[TChickens]

First, I think we've been spoiled by Luck.
Second, he does seem to be trying to "chuck" the ball more. Bigger/Longer wind-up. Most will lose some accuracy doing this.
Third, he also seems to be less inclined to tuck and run... I wonder if this is a directive from coaches. Its what was lacking in Nunes' game and why Hogan provided the team with sustained drives last season.
Lastly, the play calling, I think, is the biggest culprit to our offensive woes. I get that that aspect of football is the most scrutinized and second guessed, but we are stubbornly conservative. I know this last point doesn't really address the OP's question, but I find it more frustrating than Hogan's play.

[TChickens]

First, I think we've been spoiled by Luck.
Second, he does seem to be trying to "chuck" the ball more. Bigger/Longer wind-up. Most will lose some accuracy doing this.
Third, he also seems to be less inclined to tuck and run... I wonder if this is a directive from coaches. Its what was lacking in Nunes' game and why Hogan provided the team with sustained drives last season.
Lastly, the play calling, I think, is the biggest culprit to our offensive woes. I get that that aspect of football is the most scrutinized and second guessed, but we are stubbornly conservative. I know this last point doesn't really address the OP's question, but I find it more frustrating than Hogan's play.

[washingtonismoney]

Lastly, the play calling, I think, is the biggest culprit to our offensive woes. I get that that aspect of football is the most scrutinized and second guessed, but we are stubbornly conservative. I know this last point doesn't really address the OP's question, but I find it more frustrating than Hogan's play.

I don't think we were stubbornly conservative last night. In fact, if anything, stubborn conservatism would have suited us better -- we didn't run power enough, despite Gaffney running through their defense like Mongols through the steppe.

To me, the problem with the offense is that we:
a) aren't playing the right personnel
b) aren't accentuating the strengths of the players out there. e

[washingtonismoney]

Lastly, the play calling, I think, is the biggest culprit to our offensive woes. I get that that aspect of football is the most scrutinized and second guessed, but we are stubbornly conservative. I know this last point doesn't really address the OP's question, but I find it more frustrating than Hogan's play.

I don't think we were stubbornly conservative last night. In fact, if anything, stubborn conservatism would have suited us better -- we didn't run power enough, despite Gaffney running through their defense like Mongols through the steppe.

To me, the problem with the offense is that we:
a) aren't playing the right personnel
b) aren't accentuating the strengths of the players out there. e

[sinclairchang]

[quote author=TChickens link=topic=8685.msg72838#msg72838 date=1382924939]



To me, the problem with the offense is that we:
a) aren't playing the right personnel
b) aren't accentuating the strengths of the players out there. e

[/quote]

Less Anthony Wilkerson, not particularly productive so far this year and doesn't have any eligibility left after this year

lets see what Remound Wright and young Barry Sanders can do for us.

[sinclairchang]

[quote author=TChickens link=topic=8685.msg72838#msg72838 date=1382924939]



To me, the problem with the offense is that we:
a) aren't playing the right personnel
b) aren't accentuating the strengths of the players out there. e

[/quote]

Less Anthony Wilkerson, not particularly productive so far this year and doesn't have any eligibility left after this year

lets see what Remound Wright and young Barry Sanders can do for us.

[TChickens]

[quote author=TChickens link=topic=8685.msg72838#msg72838 date=1382924939]

Lastly, the play calling, I think, is the biggest culprit to our offensive woes. I get that that aspect of football is the most scrutinized and second guessed, but we are stubbornly conservative. I know this last point doesn't really address the OP's question, but I find it more frustrating than Hogan's play.

I don't think we were stubbornly conservative last night. In fact, if anything, stubborn conservatism would have suited us better -- we didn't run power enough, despite Gaffney running through their defense like Mongols through the steppe.

To me, the problem with the offense is that we:
a) aren't playing the right personnel
b) aren't accentuating the strengths of the players out there. e
[/quote]

...Yeah, my last point was more a generalization of the season, and even Shaw's tenure as HC. Referring to needing sustained drives with the lead, instead going 3 and out to let teams creep into the game. Predictability. Obvious personnel packages. The "Wildcat".

[TChickens]

[quote author=TChickens link=topic=8685.msg72838#msg72838 date=1382924939]

Lastly, the play calling, I think, is the biggest culprit to our offensive woes. I get that that aspect of football is the most scrutinized and second guessed, but we are stubbornly conservative. I know this last point doesn't really address the OP's question, but I find it more frustrating than Hogan's play.

I don't think we were stubbornly conservative last night. In fact, if anything, stubborn conservatism would have suited us better -- we didn't run power enough, despite Gaffney running through their defense like Mongols through the steppe.

To me, the problem with the offense is that we:
a) aren't playing the right personnel
b) aren't accentuating the strengths of the players out there. e
[/quote]

...Yeah, my last point was more a generalization of the season, and even Shaw's tenure as HC. Referring to needing sustained drives with the lead, instead going 3 and out to let teams creep into the game. Predictability. Obvious personnel packages. The "Wildcat".

[CompSci87]

Less Anthony Wilkerson, not particularly productive so far this year and doesn't have any eligibility left after this year

I don't think Wilk had a carry last night. So you have part of your wish already.

[CompSci87]

Less Anthony Wilkerson, not particularly productive so far this year and doesn't have any eligibility left after this year

I don't think Wilk had a carry last night. So you have part of your wish already.

[washingtonismoney]

...Yeah, my last point was more a generalization of the season, and even Shaw's tenure as HC. Referring to needing sustained drives with the lead, instead going 3 and out to let teams creep into the game. Predictability. Obvious personnel packages. The "Wildcat".

That's fine, but I think the word conservative has become pretty meaningless in football commentary generally and with respect to Shaw especially.

It's hard to see how "going 3 and out" is a conservative or aggressive value -- it sounds instead more like bad football -- to take one example from your list. That's just an offensive problem, and one that afflicts aggressive managers as well as conservative ones.

At any rate, Shaw's image as conservative stick-in-the-mud means that his conservative errors will be accentuated, whereas his aggressive errors or conservative successes are ignored. Take for instance the climatic portion of the Utah game, which were not exactly chapter and verse from the Gospel of Bo Schembechler.

If I had to nominate one word for automatic replacement from the software,* it'd be "conservative": depriving the world of one more cliche might stimulate better thought.

*(though not really. In general software replacement is annoying.)

[washingtonismoney]

...Yeah, my last point was more a generalization of the season, and even Shaw's tenure as HC. Referring to needing sustained drives with the lead, instead going 3 and out to let teams creep into the game. Predictability. Obvious personnel packages. The "Wildcat".

That's fine, but I think the word conservative has become pretty meaningless in football commentary generally and with respect to Shaw especially.

It's hard to see how "going 3 and out" is a conservative or aggressive value -- it sounds instead more like bad football -- to take one example from your list. That's just an offensive problem, and one that afflicts aggressive managers as well as conservative ones.

At any rate, Shaw's image as conservative stick-in-the-mud means that his conservative errors will be accentuated, whereas his aggressive errors or conservative successes are ignored. Take for instance the climatic portion of the Utah game, which were not exactly chapter and verse from the Gospel of Bo Schembechler.

If I had to nominate one word for automatic replacement from the software,* it'd be "conservative": depriving the world of one more cliche might stimulate better thought.

*(though not really. In general software replacement is annoying.)

[81alum]

I think the correct word is "predictable" rather than "conservative."

Shaw does not mind being predictable if he thinks that the power run can succeed even when the other team expects it.  In fact, he relishes succeeding with power even when it is expected.  He also believes that it is often worth failing with power repeatedly during the game because it wears down defenses and helps power to work well in the 4th quarter when it is most needed.  The underlying philosophy animating the whole offense is physical domination that should not require deception or unpredictability.  It is also calculated to produce mental exhaustion and fear in the opponents as the game wears on and they lose their confidence in their ability to stop the run, leading to mental errors and longer and longer runs for us.

Last night, I think this philosophy was right, and we might have done better yet had we stuck with it more completely.

Unfortunately, while our Woody Hayes/Bo Schembechler offense was "so old that it was new" when Harbaugh and Toby first made it work, it has been around the Pac 12 long enough now that any opposing coach has had years to scheme to stop it.  While not all of them have the personnel needed, most of them can shut down power if they are willing to put 8 or 9 in the box.  With Luck, that was not a problem.  The threat of Luck prevented them from almost ever selling out to stop the run. 

It still works just so long as we have a passing game that can punish 8 men in the box.  Hogan does not have to be good enough to win the game with his arm.  He has to be just good enough to badly punish defenses that overload to stop the run.

[81alum]

I think the correct word is "predictable" rather than "conservative."

Shaw does not mind being predictable if he thinks that the power run can succeed even when the other team expects it.  In fact, he relishes succeeding with power even when it is expected.  He also believes that it is often worth failing with power repeatedly during the game because it wears down defenses and helps power to work well in the 4th quarter when it is most needed.  The underlying philosophy animating the whole offense is physical domination that should not require deception or unpredictability.  It is also calculated to produce mental exhaustion and fear in the opponents as the game wears on and they lose their confidence in their ability to stop the run, leading to mental errors and longer and longer runs for us.

Last night, I think this philosophy was right, and we might have done better yet had we stuck with it more completely.

Unfortunately, while our Woody Hayes/Bo Schembechler offense was "so old that it was new" when Harbaugh and Toby first made it work, it has been around the Pac 12 long enough now that any opposing coach has had years to scheme to stop it.  While not all of them have the personnel needed, most of them can shut down power if they are willing to put 8 or 9 in the box.  With Luck, that was not a problem.  The threat of Luck prevented them from almost ever selling out to stop the run. 

It still works just so long as we have a passing game that can punish 8 men in the box.  Hogan does not have to be good enough to win the game with his arm.  He has to be just good enough to badly punish defenses that overload to stop the run.

[washingtonismoney]

Unfortunately, while our Woody Hayes/Bo Schembechler offense was so old that it was new when Harbaugh and Toby first made it work, it has been around the Pac 12 long enough now that any opposing coach has had years to scheme to stop it.  While not all of them have the personnel needed, most of them can shut down power if they are willing to put 8 or 9 in the box.  With Luck, that was not a problem.  The threat of Luck prevented them from almost ever selling out to stop the run. 

It still works just so long as we have a passing game that can punish 8 men in the box.  Hogan does not have to be good enough to win the game with his arm.  He has to be just good enough to badly punish defenses that overload to stop the run.

One of the interesting parts of the game that was actually very successful from a playcalling/schematic perspective was the second drive of the game. Oregon State tried stacking the box and we borrowed a trick from them -- reverses, fly sweeps, and a Spider 2 Y Banana. We used simple plays to attack the edge and loosen the box. I don't believe they stacked the box against our base formation subsequently.

[washingtonismoney]

Unfortunately, while our Woody Hayes/Bo Schembechler offense was so old that it was new when Harbaugh and Toby first made it work, it has been around the Pac 12 long enough now that any opposing coach has had years to scheme to stop it.  While not all of them have the personnel needed, most of them can shut down power if they are willing to put 8 or 9 in the box.  With Luck, that was not a problem.  The threat of Luck prevented them from almost ever selling out to stop the run. 

It still works just so long as we have a passing game that can punish 8 men in the box.  Hogan does not have to be good enough to win the game with his arm.  He has to be just good enough to badly punish defenses that overload to stop the run.

One of the interesting parts of the game that was actually very successful from a playcalling/schematic perspective was the second drive of the game. Oregon State tried stacking the box and we borrowed a trick from them -- reverses, fly sweeps, and a Spider 2 Y Banana. We used simple plays to attack the edge and loosen the box. I don't believe they stacked the box against our base formation subsequently.

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=8685.msg72848#msg72848 date=1382930295]
Unfortunately, while our Woody Hayes/Bo Schembechler offense was so old that it was new when Harbaugh and Toby first made it work, it has been around the Pac 12 long enough now that any opposing coach has had years to scheme to stop it.  While not all of them have the personnel needed, most of them can shut down power if they are willing to put 8 or 9 in the box.  With Luck, that was not a problem.  The threat of Luck prevented them from almost ever selling out to stop the run. 

It still works just so long as we have a passing game that can punish 8 men in the box.  Hogan does not have to be good enough to win the game with his arm.  He has to be just good enough to badly punish defenses that overload to stop the run.

One of the interesting parts of the game that was actually very successful from a playcalling/schematic perspective was the second drive of the game. Oregon State tried stacking the box and we borrowed a trick from them -- reverses, fly sweeps, and a Spider 2 Y Banana. We used simple plays to attack the edge and loosen the box. I don't believe they stacked the box against our base formation subsequently.
[/quote]
Interesting observation.  The other way to loosen the box is with the TE or RB passing game.  I don't expect our offense to dramatically improve until Hogan can start successfully passing more to the TE and RBs.  Gaffney has only 9 receptions all year, Hewitt 4, Hopkins 2 and Dudchock 1.  That is not much of a threat. 

What about using Barry Sanders as a receiving threat?

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=8685.msg72848#msg72848 date=1382930295]
Unfortunately, while our Woody Hayes/Bo Schembechler offense was so old that it was new when Harbaugh and Toby first made it work, it has been around the Pac 12 long enough now that any opposing coach has had years to scheme to stop it.  While not all of them have the personnel needed, most of them can shut down power if they are willing to put 8 or 9 in the box.  With Luck, that was not a problem.  The threat of Luck prevented them from almost ever selling out to stop the run. 

It still works just so long as we have a passing game that can punish 8 men in the box.  Hogan does not have to be good enough to win the game with his arm.  He has to be just good enough to badly punish defenses that overload to stop the run.

One of the interesting parts of the game that was actually very successful from a playcalling/schematic perspective was the second drive of the game. Oregon State tried stacking the box and we borrowed a trick from them -- reverses, fly sweeps, and a Spider 2 Y Banana. We used simple plays to attack the edge and loosen the box. I don't believe they stacked the box against our base formation subsequently.
[/quote]
Interesting observation.  The other way to loosen the box is with the TE or RB passing game.  I don't expect our offense to dramatically improve until Hogan can start successfully passing more to the TE and RBs.  Gaffney has only 9 receptions all year, Hewitt 4, Hopkins 2 and Dudchock 1.  That is not much of a threat. 

What about using Barry Sanders as a receiving threat?

[CowboyIndian]

Take for instance the climatic portion of the Utah game,

You're gonna blame global warming for that loss?

[CowboyIndian]

Take for instance the climatic portion of the Utah game,

You're gonna blame global warming for that loss?

[fullmetal]

Does anyone else subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Shaw is still saving the playbook for Oregon?  *cue Twilight Zone theme*

[fullmetal]

Does anyone else subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Shaw is still saving the playbook for Oregon?  *cue Twilight Zone theme*

[SUBuddha]

Does anyone else subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Shaw is still saving the playbook for Oregon?  *cue Twilight Zone theme*

Part of me has had a sip of that Koolaid. I know David has been fairly hung up on beating Oregon in the past. Especially after the debacle his first year as HC on the Farm. I wouldn't be surprised to see some new offensive wrinkles, but I still expect Power, Power, Power to be the mantra.

[SUBuddha]

Does anyone else subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Shaw is still saving the playbook for Oregon?  *cue Twilight Zone theme*

Part of me has had a sip of that Koolaid. I know David has been fairly hung up on beating Oregon in the past. Especially after the debacle his first year as HC on the Farm. I wouldn't be surprised to see some new offensive wrinkles, but I still expect Power, Power, Power to be the mantra.

[fullmetal]

We might see a steady diet of Spider 2 Y Banana as well.  Maybe some toss/sweep plays?  Play-action deep bombs?  Oh, the possibilities are endless...

[fullmetal]

We might see a steady diet of Spider 2 Y Banana as well.  Maybe some toss/sweep plays?  Play-action deep bombs?  Oh, the possibilities are endless...

[Extra Point]

Does anyone else subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Shaw is still saving the playbook for Oregon?  *cue Twilight Zone theme*

Shaw said after last year's game that he and his staff started preparing for Oregon in February. Most of that preparation was on defense. I don't remember any miraculous new offensive plays that appeared. This year I don't see how Stanford can win without putting is some offensive wrinkles. But, I suspect any changes will be variations of existing plays. We may see a pass after faking a fly sweep or a pass out of the wildcat, for example. Then again, there are five more days to prepare. Shaw may put in some trickeration like the half back pass in the Rose Bowl.

[Extra Point]

Does anyone else subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Shaw is still saving the playbook for Oregon?  *cue Twilight Zone theme*

Shaw said after last year's game that he and his staff started preparing for Oregon in February. Most of that preparation was on defense. I don't remember any miraculous new offensive plays that appeared. This year I don't see how Stanford can win without putting is some offensive wrinkles. But, I suspect any changes will be variations of existing plays. We may see a pass after faking a fly sweep or a pass out of the wildcat, for example. Then again, there are five more days to prepare. Shaw may put in some trickeration like the half back pass in the Rose Bowl.

[stupac2]

Shaw said after last year's game that he and his staff started preparing for Oregon in February. Most of that preparation was on defense. I don't remember any miraculous new offensive plays that appeared. This year I don't see how Stanford can win without putting is some offensive wrinkles. But, I suspect any changes will be variations of existing plays. We may see a pass after faking a fly sweep or a pass out of the wildcat, for example. Then again, there are five more days to prepare. Shaw may put in some trickeration like the half back pass in the Rose Bowl.

By "pass out of the wildcat" do you mean having Gaffney throw? That doesn't seem like a great idea given that Oregon's secondary is one of the best in the country, and Gaffney supposedly isn't great at throwing a football.

[stupac2]

Shaw said after last year's game that he and his staff started preparing for Oregon in February. Most of that preparation was on defense. I don't remember any miraculous new offensive plays that appeared. This year I don't see how Stanford can win without putting is some offensive wrinkles. But, I suspect any changes will be variations of existing plays. We may see a pass after faking a fly sweep or a pass out of the wildcat, for example. Then again, there are five more days to prepare. Shaw may put in some trickeration like the half back pass in the Rose Bowl.

By "pass out of the wildcat" do you mean having Gaffney throw? That doesn't seem like a great idea given that Oregon's secondary is one of the best in the country, and Gaffney supposedly isn't great at throwing a football.

[Extra Point]

By "pass out of the wildcat" do you mean having Gaffney throw? That doesn't seem like a great idea given that Oregon's secondary is one of the best in the country, and Gaffney supposedly isn't great at throwing a football.

I'm not advocating anything. The only point I am making is that Shaw may add wrinkles to exiting plays, but it is very unlikley that we will see major changes in the offense for Oregon.

[Extra Point]

By "pass out of the wildcat" do you mean having Gaffney throw? That doesn't seem like a great idea given that Oregon's secondary is one of the best in the country, and Gaffney supposedly isn't great at throwing a football.

I'm not advocating anything. The only point I am making is that Shaw may add wrinkles to exiting plays, but it is very unlikley that we will see major changes in the offense for Oregon.

[CowboyIndian]

I don't remember any miraculous new offensive plays that appeared.

I remember that 4th and 1 (or so) play action pass to Hewitt that Hogan short-armed. That could have been a TD on its own and would certainly have prevented ...or at least postponed....the ensuing Duck TD. I really liked that call.

[CowboyIndian]

I don't remember any miraculous new offensive plays that appeared.

I remember that 4th and 1 (or so) play action pass to Hewitt that Hogan short-armed. That could have been a TD on its own and would certainly have prevented ...or at least postponed....the ensuing Duck TD. I really liked that call.

[washingtonismoney]

I remember that 4th and 1 (or so) play action pass to Hewitt that Hogan short-armed. That could have been a TD on its own and would certainly have prevented ...or at least postponed....the ensuing Duck TD. I really liked that call.

It was fantastic. One of the funny notes was the commentators, who said something like, "They're going to be questioning Shaw over that one in Palo Alto," which certainly betrayed a complete lack of knowledge of the Stanford fanbase.

[washingtonismoney]

I remember that 4th and 1 (or so) play action pass to Hewitt that Hogan short-armed. That could have been a TD on its own and would certainly have prevented ...or at least postponed....the ensuing Duck TD. I really liked that call.

It was fantastic. One of the funny notes was the commentators, who said something like, "They're going to be questioning Shaw over that one in Palo Alto," which certainly betrayed a complete lack of knowledge of the Stanford fanbase.

[fullmetal]

We questioned Hogan's arm on that one.

[fullmetal]

We questioned Hogan's arm on that one.