[Phogge]

Perhaps it is time and personnel fitting to deconstruct some of the playbook. How is it that a supposed VERY complicated scheme is being neutralized? Where are the multiple formations? Motion? Play action?

I totally agree with Hulk (and that is saying something for me) on Little and Hamilton. Hall has always held. Herbig is puzzling. I don"t think anyone has to worry about anybody except Whiteside coming out early.

At least run some tempo at times. Try something to get the opponent off his gameplan. And get Osiris into the games.

And most importantly stop being stubborn. Along with recruiting some very mean and angry safeties.

[Phogge]

Perhaps it is time and personnel fitting to deconstruct some of the playbook. How is it that a supposed VERY complicated scheme is being neutralized? Where are the multiple formations? Motion? Play action?

I totally agree with Hulk (and that is saying something for me) on Little and Hamilton. Hall has always held. Herbig is puzzling. I don"t think anyone has to worry about anybody except Whiteside coming out early.

At least run some tempo at times. Try something to get the opponent off his gameplan. And get Osiris into the games.

And most importantly stop being stubborn. Along with recruiting some very mean and angry safeties.

[CTcard]

Perhaps it is time and personnel fitting to deconstruct some of the playbook. How is it that a supposed VERY complicated scheme is being neutralized? Where are the multiple formations? Motion? Play action? 

Stanford appears to have simplified the playbook this year. By itself I think that has nothing to do with the success or lack of success of the offense. It's probably just a preference of the current coaches, but I suppose might reflect deeper problems.  

We're primarily being neutralized by opponents overwhelming our OL.  And having a pass offense designed to complement a now non-existent run game. 

I don't get the desperate plea for play action around these parts. It's not that big a foil to defenses, not credible when you have no run game, slows plays down, and makes blocking schemes more difficult (at least if you are really selling the play action). It can help freeze the safeties if they are playing read-react, but it doesn't create a pass game out of thin air.

[CTcard]

Perhaps it is time and personnel fitting to deconstruct some of the playbook. How is it that a supposed VERY complicated scheme is being neutralized? Where are the multiple formations? Motion? Play action? 

Stanford appears to have simplified the playbook this year. By itself I think that has nothing to do with the success or lack of success of the offense. It's probably just a preference of the current coaches, but I suppose might reflect deeper problems.  

We're primarily being neutralized by opponents overwhelming our OL.  And having a pass offense designed to complement a now non-existent run game. 

I don't get the desperate plea for play action around these parts. It's not that big a foil to defenses, not credible when you have no run game, slows plays down, and makes blocking schemes more difficult (at least if you are really selling the play action). It can help freeze the safeties if they are playing read-react, but it doesn't create a pass game out of thin air.

[Phogge]

Perhaps it is time and personnel fitting to deconstruct some of the playbook. How is it that a supposed VERY complicated scheme is being neutralized? Where are the multiple formations? Motion? Play action? 

Stanford appears to have simplified the playbook this year. By itself I think that has nothing to do with the success or lack of success of the offense. It's probably just a preference of the current coaches, but I suppose might reflect deeper problems.  

We're primarily being neutralized by opponents overwhelming our OL.  And having a pass offense designed to complement a now non-existent run game. 

I don't get the desperate plea for play action around these parts. It's not that big a foil to defenses, not credible when you have no run game, slows plays down, and makes blocking schemes more difficult (at least if you are really selling the play action). It can help freeze the safeties if they are playing read-react, but it doesn't create a pass game out of thin air.

Whatever it is it ain't working. Not even against the Aggies. The problem isn't a simplified playbook it's that there are a bunch of looks that were successful in the past that have not been seen this season. Even if play action holds up a rusher for a fraction of a second that gives the fairly immobile QB that much more time to follow through.

[Phogge]

Perhaps it is time and personnel fitting to deconstruct some of the playbook. How is it that a supposed VERY complicated scheme is being neutralized? Where are the multiple formations? Motion? Play action? 

Stanford appears to have simplified the playbook this year. By itself I think that has nothing to do with the success or lack of success of the offense. It's probably just a preference of the current coaches, but I suppose might reflect deeper problems.  

We're primarily being neutralized by opponents overwhelming our OL.  And having a pass offense designed to complement a now non-existent run game. 

I don't get the desperate plea for play action around these parts. It's not that big a foil to defenses, not credible when you have no run game, slows plays down, and makes blocking schemes more difficult (at least if you are really selling the play action). It can help freeze the safeties if they are playing read-react, but it doesn't create a pass game out of thin air.

Whatever it is it ain't working. Not even against the Aggies. The problem isn't a simplified playbook it's that there are a bunch of looks that were successful in the past that have not been seen this season. Even if play action holds up a rusher for a fraction of a second that gives the fairly immobile QB that much more time to follow through.

[CTcard]

... The problem isn't a simplified playbook it's that there are a bunch of looks that were successful in the past that have not been seen this season.

Even if play action holds up a rusher for a fraction of a second that gives the fairly immobile QB that much more time to follow through.

That's not what play action does, certainly not any longer than it delays the QB by performing the play action.
The point of play action is to freeze the safeties, allowing receivers to get open behind them.

[CTcard]

... The problem isn't a simplified playbook it's that there are a bunch of looks that were successful in the past that have not been seen this season.

Even if play action holds up a rusher for a fraction of a second that gives the fairly immobile QB that much more time to follow through.

That's not what play action does, certainly not any longer than it delays the QB by performing the play action.
The point of play action is to freeze the safeties, allowing receivers to get open behind them.

[doubledub]

... The problem isn't a simplified playbook it's that there are a bunch of looks that were successful in the past that have not been seen this season.

Even if play action holds up a rusher for a fraction of a second that gives the fairly immobile QB that much more time to follow through.

That's not what play action does, certainly not any longer than it delays the QB by performing the play action.
The point of play action is to freeze the safeties, allowing receivers to get open behind them.

[doubledub]

... The problem isn't a simplified playbook it's that there are a bunch of looks that were successful in the past that have not been seen this season.

Even if play action holds up a rusher for a fraction of a second that gives the fairly immobile QB that much more time to follow through.

That's not what play action does, certainly not any longer than it delays the QB by performing the play action.
The point of play action is to freeze the safeties, allowing receivers to get open behind them.

[Hulk01]

Play action only works when the defense fears your running game and feels the need to bring a safety up to help deal with it.  We're not there yet. 

Reverses won't work for us, for the same reason.  Defenses aren't overplaying what appears to them to be the play side.  They're not overplaying us and setting up for us the backside.

Some fans call for more motion.  You use motion to read a defense---zone or man to man.  It's not a way of gaining some advantage at the point of attack.

Passing more is just passing more.  It doesn't set up the run to pass 60% of the time instead of 48%.  It's just more passing, and more of the beta that comes with passing.

Is there a current top 25 teams that passes on more than half of its snaps? 
West Virginia, I suspect, and Stanford. 
Coaches everywhere stubbornly insist on running.

[Hulk01]

Play action only works when the defense fears your running game and feels the need to bring a safety up to help deal with it.  We're not there yet. 

Reverses won't work for us, for the same reason.  Defenses aren't overplaying what appears to them to be the play side.  They're not overplaying us and setting up for us the backside.

Some fans call for more motion.  You use motion to read a defense---zone or man to man.  It's not a way of gaining some advantage at the point of attack.

Passing more is just passing more.  It doesn't set up the run to pass 60% of the time instead of 48%.  It's just more passing, and more of the beta that comes with passing.

Is there a current top 25 teams that passes on more than half of its snaps? 
West Virginia, I suspect, and Stanford. 
Coaches everywhere stubbornly insist on running.

[Goose]

Play action only works when the defense fears your running game and feels the need to bring a safety up to help deal with it.  We're not there yet. 

Very True. We were "there" early in the year (SDSU, SC) based on last year's performance. The box was "full". Costello showed he could beat that look, but our run game wasn't doing anything. Defenses started to react to this fact.  Oregon mixed things up more, and didn't put 8 in the box all the time. However, we still got lots of one on one coverage. There wasn't much reason for this, as our run game wasn't going to bring us back from the deficit we were in. Probably Oregon's DBs were just not good enough to cover our receivers even with safety help, and you have to single up somewhere. Notre Dame played it much more straight up, because they felt they could handle our run game with less safety support. They also had better (and bigger) DBs. As the game went on, we were behind and Love got hurt. Our OL wasn't blocking anybody, so ND didn't stack the box at all anymore and KJ was throwing into coverage.
We are going to see lots more pass defense and less run defense until we prove all over again that we can run the ball. Play action is totally ineffective if nobody on the defense is afraid of your running game and both safeties are playing pass. They aren't going to buy the run action, figuring the front seven can do the job if you are actually going to run the ball.  Until you prove that isn't so, there will be no hesitation in the defensive backfield caused by run action.
Equally importantly, if you can't block the DL, it doesn't matter much what you call. It isn't going anyplace.

[Goose]

Play action only works when the defense fears your running game and feels the need to bring a safety up to help deal with it.  We're not there yet. 

Very True. We were "there" early in the year (SDSU, SC) based on last year's performance. The box was "full". Costello showed he could beat that look, but our run game wasn't doing anything. Defenses started to react to this fact.  Oregon mixed things up more, and didn't put 8 in the box all the time. However, we still got lots of one on one coverage. There wasn't much reason for this, as our run game wasn't going to bring us back from the deficit we were in. Probably Oregon's DBs were just not good enough to cover our receivers even with safety help, and you have to single up somewhere. Notre Dame played it much more straight up, because they felt they could handle our run game with less safety support. They also had better (and bigger) DBs. As the game went on, we were behind and Love got hurt. Our OL wasn't blocking anybody, so ND didn't stack the box at all anymore and KJ was throwing into coverage.
We are going to see lots more pass defense and less run defense until we prove all over again that we can run the ball. Play action is totally ineffective if nobody on the defense is afraid of your running game and both safeties are playing pass. They aren't going to buy the run action, figuring the front seven can do the job if you are actually going to run the ball.  Until you prove that isn't so, there will be no hesitation in the defensive backfield caused by run action.
Equally importantly, if you can't block the DL, it doesn't matter much what you call. It isn't going anyplace.

[washingtonismoney]

Leaving aside the discussion about playbook, tempo is another interesting topic. Since Shaw took over, there's been a gradual yet ineluctable slide in speed: every year with maybe one exception, Stanford has averaged fewer plays than the year before. It's weird and, I think, bad.

[washingtonismoney]

Leaving aside the discussion about playbook, tempo is another interesting topic. Since Shaw took over, there's been a gradual yet ineluctable slide in speed: every year with maybe one exception, Stanford has averaged fewer plays than the year before. It's weird and, I think, bad.

[Phogge]

When things aren't working you need to try some other things. What do we mostly see on the game's first play? Bryce getting caught two yards behind the line. Fake that baby and release one of the TE's. Can't hurt. An incompletion is better than a two yard loss. Try dancing with somebody you didn't bring to the party.

[Phogge]

When things aren't working you need to try some other things. What do we mostly see on the game's first play? Bryce getting caught two yards behind the line. Fake that baby and release one of the TE's. Can't hurt. An incompletion is better than a two yard loss. Try dancing with somebody you didn't bring to the party.

[CTcard]

Play action only works when the defense fears your running game and feels the need to bring a safety up to help deal with it.  We're not there yet. 

We were "there" early in the year (SDSU, SC) based on last year's performance. The box was "full". ... Play action is totally ineffective if nobody on the defense is afraid of your running game and both safeties are playing pass

I'd say the first statement is true, but not under extreme conditions. Which gives a nuance to the second statement above as well.

SDSU took an extreme approach to stopping our run game, and constantly played cover 0 with crashing safeties. Play action wasn't particularly effective there because the safeties were crashing on the snap and not waiting to read what the offense appeared to be doing. Mostly they figured if it was a pass the safeties would keep coming and try to pressure the QB.

Of course play action also won't work if the defense either doesn't believe it, or believes they can stop the run game without the safeties.

Don't forget the negative trade offs on play action, which are particularly acute if you are having trouble protecting the QB. Typically, the QB takes the snap, turns his back to the defense, fakes a handoff, turns back to the field, reacquires the receivers in his vision, then goes through his progressions. Takes a while. The RB in pretending to take the handoff typically gets out of position for pass blocking. If the OL is selling the play action, they start driving instead of falling back into pass block stance. If the QB, RB, and OL are really good at this, the negatives aren't so extreme and it can be worth it to get the safeties out of position. If they aren't and a hard pass rush is coming it's a really bad idea.

What do we mostly see on the game's first play? Bryce getting caught two yards behind the line.

First plays this season:
SDSU: Incomplete pass
U$C: Love rush for 3 yards
Davis: Pass complete to JJAW for 19 yards
Oregon: Love rush for 2 yards
und: Love rush for 0 yards.

I guess 3/5 qualifies for usually for handing the ball off to Love, if not the loss of yards part.

Is there a current top 25 teams that passes on more than half of its snaps? 
West Virginia, I suspect, and Stanford. 
Coaches everywhere stubbornly insist on running.

You're way off.
Teams in the current AP top 25 that have passed more than half their snaps are West Virginia, Stanford AND NC State.
How can you forget the Wolfpack?

[CTcard]

Play action only works when the defense fears your running game and feels the need to bring a safety up to help deal with it.  We're not there yet. 

We were "there" early in the year (SDSU, SC) based on last year's performance. The box was "full". ... Play action is totally ineffective if nobody on the defense is afraid of your running game and both safeties are playing pass

I'd say the first statement is true, but not under extreme conditions. Which gives a nuance to the second statement above as well.

SDSU took an extreme approach to stopping our run game, and constantly played cover 0 with crashing safeties. Play action wasn't particularly effective there because the safeties were crashing on the snap and not waiting to read what the offense appeared to be doing. Mostly they figured if it was a pass the safeties would keep coming and try to pressure the QB.

Of course play action also won't work if the defense either doesn't believe it, or believes they can stop the run game without the safeties.

Don't forget the negative trade offs on play action, which are particularly acute if you are having trouble protecting the QB. Typically, the QB takes the snap, turns his back to the defense, fakes a handoff, turns back to the field, reacquires the receivers in his vision, then goes through his progressions. Takes a while. The RB in pretending to take the handoff typically gets out of position for pass blocking. If the OL is selling the play action, they start driving instead of falling back into pass block stance. If the QB, RB, and OL are really good at this, the negatives aren't so extreme and it can be worth it to get the safeties out of position. If they aren't and a hard pass rush is coming it's a really bad idea.

What do we mostly see on the game's first play? Bryce getting caught two yards behind the line.

First plays this season:
SDSU: Incomplete pass
U$C: Love rush for 3 yards
Davis: Pass complete to JJAW for 19 yards
Oregon: Love rush for 2 yards
und: Love rush for 0 yards.

I guess 3/5 qualifies for usually for handing the ball off to Love, if not the loss of yards part.

Is there a current top 25 teams that passes on more than half of its snaps? 
West Virginia, I suspect, and Stanford. 
Coaches everywhere stubbornly insist on running.

You're way off.
Teams in the current AP top 25 that have passed more than half their snaps are West Virginia, Stanford AND NC State.
How can you forget the Wolfpack?

[Phogge]

Hey, I'm from the Drifters era. Dance with all the girls. Throw it all over the field. And get OSB plenty of snaps.

[Phogge]

Hey, I'm from the Drifters era. Dance with all the girls. Throw it all over the field. And get OSB plenty of snaps.

[CTcard]

And get OSB plenty of snaps.

Yeah, OSB has quite the season so far, on limited plays.

He has five catches on the year, two of which went for zero yards each, and yet somehow is averaging 30 yds per catch.
His other three were for 53, 49, and 45.

[CTcard]

And get OSB plenty of snaps.

Yeah, OSB has quite the season so far, on limited plays.

He has five catches on the year, two of which went for zero yards each, and yet somehow is averaging 30 yds per catch.
His other three were for 53, 49, and 45.

[OutsiderFan]

Why does everyone assume the OL personnel is the problem, when the reality is 4/5 (and sometimes 5/5) of the same OL in 2017 paved the way for a 2,000+ yard rusher?  They didn't all of a sudden forget how to play or become weak.  And I've never in my life heard of a team not being able to run the ball because it lost a certain Fullback. IOW, it's not like they have any history of being irreplaceable.

The only thing that is really left is offensive scheme, game planning, and inability of coaches to get their players to execute. Maybe it's the latter.

[OutsiderFan]

Why does everyone assume the OL personnel is the problem, when the reality is 4/5 (and sometimes 5/5) of the same OL in 2017 paved the way for a 2,000+ yard rusher?  They didn't all of a sudden forget how to play or become weak.  And I've never in my life heard of a team not being able to run the ball because it lost a certain Fullback. IOW, it's not like they have any history of being irreplaceable.

The only thing that is really left is offensive scheme, game planning, and inability of coaches to get their players to execute. Maybe it's the latter.

[lex24]

Well, the obvious response is the coaches haven’t forgotten what was successful in 2017 – or for that matter what has been successful since 2012. I’m talking about the running game. Obviously it’s somewhat of a combination of things. It’s never just one thing. But the fact of the matter is the offensive line is getting beaten like a drum. Little has been consistently beaten off the edge. The interior running game – a major strength for nine years – is nonexistent. They are getting no push and in fact the defensive lines are getting consistent penetration.

The playcalling isn’t particularly different this year than it’s been in the past. Now perhaps it should be that’s a different issue. The scheme is not particularly different this year than it has been in the past. Again perhaps it should be. They have not had a drop off at the skill positions. In fact I suspect this team is stronger at the skill positions then it has been in a few years. Which leaves us to the fact that the offensive line is getting physically destroyed.

Why does everyone assume the OL personnel is the problem, when the reality is 4/5 (and sometimes 5/5) of the same OL in 2017 paved the way for a 2,000+ yard rusher?  They didn't all of a sudden forget how to play or become weak.  And I've never in my life heard of a team not being able to run the ball because it lost a certain Fullback. IOW, it's not like they have any history of being irreplaceable.

The only thing that is really left is offensive scheme, game planning, and inability of coaches to get their players to execute. Maybe it's the latter.

[lex24]

Well, the obvious response is the coaches haven’t forgotten what was successful in 2017 – or for that matter what has been successful since 2012. I’m talking about the running game. Obviously it’s somewhat of a combination of things. It’s never just one thing. But the fact of the matter is the offensive line is getting beaten like a drum. Little has been consistently beaten off the edge. The interior running game – a major strength for nine years – is nonexistent. They are getting no push and in fact the defensive lines are getting consistent penetration.

The playcalling isn’t particularly different this year than it’s been in the past. Now perhaps it should be that’s a different issue. The scheme is not particularly different this year than it has been in the past. Again perhaps it should be. They have not had a drop off at the skill positions. In fact I suspect this team is stronger at the skill positions then it has been in a few years. Which leaves us to the fact that the offensive line is getting physically destroyed.

Why does everyone assume the OL personnel is the problem, when the reality is 4/5 (and sometimes 5/5) of the same OL in 2017 paved the way for a 2,000+ yard rusher?  They didn't all of a sudden forget how to play or become weak.  And I've never in my life heard of a team not being able to run the ball because it lost a certain Fullback. IOW, it's not like they have any history of being irreplaceable.

The only thing that is really left is offensive scheme, game planning, and inability of coaches to get their players to execute. Maybe it's the latter.

[stupac2]

Why does everyone assume the OL personnel is the problem, when the reality is 4/5 (and sometimes 5/5) of the same OL in 2017 paved the way for a 2,000+ yard rusher?  They didn't all of a sudden forget how to play or become weak.  And I've never in my life heard of a team not being able to run the ball because it lost a certain Fullback. IOW, it's not like they have any history of being irreplaceable.

The only thing that is really left is offensive scheme, game planning, and inability of coaches to get their players to execute. Maybe it's the latter.

Well players can regress for all kinds of reasons. I brought up the Patriots earlier, but they looked like a completely different team in week 3 vs week 4. It's a complicated game with a lot of moving parts. I think what most people here are saying is that our main problem is the OL's performance, but it's not clear why they're underperforming. It's also possible that we're overreacting to playing against a really good defensive front and having the game script get away from us.

[stupac2]

Why does everyone assume the OL personnel is the problem, when the reality is 4/5 (and sometimes 5/5) of the same OL in 2017 paved the way for a 2,000+ yard rusher?  They didn't all of a sudden forget how to play or become weak.  And I've never in my life heard of a team not being able to run the ball because it lost a certain Fullback. IOW, it's not like they have any history of being irreplaceable.

The only thing that is really left is offensive scheme, game planning, and inability of coaches to get their players to execute. Maybe it's the latter.

Well players can regress for all kinds of reasons. I brought up the Patriots earlier, but they looked like a completely different team in week 3 vs week 4. It's a complicated game with a lot of moving parts. I think what most people here are saying is that our main problem is the OL's performance, but it's not clear why they're underperforming. It's also possible that we're overreacting to playing against a really good defensive front and having the game script get away from us.

[GK3]

Why does everyone assume the OL personnel is the problem, when the reality is 4/5 (and sometimes 5/5) of the same OL in 2017 paved the way for a 2,000+ yard rusher?  They didn't all of a sudden forget how to play or become weak.  And I've never in my life heard of a team not being able to run the ball because it lost a certain Fullback. IOW, it's not like they have any history of being irreplaceable.

The only thing that is really left is offensive scheme, game planning, and inability of coaches to get their players to execute. Maybe it's the latter.

Well players can regress for all kinds of reasons. I brought up the Patriots earlier, but they looked like a completely different team in week 3 vs week 4. It's a complicated game with a lot of moving parts. I think what most people here are saying is that our main problem is the OL's performance, but it's not clear why they're underperforming. It's also possible that we're overreacting to playing against a really good defensive front and having the game script get away from us.

Somewhere this morning I ran across a comment by an NFL evaluator who called our OL guys, weak and lacking strength.  This seems to fly in the face of Turly's program, but at the same time it would explain what we see out on the field.  I have no idea if the guy knows what he is talking about or just stirring the pot.

[GK3]

Why does everyone assume the OL personnel is the problem, when the reality is 4/5 (and sometimes 5/5) of the same OL in 2017 paved the way for a 2,000+ yard rusher?  They didn't all of a sudden forget how to play or become weak.  And I've never in my life heard of a team not being able to run the ball because it lost a certain Fullback. IOW, it's not like they have any history of being irreplaceable.

The only thing that is really left is offensive scheme, game planning, and inability of coaches to get their players to execute. Maybe it's the latter.

Well players can regress for all kinds of reasons. I brought up the Patriots earlier, but they looked like a completely different team in week 3 vs week 4. It's a complicated game with a lot of moving parts. I think what most people here are saying is that our main problem is the OL's performance, but it's not clear why they're underperforming. It's also possible that we're overreacting to playing against a really good defensive front and having the game script get away from us.

Somewhere this morning I ran across a comment by an NFL evaluator who called our OL guys, weak and lacking strength.  This seems to fly in the face of Turly's program, but at the same time it would explain what we see out on the field.  I have no idea if the guy knows what he is talking about or just stirring the pot.

[Renaissance Man]

Why does everyone assume the OL personnel is the problem, when the reality is 4/5 (and sometimes 5/5) of the same OL in 2017 paved the way for a 2,000+ yard rusher?  They didn't all of a sudden forget how to play or become weak.  And I've never in my life heard of a team not being able to run the ball because it lost a certain Fullback. IOW, it's not like they have any history of being irreplaceable.

The only thing that is really left is offensive scheme, game planning, and inability of coaches to get their players to execute. Maybe it's the latter.

While I am too lazy to do the research, I am reasonably certain that the posts at this point of the season in 2017 were very similar to these (SD State and USC had left us wringing our hands), as well as many previous seasons.  We were happy about Love, but we weren't exulting over our powerful offense.  All of this brings me back to the question that won't leave my mind, why does it take so long for our offense, and especially our offensive line to perform at a high level every year--I believe we will get there this year, simply because that has been the pattern for a long time.

[Renaissance Man]

Why does everyone assume the OL personnel is the problem, when the reality is 4/5 (and sometimes 5/5) of the same OL in 2017 paved the way for a 2,000+ yard rusher?  They didn't all of a sudden forget how to play or become weak.  And I've never in my life heard of a team not being able to run the ball because it lost a certain Fullback. IOW, it's not like they have any history of being irreplaceable.

The only thing that is really left is offensive scheme, game planning, and inability of coaches to get their players to execute. Maybe it's the latter.

While I am too lazy to do the research, I am reasonably certain that the posts at this point of the season in 2017 were very similar to these (SD State and USC had left us wringing our hands), as well as many previous seasons.  We were happy about Love, but we weren't exulting over our powerful offense.  All of this brings me back to the question that won't leave my mind, why does it take so long for our offense, and especially our offensive line to perform at a high level every year--I believe we will get there this year, simply because that has been the pattern for a long time.

[Goose]

It's also possible that we're overreacting to playing against a really good defensive front and having the game script get away from us.

It is for certain that the last game has more influence than it should in our collective reaction. ND has a good defense. We knew that going in. However, our OL was basically unable to handle that good defense on most plays. We never did get any run game going that we could rely on. That is how the game narrative got out of our control.

I think many of the fans here looked at SC and ND as games that would tell us what the ceiling for this year's team would be. SC usually has a good defense, at least physically if not schematically. We knew ND was defensively good, but possibly offensively vulnerable with Wimbush. The team beat SC, but mostly because SC couldn't score much. The OL looked OK at pass blocking, not so good at run blocking. At ND, we got beat by a better defense than we had yet seen. It was a disappointment, because it made it clear that this year's team wasn't yet ready to compete with the best and win. At least not last Saturday. The OL basically was ineffective the entire game. It got worse late in the game, but it was never adequate. Games have a "feel" to them, and even though it was close at the half, I think most Stanford fans we in the "Oh-Oh, this doesn't look good" mode.

 This OL wasn't great last year. We had lots of discussion here about how last years team was "feast or famine". This year's team is almost always "famine". We just don't move people. In 2016 we had problems on the OL, but they were made worse by having QB problems. That pushed the OL problems into second place. So, I don't think this problem is totally based on the last game. There has been a downward trend. Not monotonic, to be sure, but still a trend. Why, I don't know. Certainly opposing defenses have figured out a good approach against us, but that is partly because of our limitations on the OL.  It is not like we are too small. It may be that we are too slow, and unfortunately that is hard to coach away. However, if that is the case, we should still be able to drive block. Haven't seen us do that well either. We would still have problems with stunts and line slants, but we could for sure make 1 yard straight ahead. Lately, we haven't be able to do that.

We may see greatly improved OL play against Utah. I hope we see it there, and for the rest of the year. But for right now, that is the "issue" with this team, IMHO. If we are going to win the North, we have to be able to run the ball. And we will have to run the ball to beat UW. Period.

[Goose]

It's also possible that we're overreacting to playing against a really good defensive front and having the game script get away from us.

It is for certain that the last game has more influence than it should in our collective reaction. ND has a good defense. We knew that going in. However, our OL was basically unable to handle that good defense on most plays. We never did get any run game going that we could rely on. That is how the game narrative got out of our control.

I think many of the fans here looked at SC and ND as games that would tell us what the ceiling for this year's team would be. SC usually has a good defense, at least physically if not schematically. We knew ND was defensively good, but possibly offensively vulnerable with Wimbush. The team beat SC, but mostly because SC couldn't score much. The OL looked OK at pass blocking, not so good at run blocking. At ND, we got beat by a better defense than we had yet seen. It was a disappointment, because it made it clear that this year's team wasn't yet ready to compete with the best and win. At least not last Saturday. The OL basically was ineffective the entire game. It got worse late in the game, but it was never adequate. Games have a "feel" to them, and even though it was close at the half, I think most Stanford fans we in the "Oh-Oh, this doesn't look good" mode.

 This OL wasn't great last year. We had lots of discussion here about how last years team was "feast or famine". This year's team is almost always "famine". We just don't move people. In 2016 we had problems on the OL, but they were made worse by having QB problems. That pushed the OL problems into second place. So, I don't think this problem is totally based on the last game. There has been a downward trend. Not monotonic, to be sure, but still a trend. Why, I don't know. Certainly opposing defenses have figured out a good approach against us, but that is partly because of our limitations on the OL.  It is not like we are too small. It may be that we are too slow, and unfortunately that is hard to coach away. However, if that is the case, we should still be able to drive block. Haven't seen us do that well either. We would still have problems with stunts and line slants, but we could for sure make 1 yard straight ahead. Lately, we haven't be able to do that.

We may see greatly improved OL play against Utah. I hope we see it there, and for the rest of the year. But for right now, that is the "issue" with this team, IMHO. If we are going to win the North, we have to be able to run the ball. And we will have to run the ball to beat UW. Period.

[martyup]

Here is a highlight video of our run game in the Orange Bowl against VT.  This is how you run block.

https://youtu.be/yRvPjqR5QBo

[martyup]

Here is a highlight video of our run game in the Orange Bowl against VT.  This is how you run block.

https://youtu.be/yRvPjqR5QBo

[qwerty49]

Oh yeah, Marecic.  Andy Phillips.

Was that McGillicuddy?! on the last play

Here is a highlight video of our run game in the Orange Bowl against VT.  This is how you run block.

https://youtu.be/yRvPjqR5QBo

[qwerty49]

Oh yeah, Marecic.  Andy Phillips.

Was that McGillicuddy?! on the last play

Here is a highlight video of our run game in the Orange Bowl against VT.  This is how you run block.

https://youtu.be/yRvPjqR5QBo