[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=StanfordMatt link=topic=11492.msg110246#msg110246 date=1420657494]
Bloomgren isn't going anywhere. At least not now. Georgia hired Brian Schottenheimer to be their OC.

Just because he's not going to UGA doesn't mean he's sticking around.  There continue to be a flurry of new coaching hires for at least a couple more weeks.
[/quote]

This quote will look really bad if he ends up going somewhere else:  [tweet]552910364170399744[/tweet]

I mean, it already looks kind of bad because he said "unfinished business," but it'll look really bad if it's a lie.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=StanfordMatt link=topic=11492.msg110246#msg110246 date=1420657494]
Bloomgren isn't going anywhere. At least not now. Georgia hired Brian Schottenheimer to be their OC.

Just because he's not going to UGA doesn't mean he's sticking around.  There continue to be a flurry of new coaching hires for at least a couple more weeks.
[/quote]

This quote will look really bad if he ends up going somewhere else:  [tweet]552910364170399744[/tweet]

I mean, it already looks kind of bad because he said "unfinished business," but it'll look really bad if it's a lie.

[dabigv13]

Dabigv, sorry to single you out but the Barry Sanders love is a bit perplexing and persistent (among not just you, but a few people). Here's the problem: Sanders doesn't lack in a lightbulb category. He's got good vision. His pass blocking hasn't been noticeably bad.

Sanders's problem is that he has no speed. Short of Turley been more of a miracle worker than we think he is, I think Sanders is who he is at this point.

I think saying he has no speed is harsh. He's not as fast as CMac or Kelsey Young, but he's not slow. Obviously a part of the Barry love is because his dad was perhaps the greatest runner ever, certainly the most entertaining in my mind. That's obviously unfair to Barry J, but he does have elusiveness and moves that no other Stanford RB has. And I think his speeds and quicks are adequate; I doubt Alabama or LSU offer him if they weren't. His dad was faster than he is, but he wasn't a burner either.

I disagree about his vision- I think in the open field he has it, but at the line of scrimmage he doesn't always pick the right hole. Could also be that our blocking style is suited more to a player who prefers to stay within the tackles, rather than bounce it outside or reverse direction. And I think he more than perhaps any other of our RBs would benefit from getting more prolonged touches given his running style. It's hard to get in a rhythm when you get 3 plays and you're out, particularly if your main attribute isn't your size or your speed but elusiveness.

And come on, who else on our roster has these moves-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQsykbQXVRA

[dabigv13]

Dabigv, sorry to single you out but the Barry Sanders love is a bit perplexing and persistent (among not just you, but a few people). Here's the problem: Sanders doesn't lack in a lightbulb category. He's got good vision. His pass blocking hasn't been noticeably bad.

Sanders's problem is that he has no speed. Short of Turley been more of a miracle worker than we think he is, I think Sanders is who he is at this point.

I think saying he has no speed is harsh. He's not as fast as CMac or Kelsey Young, but he's not slow. Obviously a part of the Barry love is because his dad was perhaps the greatest runner ever, certainly the most entertaining in my mind. That's obviously unfair to Barry J, but he does have elusiveness and moves that no other Stanford RB has. And I think his speeds and quicks are adequate; I doubt Alabama or LSU offer him if they weren't. His dad was faster than he is, but he wasn't a burner either.

I disagree about his vision- I think in the open field he has it, but at the line of scrimmage he doesn't always pick the right hole. Could also be that our blocking style is suited more to a player who prefers to stay within the tackles, rather than bounce it outside or reverse direction. And I think he more than perhaps any other of our RBs would benefit from getting more prolonged touches given his running style. It's hard to get in a rhythm when you get 3 plays and you're out, particularly if your main attribute isn't your size or your speed but elusiveness.

And come on, who else on our roster has these moves-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQsykbQXVRA

[washingtonismoney]

I think saying he has no speed is harsh.

I think an average-speed back finishes this play for a touchdown: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:11520702

And Sanders, given his size/weight profile, should be a plus-speed guy. A plus-speed guy definitely finishes that play for a TD.

[washingtonismoney]

I think saying he has no speed is harsh.

I think an average-speed back finishes this play for a touchdown: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:11520702

And Sanders, given his size/weight profile, should be a plus-speed guy. A plus-speed guy definitely finishes that play for a TD.

[dabigv13]

He still got 44 yards on that play, which was the season high for all our RBs!

Just because he doesn't have elite top end speed doesn't mean he still can't be an excellent RB, as OF pointed out earlier. Gerhart, Gaffney, and Taylor did not have breakaway speed, and I don't know if any three of them would take that to the house either.

[dabigv13]

He still got 44 yards on that play, which was the season high for all our RBs!

Just because he doesn't have elite top end speed doesn't mean he still can't be an excellent RB, as OF pointed out earlier. Gerhart, Gaffney, and Taylor did not have breakaway speed, and I don't know if any three of them would take that to the house either.

[BostonCard]

Here's a question. I think the range of opinion on our offensive coaching in the Shaw era goes from "it's awful" to something like "It gets the job done," or something similarly lukewarm. (You don't see anyone defending them as misunderstood geniuses, is my point.)

AND YET, Stanford offensive coaches are awfully popular targets for poaching. Why is this?

Interesting parallels to Greg Roman, who many 49ers fans opinions ranged from "he's awful" to something lukewarm... and yet... he appears to be a hot coaching commodity.

http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/Go-f...997808.php

BC

[BostonCard]

Here's a question. I think the range of opinion on our offensive coaching in the Shaw era goes from "it's awful" to something like "It gets the job done," or something similarly lukewarm. (You don't see anyone defending them as misunderstood geniuses, is my point.)

AND YET, Stanford offensive coaches are awfully popular targets for poaching. Why is this?

Interesting parallels to Greg Roman, who many 49ers fans opinions ranged from "he's awful" to something lukewarm... and yet... he appears to be a hot coaching commodity.

http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/Go-f...997808.php

BC

[martyup]

In our first two games, we suffered 10 offensive penalties, four sacks allowed, and eight fumbles: 11 "bad plays" per game.  A clean game against Army--one penalty and two sacks allowed, meant we averaged 8.3 bad plays per game for our first three.

Here's how that stat improved over our season:

First three games: 8.3 BPs per game
Games 4-6: 7.7
Games 7-9: 6.3
Games 10-13: 4.25
Games 11, 12, and 13 only: 2.0 per game

Thanks for these stats Hulk.  They really illustrate the learning/maturing process of this team throughout the season.  While it is the players that make the mistakes, the coaches cannot be entirely absolved of responsibility.  The hope is that a team will get the stupid mistakes out of their system during Fall camp.  Clearly this did not happen in 2014.  Every year coaches are faced with new player personalities, abilities, and propencities.  Coaches must make adjustments based on the team in front of them.  For some reason, this team didn't get those hiccups out of their system in camp.  The job of the coaching staff is to have their team ready to play relatively mistake free football by the first game of the season.  The fact that the 2012 and 2013 teams made very few mistakes tells us that our coaching staff is capable of achieving that goal.  The 2014 season showed us that our boys were not ready to play mistake free football at the start of the season.  It's hard to pinpoint one reason for that, but I would guess that lack of game experience played a large part.  I also think that in the early games Hogan was calling too many audibles.  With a relatively inexperienced offensive line, these play changes might have contributed to false starts, missed assignments, and even chop blocks.  Audibles were also responsible for several delay of game penalties.

[martyup]

In our first two games, we suffered 10 offensive penalties, four sacks allowed, and eight fumbles: 11 "bad plays" per game.  A clean game against Army--one penalty and two sacks allowed, meant we averaged 8.3 bad plays per game for our first three.

Here's how that stat improved over our season:

First three games: 8.3 BPs per game
Games 4-6: 7.7
Games 7-9: 6.3
Games 10-13: 4.25
Games 11, 12, and 13 only: 2.0 per game

Thanks for these stats Hulk.  They really illustrate the learning/maturing process of this team throughout the season.  While it is the players that make the mistakes, the coaches cannot be entirely absolved of responsibility.  The hope is that a team will get the stupid mistakes out of their system during Fall camp.  Clearly this did not happen in 2014.  Every year coaches are faced with new player personalities, abilities, and propencities.  Coaches must make adjustments based on the team in front of them.  For some reason, this team didn't get those hiccups out of their system in camp.  The job of the coaching staff is to have their team ready to play relatively mistake free football by the first game of the season.  The fact that the 2012 and 2013 teams made very few mistakes tells us that our coaching staff is capable of achieving that goal.  The 2014 season showed us that our boys were not ready to play mistake free football at the start of the season.  It's hard to pinpoint one reason for that, but I would guess that lack of game experience played a large part.  I also think that in the early games Hogan was calling too many audibles.  With a relatively inexperienced offensive line, these play changes might have contributed to false starts, missed assignments, and even chop blocks.  Audibles were also responsible for several delay of game penalties.

[CTcard]

I also think we will find that the greater percentage of runs was partly a function of cleaning up the messes.  We faced way too many 2d and 15s and 3rd and longs because of penalties and fumbles (and bad snaps and exchanges, an average of one a game for the first half).  With more 2ds and 6s and fewer 2d and 15s, we were able to run and threaten defenses with two dimensions.

Cause and effect are difficult to distinguish here, but I don't think cleaning up more runs is enough to explain all the differences.

Here is a comparison of our worst offensive games vs the good streak at the end. Against Utah is particularly key because we ran well but passed way too much and had an overall terrible offensive day. My sense is that the approach changed after that - certainly the result did.

Against und we had 28 first down plays, ran 14 passed 14
Against ASU we had 24 first down plays, ran 10 passed 14
Against Utah we had 29 first down plays, ran 17 passed 12.
then ...
Against Cal we had 33 first down plays, ran 27 passed 6.
Against UCLA we had 29 first down plays, ran 25 passed 4.
Against Maryland we had 34 first down plays, ran 23 passed 11.

So, before the mistakes kicked in we were still passing more pre-Utah.

OF course that doesn't establish cause and effect. They may simply be independent issues.
It's also true some of that is sitting on a lead late, but not all of it. [Another time I might go do first halves only, but it's a lot of work.]

[CTcard]

I also think we will find that the greater percentage of runs was partly a function of cleaning up the messes.  We faced way too many 2d and 15s and 3rd and longs because of penalties and fumbles (and bad snaps and exchanges, an average of one a game for the first half).  With more 2ds and 6s and fewer 2d and 15s, we were able to run and threaten defenses with two dimensions.

Cause and effect are difficult to distinguish here, but I don't think cleaning up more runs is enough to explain all the differences.

Here is a comparison of our worst offensive games vs the good streak at the end. Against Utah is particularly key because we ran well but passed way too much and had an overall terrible offensive day. My sense is that the approach changed after that - certainly the result did.

Against und we had 28 first down plays, ran 14 passed 14
Against ASU we had 24 first down plays, ran 10 passed 14
Against Utah we had 29 first down plays, ran 17 passed 12.
then ...
Against Cal we had 33 first down plays, ran 27 passed 6.
Against UCLA we had 29 first down plays, ran 25 passed 4.
Against Maryland we had 34 first down plays, ran 23 passed 11.

So, before the mistakes kicked in we were still passing more pre-Utah.

OF course that doesn't establish cause and effect. They may simply be independent issues.
It's also true some of that is sitting on a lead late, but not all of it. [Another time I might go do first halves only, but it's a lot of work.]

[Mick]

In our first two games, we suffered 10 offensive penalties, four sacks allowed, and eight fumbles: 11 "bad plays" per game.  A clean game against Army--one penalty and two sacks allowed, meant we averaged 8.3 bad plays per game for our first three.

Here's how that stat improved over our season:

First three games: 8.3 BPs per game
Games 4-6: 7.7
Games 7-9: 6.3
Games 10-13: 4.25
Games 11, 12, and 13 only: 2.0 per game

So...why weren't those ironed out in the beginning, one must wonder?  Penalties and missed snap counts seem fairly basic.  I was a terrible player for a terrible team, a novice really, but I played both ways in a nine game season and got called for one offensive penalty and one defensive penalty all year, both of which were borderline (a facemask where my hand banged off of a facemask but didn't grab it, and an encroachment penalty as a DT with poor lighting on a muddy, lineless field where the OL across from me must have been lined up in their backfield).  Why is it so difficult for a high level D1 player to get penalized and miss snap counts?

[Mick]

In our first two games, we suffered 10 offensive penalties, four sacks allowed, and eight fumbles: 11 "bad plays" per game.  A clean game against Army--one penalty and two sacks allowed, meant we averaged 8.3 bad plays per game for our first three.

Here's how that stat improved over our season:

First three games: 8.3 BPs per game
Games 4-6: 7.7
Games 7-9: 6.3
Games 10-13: 4.25
Games 11, 12, and 13 only: 2.0 per game

So...why weren't those ironed out in the beginning, one must wonder?  Penalties and missed snap counts seem fairly basic.  I was a terrible player for a terrible team, a novice really, but I played both ways in a nine game season and got called for one offensive penalty and one defensive penalty all year, both of which were borderline (a facemask where my hand banged off of a facemask but didn't grab it, and an encroachment penalty as a DT with poor lighting on a muddy, lineless field where the OL across from me must have been lined up in their backfield).  Why is it so difficult for a high level D1 player to get penalized and miss snap counts?

[StanFan88]

re Sanders: I think he has great vision and lateral moves to make guys miss, but he doesn't have a breakaway gear that allows him to run away from defenses in the open field.

If he can learn to be a better pass-blocker, he can be an effective 3rd down back because he can make guys miss and get that extra yard.  But he's not a guy who's going to bust through the line and explode for long gains.

[StanFan88]

re Sanders: I think he has great vision and lateral moves to make guys miss, but he doesn't have a breakaway gear that allows him to run away from defenses in the open field.

If he can learn to be a better pass-blocker, he can be an effective 3rd down back because he can make guys miss and get that extra yard.  But he's not a guy who's going to bust through the line and explode for long gains.