[StanFan88]

FWIW, However, WIM has a very good point, that last year was Hogan's most effective.  And last year the bulk of his big plays came on play action passes with him in the pocket throwing deep to a receiver that was being covered 1-on-1 with no safety help (because the safeties were in the box defending the run).

BC

That only worked because Stanford had a) an OL full of future NFL picks, and b) a 225-lb beast of an RB.  It has neither this season, which means teams are playing 6/7 in the box not 8/9 so the deep pass isn't as available and the running game is still not as effective as it was last year.

Bottom line is that the offense is far more dependent on Hogan being better than he was last year and the offensive gameplan needs to reflect that.  Losses to USC and ND are the direct result of this failure.

[StanFan88]

FWIW, However, WIM has a very good point, that last year was Hogan's most effective.  And last year the bulk of his big plays came on play action passes with him in the pocket throwing deep to a receiver that was being covered 1-on-1 with no safety help (because the safeties were in the box defending the run).

BC

That only worked because Stanford had a) an OL full of future NFL picks, and b) a 225-lb beast of an RB.  It has neither this season, which means teams are playing 6/7 in the box not 8/9 so the deep pass isn't as available and the running game is still not as effective as it was last year.

Bottom line is that the offense is far more dependent on Hogan being better than he was last year and the offensive gameplan needs to reflect that.  Losses to USC and ND are the direct result of this failure.

[Cardinal96]

Posting to simply note I uprated StanFan88 in several places to counter what I thought were unjustified downrates.

Reasoned discussion and debate shouldn't be penalized.

[Cardinal96]

Posting to simply note I uprated StanFan88 in several places to counter what I thought were unjustified downrates.

Reasoned discussion and debate shouldn't be penalized.

[StanFan88]

Thanks NYC.  I never downrate someone I disagree with.  I don't think I've downrated anyone on this board.

[StanFan88]

Thanks NYC.  I never downrate someone I disagree with.  I don't think I've downrated anyone on this board.

[CowboyIndian]

  Losses to U$€ and ND are the direct result of this failure.

I submit these losses are equally the direct result of:

- a terrible chop block call and bad, bad kicking
- a dumbass defensive breakdown on the last play of the game, ugly hands on the part of our receivers, one-sided officiating and bad, bad kicking

[CowboyIndian]

  Losses to U$€ and ND are the direct result of this failure.

I submit these losses are equally the direct result of:

- a terrible chop block call and bad, bad kicking
- a dumbass defensive breakdown on the last play of the game, ugly hands on the part of our receivers, one-sided officiating and bad, bad kicking

[BrevinsBest]

The losses to USC and Notre Dame are a combination of factors, one being kicking, one being a defensive breakdown, but to blame the officials for a loss is wrong. We know that officials in the Pac 12 are not great, possibly horrible, but they're equally horrible for both sides. I think it's really just a poor sport who blames the officials. Even blaming Williamson for the USC and Notre Dame losses (if I'm not mistaken he kicked off out of bounds prior to both game winning drives) isn't really fair.

[BrevinsBest]

The losses to USC and Notre Dame are a combination of factors, one being kicking, one being a defensive breakdown, but to blame the officials for a loss is wrong. We know that officials in the Pac 12 are not great, possibly horrible, but they're equally horrible for both sides. I think it's really just a poor sport who blames the officials. Even blaming Williamson for the USC and Notre Dame losses (if I'm not mistaken he kicked off out of bounds prior to both game winning drives) isn't really fair.

[StanFan88]

All of those reasons are valid, but the bottom line is that if the offensive gameplan had been anything near what we saw against WSU and OSU those things would not have made a difference in the outcome.

[StanFan88]

All of those reasons are valid, but the bottom line is that if the offensive gameplan had been anything near what we saw against WSU and OSU those things would not have made a difference in the outcome.

[washingtonismoney]

All of those reasons are valid, but the bottom line is that if the offensive gameplan had been anything near what we saw against WSU and OSU those things would not have made a difference in the outcome.

...*whispers*: maybe the offensive gameplan looked good because they weren't very good teams and you're confusing results and process.

[washingtonismoney]

All of those reasons are valid, but the bottom line is that if the offensive gameplan had been anything near what we saw against WSU and OSU those things would not have made a difference in the outcome.

...*whispers*: maybe the offensive gameplan looked good because they weren't very good teams and you're confusing results and process.

[StanFan88]

Gimme a break WIM.  One bootleg call in the red zone and they beat U$C.  JUST ONE.

[StanFan88]

Gimme a break WIM.  One bootleg call in the red zone and they beat U$C.  JUST ONE.

[washingtonismoney]

Gimme a break WIM.  One bootleg call in the red zone and they beat U$C.  JUST ONE.

OK. I'll give you a break. I'll accept your claim that the OSU and WSU gameplans were, in fact, superior and should be emulated for the rest of the season. What explains success there?

Certainly not the red zone. The WSU redzone performance was mediocre: went FG, TD, fumble, missed FG, TD, FG, TD. The successes didn't really involve bootlegs, either -- Taboada beasted his guy on fade calls, and Wright waltzed in for a (somewhat) meaningless TD. There, the Stanford offense just generated so many opportunities that it couldn't screw them all up.

The OSU game was notable for the big plays going for touchdowns -- McCaffrey, 42 yards; Hogan, 37 yard run; Pratt, 37 yard catch. Indeed, the redzone performance was mediocre for that game as well:  a Skov one-yard TD plunge, but then again, a pick on the 21-yard line from Hogan, a settled-for FG, and a missed FG were the offense's contribution there.

So, having given you a break, I can't conclude that LETTING HOGAN BE HOGAN, or bootlegs, or whatever, really describe offensive success in either of those games. I'm not sure if there was a single bootleg called in either of those games, to be honest. But I'm sure you have another comforting slogan which will reassure yourself that there's a simple solution to the offense that the coaches should adopt post-haste.

(NOTE, upon edit: this is not to say I don't believe the offense needs serious changes. I do believe that! Whether it's a staff shakeup or just rearrangements in the scheme, teaching, evaluation, recruiting, whatever, I'd like to see Shaw put in time during the offseason to fix the offense. I just don't think it's a matter of magically calling a few more bootlegs and watching the Ws roll in.)

[washingtonismoney]

Gimme a break WIM.  One bootleg call in the red zone and they beat U$C.  JUST ONE.

OK. I'll give you a break. I'll accept your claim that the OSU and WSU gameplans were, in fact, superior and should be emulated for the rest of the season. What explains success there?

Certainly not the red zone. The WSU redzone performance was mediocre: went FG, TD, fumble, missed FG, TD, FG, TD. The successes didn't really involve bootlegs, either -- Taboada beasted his guy on fade calls, and Wright waltzed in for a (somewhat) meaningless TD. There, the Stanford offense just generated so many opportunities that it couldn't screw them all up.

The OSU game was notable for the big plays going for touchdowns -- McCaffrey, 42 yards; Hogan, 37 yard run; Pratt, 37 yard catch. Indeed, the redzone performance was mediocre for that game as well:  a Skov one-yard TD plunge, but then again, a pick on the 21-yard line from Hogan, a settled-for FG, and a missed FG were the offense's contribution there.

So, having given you a break, I can't conclude that LETTING HOGAN BE HOGAN, or bootlegs, or whatever, really describe offensive success in either of those games. I'm not sure if there was a single bootleg called in either of those games, to be honest. But I'm sure you have another comforting slogan which will reassure yourself that there's a simple solution to the offense that the coaches should adopt post-haste.

(NOTE, upon edit: this is not to say I don't believe the offense needs serious changes. I do believe that! Whether it's a staff shakeup or just rearrangements in the scheme, teaching, evaluation, recruiting, whatever, I'd like to see Shaw put in time during the offseason to fix the offense. I just don't think it's a matter of magically calling a few more bootlegs and watching the Ws roll in.)

[Hank 91]

Here's one more note about Hogan's running. At media day I asked Shaw about protecting players, specifically quarterbacks, and here's his response. I think it says something about his philosophy towards offense and how players are used.

GMC:
You talked earlier about not protecting football players, except for quarterbacks. It seemed like in Andrew's career, towards the end there were fewer designed runs for him. Do you think we might see that same trend this year with Hogan?

Shaw:
I think it's only natural. We did that with Andrew partially because we just didn't need to. We had a really good running attack, that's the thing. You look at Andrew's last year, we had an All-American center, a tackle that's been a starter for two years in the NFL, a guard who's been a starter for two years in the NFL, three NFL tight ends, four NFL receivers, and three NFL running backs. So we didn't need Andrew to run anymore. He loved it. He loved the gun and runs. He'd complain under his breath a little bit, like "Gosh, can we go back and run some more of those read plays?" And I'd look back in the backfield, and I would see Stepfan Taylor, Tyler Gaffney, and Jeremy Stewart, who's still with the Raiders, and I'd say, "We don't need you to run the ball anymore. We've got guys that can do it." To have a versatile attack, the gun and runs do help periodically, and I can see Kevin Hogan getting to that point, especially if our group of running backs really comes through and is what we want them to be, with our receiving corps playing up to their possibilities and having a group of tight ends. To say that Kevin Hogan needs to carry the ball ten times a game, it just might be unnecessary. It's still something to have, something he's extremely good at, so it's not just protecting him and not letting him to it, but if we don't need to, why bother? Let somebody else get hit.

So it could be that Shaw has finally realized that -- unlike with Luck -- he needs Hogan to help out a bit.

[Hank 91]

Here's one more note about Hogan's running. At media day I asked Shaw about protecting players, specifically quarterbacks, and here's his response. I think it says something about his philosophy towards offense and how players are used.

GMC:
You talked earlier about not protecting football players, except for quarterbacks. It seemed like in Andrew's career, towards the end there were fewer designed runs for him. Do you think we might see that same trend this year with Hogan?

Shaw:
I think it's only natural. We did that with Andrew partially because we just didn't need to. We had a really good running attack, that's the thing. You look at Andrew's last year, we had an All-American center, a tackle that's been a starter for two years in the NFL, a guard who's been a starter for two years in the NFL, three NFL tight ends, four NFL receivers, and three NFL running backs. So we didn't need Andrew to run anymore. He loved it. He loved the gun and runs. He'd complain under his breath a little bit, like "Gosh, can we go back and run some more of those read plays?" And I'd look back in the backfield, and I would see Stepfan Taylor, Tyler Gaffney, and Jeremy Stewart, who's still with the Raiders, and I'd say, "We don't need you to run the ball anymore. We've got guys that can do it." To have a versatile attack, the gun and runs do help periodically, and I can see Kevin Hogan getting to that point, especially if our group of running backs really comes through and is what we want them to be, with our receiving corps playing up to their possibilities and having a group of tight ends. To say that Kevin Hogan needs to carry the ball ten times a game, it just might be unnecessary. It's still something to have, something he's extremely good at, so it's not just protecting him and not letting him to it, but if we don't need to, why bother? Let somebody else get hit.

So it could be that Shaw has finally realized that -- unlike with Luck -- he needs Hogan to help out a bit.

[washingtonismoney]

So it could be that Shaw has finally realized that -- unlike with Luck -- he needs Hogan to help out a bit.

"Finally" seems like a strange word. Shaw was pretty enthusiastic about running Hogan in 2012. The load lessened in 2013, but he certainly unleashed Hogan as a runner in some situations (e.g. against Oregon, where Hogan's legs were critical). And in 2014 he's gone back to running Hogan a lot. While he isn't a devotee of the Tebow/Klein-style running offense, he certainly will run the QB a lot in some situations.

Now, again, has the Shaw offense been terribly effective? No. But I think it's less about what plays are being run, and more about:

a) recruitment/development of players: (every Shaw offense post-Luck has featured one position group that is, like, awful. In 2012 it was wideouts, as well as QB for half the year. In 2013 it was TEs. This year it's RBs and OL; I think Hogan is more collateral damage. The thing is, the position groups change -- it's not as if Shaw et al. are unable to figure out what a high-potential WR, OL, whatever looks like. It's that they're never around at the same time. To me, that means either recruiting more good players -- so that you've always got a supply around -- or figuring out how to get your players' development curves accelerated.)

b) playing too many players: I've complained about this enough.

c) and perhaps overall offensive complexity, etc., as well as shedding some ideological inflexibility. (We know Shaw will try hurry-up or spread stuff. To me, the only tactic that has consistently looked good this season has been the hurry-up. Why not devote yourself to it, I wonder.)

[washingtonismoney]

So it could be that Shaw has finally realized that -- unlike with Luck -- he needs Hogan to help out a bit.

"Finally" seems like a strange word. Shaw was pretty enthusiastic about running Hogan in 2012. The load lessened in 2013, but he certainly unleashed Hogan as a runner in some situations (e.g. against Oregon, where Hogan's legs were critical). And in 2014 he's gone back to running Hogan a lot. While he isn't a devotee of the Tebow/Klein-style running offense, he certainly will run the QB a lot in some situations.

Now, again, has the Shaw offense been terribly effective? No. But I think it's less about what plays are being run, and more about:

a) recruitment/development of players: (every Shaw offense post-Luck has featured one position group that is, like, awful. In 2012 it was wideouts, as well as QB for half the year. In 2013 it was TEs. This year it's RBs and OL; I think Hogan is more collateral damage. The thing is, the position groups change -- it's not as if Shaw et al. are unable to figure out what a high-potential WR, OL, whatever looks like. It's that they're never around at the same time. To me, that means either recruiting more good players -- so that you've always got a supply around -- or figuring out how to get your players' development curves accelerated.)

b) playing too many players: I've complained about this enough.

c) and perhaps overall offensive complexity, etc., as well as shedding some ideological inflexibility. (We know Shaw will try hurry-up or spread stuff. To me, the only tactic that has consistently looked good this season has been the hurry-up. Why not devote yourself to it, I wonder.)

[Hank 91]

What if -- and I realize how foolish it is to speculate like this -- but what if Shaw used Hogan as a runner in 2012 because he felt he was still a limited passer with a limited understanding of the passing game. In 2013, as he developed, he reduced the running except for -- as WiM points out -- certain situations. Now maybe the feeling is that Hogan hasn't developed -- or possibly has regressed -- as a passer, so it's back to the 2012 model. Who knows?

Also, with respect to the weaknesses of the different position groups at different times, do you (WiM) think this is because of poor development, or might it be because in a given year there might not be a group of players at a particular position who are academically qualified? This has always been a concern. (And by the way, I don't have an opinion on this. It's not a loaded question, I'm just seeking an opinion.)

[Hank 91]

What if -- and I realize how foolish it is to speculate like this -- but what if Shaw used Hogan as a runner in 2012 because he felt he was still a limited passer with a limited understanding of the passing game. In 2013, as he developed, he reduced the running except for -- as WiM points out -- certain situations. Now maybe the feeling is that Hogan hasn't developed -- or possibly has regressed -- as a passer, so it's back to the 2012 model. Who knows?

Also, with respect to the weaknesses of the different position groups at different times, do you (WiM) think this is because of poor development, or might it be because in a given year there might not be a group of players at a particular position who are academically qualified? This has always been a concern. (And by the way, I don't have an opinion on this. It's not a loaded question, I'm just seeking an opinion.)

[washingtonismoney]

Also, with respect to the weaknesses of the different position groups at different times, do you (WiM) think this is because of poor development, or might it be because in a given year there might not be a group of players at a particular position who are academically qualified? This has always been a concern. (And by the way, I don't have an opinion on this. It's not a loaded question, I'm just seeking an opinion.)

Dunno, could be a bit from column A and a bit from column B. It could also be that we're not doing an A+ job of convincing good offensive prospects that they need to come here as well.

It just seems a bit odd that we've basically been able to roll in talent at every level of the defense and not on offense. I don't think it's an evaluation problem; Shaw et al. has put solid-to-strong talent at every offensive position group in his tenure. It's that they aren't there simultaneously. To me this suggests recruiting, or perhaps insufficiently speedy development. (I don't subscribe to the theory that Hogan has been poorly developed, personally speaking.)

[washingtonismoney]

Also, with respect to the weaknesses of the different position groups at different times, do you (WiM) think this is because of poor development, or might it be because in a given year there might not be a group of players at a particular position who are academically qualified? This has always been a concern. (And by the way, I don't have an opinion on this. It's not a loaded question, I'm just seeking an opinion.)

Dunno, could be a bit from column A and a bit from column B. It could also be that we're not doing an A+ job of convincing good offensive prospects that they need to come here as well.

It just seems a bit odd that we've basically been able to roll in talent at every level of the defense and not on offense. I don't think it's an evaluation problem; Shaw et al. has put solid-to-strong talent at every offensive position group in his tenure. It's that they aren't there simultaneously. To me this suggests recruiting, or perhaps insufficiently speedy development. (I don't subscribe to the theory that Hogan has been poorly developed, personally speaking.)

[BostonCard]

Another great analysis, WIM.

My guess (and like everyone else, it is a guess) is that like the rest of us, Shaw has been disappointed in the lack of progress in the offensive line and the failure of one running back to come forward.  I think there was every reason to believe that both of those groups would be ahead of where it is; the offensive line group because of its recruiting prominence; the running backs because there were three being looked at, all three of whom were decently rated recruits.

I think some amount of patience was warranted because it does take a new offensive line (especially one with four new starters) some time to jell (or gel  ;)).  But obviously when you've gone past the midpoint of the season, and you aren't seeing the improvements you were hoping for/expecting, it is time to make a change.  And as you noted, we haven't.

As for why we aren't running more spread/hurry up, you have to balance the improvement in effectiveness for the offense with increased stress on the defense due to an increase number of possessions.  And the defense, while still very good, has shown signs of being under greater stress more recently.  Perhaps against Utah, which is a more limited offensive team, the defense will be able to dominate and Shaw will feel comfortable going to the hurry-up more frequently.

BC

[BostonCard]

Another great analysis, WIM.

My guess (and like everyone else, it is a guess) is that like the rest of us, Shaw has been disappointed in the lack of progress in the offensive line and the failure of one running back to come forward.  I think there was every reason to believe that both of those groups would be ahead of where it is; the offensive line group because of its recruiting prominence; the running backs because there were three being looked at, all three of whom were decently rated recruits.

I think some amount of patience was warranted because it does take a new offensive line (especially one with four new starters) some time to jell (or gel  ;)).  But obviously when you've gone past the midpoint of the season, and you aren't seeing the improvements you were hoping for/expecting, it is time to make a change.  And as you noted, we haven't.

As for why we aren't running more spread/hurry up, you have to balance the improvement in effectiveness for the offense with increased stress on the defense due to an increase number of possessions.  And the defense, while still very good, has shown signs of being under greater stress more recently.  Perhaps against Utah, which is a more limited offensive team, the defense will be able to dominate and Shaw will feel comfortable going to the hurry-up more frequently.

BC

[Hulk01]

The rationale given for rolling Hogan out--"so he doesn't have to see/scan the whole field"--is precisely the reason that roll out passes are not effective in medium to large doses.  A play that doesn't require the QB to see the whole field is a play that doesn't force the defense to defend the hole field.  Defenses roll to the roll out side, and effectively put all eleven men into one half of a field.  There is less room to throw, and it requires a quick and hard throw to squeeze into the compressed space. 

Hogan is a merely decent runner, and his arm makes a roll out pass even easier to defend.  As a defensive back, I loved it when a QB rolled out.  It reduced my burden by about half.

[Hulk01]

The rationale given for rolling Hogan out--"so he doesn't have to see/scan the whole field"--is precisely the reason that roll out passes are not effective in medium to large doses.  A play that doesn't require the QB to see the whole field is a play that doesn't force the defense to defend the hole field.  Defenses roll to the roll out side, and effectively put all eleven men into one half of a field.  There is less room to throw, and it requires a quick and hard throw to squeeze into the compressed space. 

Hogan is a merely decent runner, and his arm makes a roll out pass even easier to defend.  As a defensive back, I loved it when a QB rolled out.  It reduced my burden by about half.

[Oasis]

The problem with our offense is we don't have the O-line we had last year, the year before that and the year before that.  Nor do we have an RB like Gaffney to go with it.  Or as StanFan said:

That only worked because Stanford had a) an OL full of future NFL picks, and b) a 225-lb beast of an RB.  It has neither this season, which means teams are playing 6/7 in the box not 8/9 so the deep pass isn't as available and the running game is still not as effective as it was last year.

Bottom line is that the offense is far more dependent on Hogan being better than he was last year and the offensive gameplan needs to reflect that.  Losses to U$€ and ND are the direct result of this failure.
[/quote]

Another persistent problem is that our receivers often haven't achieved much separation and Hogan is throwing into narrow windows, which IMO is the result of the other two problems.  The losses to Figueroa Tech and the Dartmouth of the Rust Belt are due to the presence of evil in the world.  Given average luck and chances of various outcomes, Stanford beats the Figueroans by 17-21 points and holds on to win vs. the Rusters.

[Oasis]

The problem with our offense is we don't have the O-line we had last year, the year before that and the year before that.  Nor do we have an RB like Gaffney to go with it.  Or as StanFan said:

That only worked because Stanford had a) an OL full of future NFL picks, and b) a 225-lb beast of an RB.  It has neither this season, which means teams are playing 6/7 in the box not 8/9 so the deep pass isn't as available and the running game is still not as effective as it was last year.

Bottom line is that the offense is far more dependent on Hogan being better than he was last year and the offensive gameplan needs to reflect that.  Losses to U$€ and ND are the direct result of this failure.
[/quote]

Another persistent problem is that our receivers often haven't achieved much separation and Hogan is throwing into narrow windows, which IMO is the result of the other two problems.  The losses to Figueroa Tech and the Dartmouth of the Rust Belt are due to the presence of evil in the world.  Given average luck and chances of various outcomes, Stanford beats the Figueroans by 17-21 points and holds on to win vs. the Rusters.