[OutsiderFan]

An offense with Ty Montgomery, Michael Rector (who I believe had no catches against UW), Francis Owusu, Barry Sanders, Kelsey Young, and Christian McCaffrey should be able to make tons of yards in space.  It's one that on paper you would say has a lot of weapons.  Yet Fox analyst Dave Wannstedt, was decrying Stanford's lack of play-makers after the game.

Everything the offense does is slow.  Even Hogan doesn't look as quick as he did his first two years when running.  No quick slants.  No sprint draws.  No quick hitches or hitch and goes.  Too many plays that take too long to develop.

It sure seems to this observer that it is way more about the offensive concepts not putting these guys in positions to make plays, far more than it is the fact Stanford lacks play makers on offense, that is producing so few points. 

What do others think?

[OutsiderFan]

An offense with Ty Montgomery, Michael Rector (who I believe had no catches against UW), Francis Owusu, Barry Sanders, Kelsey Young, and Christian McCaffrey should be able to make tons of yards in space.  It's one that on paper you would say has a lot of weapons.  Yet Fox analyst Dave Wannstedt, was decrying Stanford's lack of play-makers after the game.

Everything the offense does is slow.  Even Hogan doesn't look as quick as he did his first two years when running.  No quick slants.  No sprint draws.  No quick hitches or hitch and goes.  Too many plays that take too long to develop.

It sure seems to this observer that it is way more about the offensive concepts not putting these guys in positions to make plays, far more than it is the fact Stanford lacks play makers on offense, that is producing so few points. 

What do others think?

[DC]

Below average and inconsistent passing

[DC]

Below average and inconsistent passing

[ChicagoCard]

Wannstedt's (who ran a sleazy program at Pitt) comments about the offense's funk struck me as mildly interesting. One, that they would only gain red zone confidence by practicing. Is the offense not confident due to lack of success in practice (as in the spring game)? And two, that they should move him around or roll him out more. What about that, tweaking the office offense marginally to fit Hogan's strengths a bit more. We all remember how he moved around a lot in Eugene two years ago.

And on defense, speaking of slow, could someone enlighten me on Hoffpauir's footspeed... is it a liability?

[ChicagoCard]

Wannstedt's (who ran a sleazy program at Pitt) comments about the offense's funk struck me as mildly interesting. One, that they would only gain red zone confidence by practicing. Is the offense not confident due to lack of success in practice (as in the spring game)? And two, that they should move him around or roll him out more. What about that, tweaking the office offense marginally to fit Hogan's strengths a bit more. We all remember how he moved around a lot in Eugene two years ago.

And on defense, speaking of slow, could someone enlighten me on Hoffpauir's footspeed... is it a liability?

[DC]

Wannstedt's (who ran a sleazy program at Pitt) comments about the offense's funk struck me as mildly interesting. One, that they would only gain red zone confidence by practicing. Is the offense not confident due to lack of success in practice (as in the spring game)? And two, that they should move him around or roll him out more. What about that, tweaking the office marginally to fit Hogan's strengths a bit more. We all remember how he moved around a lot in Eugene two years ago.

And on defense, speaking of slow, could someone enlighten me on Hoffpauir's footspeed... is it a liability?

The fact that Hogan ran 14 times shows that they were tweaking the offense to suit his strengths more.  They maybe decided to try to win games, rather than be afraid to take risks that he might get injured or worn down.  He is not irreplaceable.

[DC]

Wannstedt's (who ran a sleazy program at Pitt) comments about the offense's funk struck me as mildly interesting. One, that they would only gain red zone confidence by practicing. Is the offense not confident due to lack of success in practice (as in the spring game)? And two, that they should move him around or roll him out more. What about that, tweaking the office marginally to fit Hogan's strengths a bit more. We all remember how he moved around a lot in Eugene two years ago.

And on defense, speaking of slow, could someone enlighten me on Hoffpauir's footspeed... is it a liability?

The fact that Hogan ran 14 times shows that they were tweaking the offense to suit his strengths more.  They maybe decided to try to win games, rather than be afraid to take risks that he might get injured or worn down.  He is not irreplaceable.

[VFRing98]

This is not quite your point, but surely the enormous play sheet, and the shall we say deliberate way plays and sent to the huddle, along with the massive personnel shifts that occur, contribute to the sense that we are a slow team.

Ever watched a 7 year try to read a book above his reading level? That's what our between-play circus looks like to me.

[VFRing98]

This is not quite your point, but surely the enormous play sheet, and the shall we say deliberate way plays and sent to the huddle, along with the massive personnel shifts that occur, contribute to the sense that we are a slow team.

Ever watched a 7 year try to read a book above his reading level? That's what our between-play circus looks like to me.

[OutsiderFan]

Here's the disconnect for me.

Stanford is #1 in Scoring Defense, Total Defense, and Pass Defense, #5 in Pass Efficiency Defense, and only isn't in the Top 5 in Rush Defense because it played Army.  The reason the defense is better:  It's been simplified according to the players.

Why on Earth can't the offensive coaching brain trust take a lesson from this right in front of them and apply it to the offense? 

Fewer players playing, and more play variation with the same personnel would help immeasurably, IMO.  It was such a breath of fresh air to see the play action fake and Hogan rollout on 1st and goal from the UW 5.  Stanford actually looked like a real offense on that play.  Of course, they reverted to telegraphing exactly what they were doing and running into 8 and 9 man fronts on the next possession when a first down would have salted the game away.

[OutsiderFan]

Here's the disconnect for me.

Stanford is #1 in Scoring Defense, Total Defense, and Pass Defense, #5 in Pass Efficiency Defense, and only isn't in the Top 5 in Rush Defense because it played Army.  The reason the defense is better:  It's been simplified according to the players.

Why on Earth can't the offensive coaching brain trust take a lesson from this right in front of them and apply it to the offense? 

Fewer players playing, and more play variation with the same personnel would help immeasurably, IMO.  It was such a breath of fresh air to see the play action fake and Hogan rollout on 1st and goal from the UW 5.  Stanford actually looked like a real offense on that play.  Of course, they reverted to telegraphing exactly what they were doing and running into 8 and 9 man fronts on the next possession when a first down would have salted the game away.

[BobK]

Hoffpauir is fast.  Watching baseball, he's a very fast baseball player. 

[BobK]

Hoffpauir is fast.  Watching baseball, he's a very fast baseball player. 

[Mick]

Wannstedt's (who ran a sleazy program at Pitt) comments about the offense's funk struck me as mildly interesting. One, that they would only gain red zone confidence by practicing. Is the offense not confident due to lack of success in practice (as in the spring game)? And two, that they should move him around or roll him out more. What about that, tweaking the office marginally to fit Hogan's strengths a bit more. We all remember how he moved around a lot in Eugene two years ago.

And on defense, speaking of slow, could someone enlighten me on Hoffpauir's footspeed... is it a liability?

I was thinking the same thing about Wannstedt's comments.  Didn't he also say something about Stanford telegraphing the play, or perhaps Hogan telegraphing plays in the end zone?

[Mick]

Wannstedt's (who ran a sleazy program at Pitt) comments about the offense's funk struck me as mildly interesting. One, that they would only gain red zone confidence by practicing. Is the offense not confident due to lack of success in practice (as in the spring game)? And two, that they should move him around or roll him out more. What about that, tweaking the office marginally to fit Hogan's strengths a bit more. We all remember how he moved around a lot in Eugene two years ago.

And on defense, speaking of slow, could someone enlighten me on Hoffpauir's footspeed... is it a liability?

I was thinking the same thing about Wannstedt's comments.  Didn't he also say something about Stanford telegraphing the play, or perhaps Hogan telegraphing plays in the end zone?

[Redrum]

...one might consider that a "slow" offense that eats the clock isn't always a bad thing.

Re Hoffpauir:  He might be baseball fast, but not cornerback fast.  That was his profile when he was recruited (and flipped from Kal)  He was tough, heady, hard-hitter with decent (not outstanding) speed for a safety.  It was those other attributes that made him a good kid to sign.

[Redrum]

...one might consider that a "slow" offense that eats the clock isn't always a bad thing.

Re Hoffpauir:  He might be baseball fast, but not cornerback fast.  That was his profile when he was recruited (and flipped from Kal)  He was tough, heady, hard-hitter with decent (not outstanding) speed for a safety.  It was those other attributes that made him a good kid to sign.

[martyup]

I think we would appear much faster if Hogan had better ball placement.  Our receivers are often having to dive, leap, or stop to catch balls.  Many times these receivers are wide open and could have made a lot of YAC if the ball placement was better.

[martyup]

I think we would appear much faster if Hogan had better ball placement.  Our receivers are often having to dive, leap, or stop to catch balls.  Many times these receivers are wide open and could have made a lot of YAC if the ball placement was better.

[CowboyIndian]

I think we would appear much faster if Hogan had better ball placement.  Our receivers are often having to dive, leap, or stop to catch balls.  Many times these receivers are wide open and could have made a lot of YAC if the ball placement was better.

It was obvious...even at the game from a couple of thousand feet in the air....that we left a lot of yardage (and points) out there because of inaccuracy.

[CowboyIndian]

I think we would appear much faster if Hogan had better ball placement.  Our receivers are often having to dive, leap, or stop to catch balls.  Many times these receivers are wide open and could have made a lot of YAC if the ball placement was better.

It was obvious...even at the game from a couple of thousand feet in the air....that we left a lot of yardage (and points) out there because of inaccuracy.

[Viking_Guy]

Building on the word choice from VFRing:

Yesterday evening, at a BBQ at a local friend (and Dollie), I was speaking with another alum and the very word I used to describe Hogan was "deliberate."  When the outcome of his actions is positive, it comes across as cool-headed and patient.  When it's not, it comes across as "slow to react."

One admittedly anecdotal memory from the SC game is the number of times Hogan would audible, and SC would shift, and Hogan would kill and audible, and SC would shift again.  Don't know if the plays were being telegraphed in that sense, but I was hoping that at some point Hogan would audible to a quick snap, trying to catch them shifting.  In a sense moving to the no-huddle hurry up addressed it.

But more generally, Hogan approaches the play slowly, then approaches the line surveying, then kills to another play (or is he simply calling an option based on reads at the line?  I'm not sure).  After the snap, at least on passing downs, it feels like one part of his "locking in on a primary receiver" is his expectation that the play will develop as predicted if he's patient, instead of moving quickly to a second and third option.  At which point against good defenses he's generally under pressure and tries to run or dump to an outlet receiver.

Again, just a thought, sparked by VFR's use of the term.  And it's a characteristic that can be both good and bad.  We just tend to evaluate it based on the outcomes.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Building on the word choice from VFRing:

Yesterday evening, at a BBQ at a local friend (and Dollie), I was speaking with another alum and the very word I used to describe Hogan was "deliberate."  When the outcome of his actions is positive, it comes across as cool-headed and patient.  When it's not, it comes across as "slow to react."

One admittedly anecdotal memory from the SC game is the number of times Hogan would audible, and SC would shift, and Hogan would kill and audible, and SC would shift again.  Don't know if the plays were being telegraphed in that sense, but I was hoping that at some point Hogan would audible to a quick snap, trying to catch them shifting.  In a sense moving to the no-huddle hurry up addressed it.

But more generally, Hogan approaches the play slowly, then approaches the line surveying, then kills to another play (or is he simply calling an option based on reads at the line?  I'm not sure).  After the snap, at least on passing downs, it feels like one part of his "locking in on a primary receiver" is his expectation that the play will develop as predicted if he's patient, instead of moving quickly to a second and third option.  At which point against good defenses he's generally under pressure and tries to run or dump to an outlet receiver.

Again, just a thought, sparked by VFR's use of the term.  And it's a characteristic that can be both good and bad.  We just tend to evaluate it based on the outcomes.

VG

[DC]

I think we would appear much faster if Hogan had better ball placement.  Our receivers are often having to dive, leap, or stop to catch balls.  Many times these receivers are wide open and could have made a lot of YAC if the ball placement was better.

I'm glad this can finally be said as a simple fact without people protesting!

[DC]

I think we would appear much faster if Hogan had better ball placement.  Our receivers are often having to dive, leap, or stop to catch balls.  Many times these receivers are wide open and could have made a lot of YAC if the ball placement was better.

I'm glad this can finally be said as a simple fact without people protesting!

[81alum]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=10733.msg99587#msg99587 date=1411924297]
I think we would appear much faster if Hogan had better ball placement.  Our receivers are often having to dive, leap, or stop to catch balls.  Many times these receivers are wide open and could have made a lot of YAC if the ball placement was better.

I'm glad this can finally be said as a simple fact without people protesting!
[/quote]
Agreed.  And add to it the fact that the interception and several near interceptions and passes defended were caused by his staring down a receiver and telegraphing his throw with plenty of time for the opponents to react.  Given this tendency, it is absolutely remarkable how well he does, and how high his completion rate is.  If he could speed up his release, shift his gaze, and throw into a smaller window he would be.....Andrew Luck. 

Now, it is not fair to expect him to be Andrew Luck.  Most quarterbacks have weaknesses of one sort or another.  Hogan has problems with accuracy, with the speed of his release, and with his vision down field--and by one system he  is now the 10th rated QB in the Pac 12

http://espn.go.com/ncf/qbr/_/group/9

although by another system he would be 5th:

http://www.teamrankings.com/college-foot...ating-ncaa

I do not think it is time to give up on him, but he does need better coaching.  I am not sure if Tavita Prichard is the right quarterback coach for Kevin Hogan.  Hogan is a very bright guy--surely with the right coaching he can escape from some of those weaknesses and just take advantage of his strengths.

[81alum]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=10733.msg99587#msg99587 date=1411924297]
I think we would appear much faster if Hogan had better ball placement.  Our receivers are often having to dive, leap, or stop to catch balls.  Many times these receivers are wide open and could have made a lot of YAC if the ball placement was better.

I'm glad this can finally be said as a simple fact without people protesting!
[/quote]
Agreed.  And add to it the fact that the interception and several near interceptions and passes defended were caused by his staring down a receiver and telegraphing his throw with plenty of time for the opponents to react.  Given this tendency, it is absolutely remarkable how well he does, and how high his completion rate is.  If he could speed up his release, shift his gaze, and throw into a smaller window he would be.....Andrew Luck. 

Now, it is not fair to expect him to be Andrew Luck.  Most quarterbacks have weaknesses of one sort or another.  Hogan has problems with accuracy, with the speed of his release, and with his vision down field--and by one system he  is now the 10th rated QB in the Pac 12

http://espn.go.com/ncf/qbr/_/group/9

although by another system he would be 5th:

http://www.teamrankings.com/college-foot...ating-ncaa

I do not think it is time to give up on him, but he does need better coaching.  I am not sure if Tavita Prichard is the right quarterback coach for Kevin Hogan.  Hogan is a very bright guy--surely with the right coaching he can escape from some of those weaknesses and just take advantage of his strengths.

[washingtonismoney]

If he performs so well statistically despite his weaknesses, isn't that evidence of good coaching rather than bad?

(And he does! He's had two straight years of 8.5+ YPA, performed pretty well by NCAA's QB ratings and QBR ... he's been a high-producing quarterback. The fact that the offense puts him in situations where he produces and minimizes situations that he doesn't is evidence of good schematic coaching, and good position coaching regarding his audibles, etc.)

[washingtonismoney]

If he performs so well statistically despite his weaknesses, isn't that evidence of good coaching rather than bad?

(And he does! He's had two straight years of 8.5+ YPA, performed pretty well by NCAA's QB ratings and QBR ... he's been a high-producing quarterback. The fact that the offense puts him in situations where he produces and minimizes situations that he doesn't is evidence of good schematic coaching, and good position coaching regarding his audibles, etc.)

[martyup]

I thought I'd post this here since this thread is talking Xs and Os.

I re-watched the game and have some observations:

1.  We were better when we ran to the left (behind Peat) than when we ran to the right (behind Murphy).  In this game we ran 15 times to the left and gained 109 yards, for an average of 7.3 ypc.  We ran 18 times to the right for 77 yards, for an average of 4.3 ypc.  I think a big factor here was Udub's NT Shelton.  He spent most of the game on our right side.  However, it would have been nice to adjust and run away from him more often.

2.  In the RZ, Hogan seems to spot throw to his primary rather than reading the coverage like he does outside of the RZ.  This has proven to be very dangerous and has produced INTs in his career.  This is correctable.

3.  We are lucky we only had 3 turnovers.  UW missed two easy picks, one that would have gone to the house, and Hogan luckily recovered his own fumble. 

4.  At 13:50 in the 4th, we ran a fake jet sweep to McCaffrey and a quick pass to Ty in the flat.  UW stuffed Ty behind the L.O.S.  However, it appears that had Hogan given the ball to McCaffrey on the jet sweep he would have scored.

5.  I'm confused by something that happened during Udub's last possession.  When they got called for the intentional grounding, the ref announced that the clock should be set at 15 seconds.  It changed to that for a few seconds and then was changed back to 32 seconds.  What happened there?

[martyup]

I thought I'd post this here since this thread is talking Xs and Os.

I re-watched the game and have some observations:

1.  We were better when we ran to the left (behind Peat) than when we ran to the right (behind Murphy).  In this game we ran 15 times to the left and gained 109 yards, for an average of 7.3 ypc.  We ran 18 times to the right for 77 yards, for an average of 4.3 ypc.  I think a big factor here was Udub's NT Shelton.  He spent most of the game on our right side.  However, it would have been nice to adjust and run away from him more often.

2.  In the RZ, Hogan seems to spot throw to his primary rather than reading the coverage like he does outside of the RZ.  This has proven to be very dangerous and has produced INTs in his career.  This is correctable.

3.  We are lucky we only had 3 turnovers.  UW missed two easy picks, one that would have gone to the house, and Hogan luckily recovered his own fumble. 

4.  At 13:50 in the 4th, we ran a fake jet sweep to McCaffrey and a quick pass to Ty in the flat.  UW stuffed Ty behind the L.O.S.  However, it appears that had Hogan given the ball to McCaffrey on the jet sweep he would have scored.

5.  I'm confused by something that happened during Udub's last possession.  When they got called for the intentional grounding, the ref announced that the clock should be set at 15 seconds.  It changed to that for a few seconds and then was changed back to 32 seconds.  What happened there?

[stupac2]

5.  I'm confused by something that happened during Udub's last possession.  When they got called for the intentional grounding, the ref announced that the clock should be set at 15 seconds.  It changed to that for a few seconds and then was changed back to 32 seconds.  What happened there?

The ref was wrong. That play ended with the clock at 42 seconds, and an offensive penalty that stops the clock causes a 10-second runoff. I have no idea why he initially said 15. On my broadcast it briefly switched to 15 then went back to 32, my guess is that the ref corrected himself but it wasn't caught by the mics because they switched the audio feed back to the booth (or however that works). Either way, 32 seconds was correct.

[stupac2]

5.  I'm confused by something that happened during Udub's last possession.  When they got called for the intentional grounding, the ref announced that the clock should be set at 15 seconds.  It changed to that for a few seconds and then was changed back to 32 seconds.  What happened there?

The ref was wrong. That play ended with the clock at 42 seconds, and an offensive penalty that stops the clock causes a 10-second runoff. I have no idea why he initially said 15. On my broadcast it briefly switched to 15 then went back to 32, my guess is that the ref corrected himself but it wasn't caught by the mics because they switched the audio feed back to the booth (or however that works). Either way, 32 seconds was correct.

[martyup]

The ref was wrong.

That seemed like a recurring theme in this game.

[martyup]

The ref was wrong.

That seemed like a recurring theme in this game.

[yvonne]

Don't expect that to change this week. Stanford will have to compete against seven additional players this week.

[yvonne]

Don't expect that to change this week. Stanford will have to compete against seven additional players this week.

[81alum]

If he performs so well statistically despite his weaknesses, isn't that evidence of good coaching rather than bad?

(And he does! He's had two straight years of 8.5+ YPA, performed pretty well by NCAA's QB ratings and QBR ... he's been a high-producing quarterback. The fact that the offense puts him in situations where he produces and minimizes situations that he doesn't is evidence of good schematic coaching, and good position coaching regarding his audibles, etc.)

Yes, statistically in some ways he looks very good.  His efficiency this year is higher than for last year--167.6 vs. 151.5, and his percentage completion is up 10 percent (71% vs. 61%)!

And yet his weaknesses seem more obvious than ever, and we have a stagnant offense partially because of it.  I think the Total Quarterback Rating may come closer to the mark than the efficiency rating.  And by this measure Hogan is the 10th best quarterback in the Pac 12.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/qbr/_/group/9

Here is the TQR system explained:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...e-football

[81alum]

If he performs so well statistically despite his weaknesses, isn't that evidence of good coaching rather than bad?

(And he does! He's had two straight years of 8.5+ YPA, performed pretty well by NCAA's QB ratings and QBR ... he's been a high-producing quarterback. The fact that the offense puts him in situations where he produces and minimizes situations that he doesn't is evidence of good schematic coaching, and good position coaching regarding his audibles, etc.)

Yes, statistically in some ways he looks very good.  His efficiency this year is higher than for last year--167.6 vs. 151.5, and his percentage completion is up 10 percent (71% vs. 61%)!

And yet his weaknesses seem more obvious than ever, and we have a stagnant offense partially because of it.  I think the Total Quarterback Rating may come closer to the mark than the efficiency rating.  And by this measure Hogan is the 10th best quarterback in the Pac 12.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/qbr/_/group/9

Here is the TQR system explained:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...e-football