because there was no one in the middle of the field.

Like I said it's a minor quibble because you don't necessarily know they're going to bring a jailbreak blitz on that particular play, but it seemed pretty consistent. It also probably doesn't matter going forward because I don't think MSU blitzes like that.
[/quote]

Yeah, agree with Gauss here. We did have a couple shorter routes off of play action -- Monty and Pratt, IIRC -- but in general with Hogan's tendency to go up-and-down, I think you try and punish ASU's effrontery to the maximum degree possible. Wouldn't have been possible last year, and wouldn't have been desirable with Luck, but it fit this year's talent well, I thought.


With respect to the larger point, I'm in between the Gauss and OF poles. There were some novelties -- and they worked well, in general. But the overall approach was the same -- power running and bombs. We played like the best versions of ourselves.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=Gauss link=topic=9070.msg77197#msg77197 date=1386486503]The RBs had more than they could handle stopping ASU's blitzing. Not sure we could spare a check-down option.

A checkdown doesn't necessarily have to be an RB, you could have some kind of safety valve like a short WR route. It looked to me like every single sack had two long-developing passes and nothing else, where a short slant would've gone for brobdingnagian yards because there was no one in the middle of the field.

Like I said it's a minor quibble because you don't necessarily know they're going to bring a jailbreak blitz on that particular play, but it seemed pretty consistent. It also probably doesn't matter going forward because I don't think MSU blitzes like that.
[/quote]

Yeah, agree with Gauss here. We did have a couple shorter routes off of play action -- Monty and Pratt, IIRC -- but in general with Hogan's tendency to go up-and-down, I think you try and punish ASU's effrontery to the maximum degree possible. Wouldn't have been possible last year, and wouldn't have been desirable with Luck, but it fit this year's talent well, I thought.


With respect to the larger point, I'm in between the Gauss and OF poles. There were some novelties -- and they worked well, in general. But the overall approach was the same -- power running and bombs. We played like the best versions of ourselves.

[DC]

All season long I've wondered why we nearly always run by rb is between the tackles and that we never try a sweep.  I was thrilled to see us run wide on the first series which resulted in a td, but I don't recall us trying it again.

Perhaps the staff doesn't think Gaffney is that fast and is a power runner.  However, a couple years ago every time Wilkerson was in, it would either be a sweep to the left or to the right.  Now, Wilkerson's runs are between the tackles too.  (Btw, Wilkerson looked good last night except for the near fumble.)

I guess the staff figures our outside runs are better done by a reverse to Montgomery or a fly sweep by Young or Seale, but when opponents are stacking the box and you don't want to take the risk of Hogan passing, it seems like an occasional changeup by the rb other than the wildcat might not be a bad idea. 

[DC]

All season long I've wondered why we nearly always run by rb is between the tackles and that we never try a sweep.  I was thrilled to see us run wide on the first series which resulted in a td, but I don't recall us trying it again.

Perhaps the staff doesn't think Gaffney is that fast and is a power runner.  However, a couple years ago every time Wilkerson was in, it would either be a sweep to the left or to the right.  Now, Wilkerson's runs are between the tackles too.  (Btw, Wilkerson looked good last night except for the near fumble.)

I guess the staff figures our outside runs are better done by a reverse to Montgomery or a fly sweep by Young or Seale, but when opponents are stacking the box and you don't want to take the risk of Hogan passing, it seems like an occasional changeup by the rb other than the wildcat might not be a bad idea. 

[CowboyIndian]

Was a great game plan and augers well for the RB.

Shaw had to 'drill' that into them.

[CowboyIndian]

Was a great game plan and augers well for the RB.

Shaw had to 'drill' that into them.