[troyc]

New TreeCast is up with a closer look at an afternoon when Stanford was beaten by its own mistakes and Colorado's big plays.

+ 3 Things you need to know from the game, with postgame thoughts from David Shaw (who says Stanford was "outschemed and outperformed" by the Buffs), Davis Mills, and Malik Antoine
+ the Stanford player who had a better day than you might think
+ is Davis Mills' false positive COVID-19 test the biggest reason why Stanford is 0-2?
+ what now? Where can Stanford find a win on its remaining schedule?

Download, listen, rate, and review. Thank you for listening!

Troy C



The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Big-Play Buffs Beat Big-Mistake Cardinal (November 15, 2020)

[troyc]

New TreeCast is up with a closer look at an afternoon when Stanford was beaten by its own mistakes and Colorado's big plays.

+ 3 Things you need to know from the game, with postgame thoughts from David Shaw (who says Stanford was "outschemed and outperformed" by the Buffs), Davis Mills, and Malik Antoine
+ the Stanford player who had a better day than you might think
+ is Davis Mills' false positive COVID-19 test the biggest reason why Stanford is 0-2?
+ what now? Where can Stanford find a win on its remaining schedule?

Download, listen, rate, and review. Thank you for listening!

Troy C



The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Big-Play Buffs Beat Big-Mistake Cardinal (November 15, 2020)

[winflop]

Thanks again for yet another great TreeCast Troy!

Five thoughts/reactions:
1. Your tone conveyed a sense of growing frustration with the program. You were spot on about the team not performing to anywhere near the level of talent on the depth chart (albeit lower than in the peak of this program from 2010-2016). Welcome to the club!
2. Shaw's opening statement was once-again very frustrating. He seemed to put almost all the blame on the players with his repeated comments about "execution" and didn't seem to take any responsibility for himself or his staff. I'm sick of this crap. When he loses he should be leading with "My staff and I didn't do enough to put these players in a position to win"
3. Interesting that Shaw commented about the first two red zone possessions but not the third one where:
     - He called a play on 4th & goal from the 1 that put Mills in the shotgun. I really fail to understand this because it completely removes the threat of a QB sneak. I'd love it if you could ask Shaw about this I'm really curious for his thinking on this.
     - He failed to get the play in quickly enough to give Mills time to call an audible at the line
     - He failed to call a timeout and avoid a delay of game penalty that turned a TD opportunity into an FG. Could have really used those 4 points...would be great to ask him why he didn't call timeout there?
4. COVID isn't an acceptable excuse for being outcoached and outplayed. Every opponent is dealing with it too, some with even greater challenges. Colorado had no spring practice and Dorrell didn't even see his players in person until about 8 weeks ago. And yet his team was far better prepared on Saturday
5. Mills & Weddington might have made the margin of victory closer at Oregon, but with the Limburger Tree-Fense Oregon could have named its score in the second half. They clearly took their foot off the gas pedal at 35. Could have easily hung 42 and maybe even 49 on the board if they'd needed to.

I hope that you or your fellow media colleagues who cover Stanford will start pressing Shaw a little more about his (and his staff's) role in what is now the longest losing streak since 2006. I think that Saturday's loss is largely on his shoulders. That was a winnable game with better coaching, regardless of the execution issues.

[winflop]

Thanks again for yet another great TreeCast Troy!

Five thoughts/reactions:
1. Your tone conveyed a sense of growing frustration with the program. You were spot on about the team not performing to anywhere near the level of talent on the depth chart (albeit lower than in the peak of this program from 2010-2016). Welcome to the club!
2. Shaw's opening statement was once-again very frustrating. He seemed to put almost all the blame on the players with his repeated comments about "execution" and didn't seem to take any responsibility for himself or his staff. I'm sick of this crap. When he loses he should be leading with "My staff and I didn't do enough to put these players in a position to win"
3. Interesting that Shaw commented about the first two red zone possessions but not the third one where:
     - He called a play on 4th & goal from the 1 that put Mills in the shotgun. I really fail to understand this because it completely removes the threat of a QB sneak. I'd love it if you could ask Shaw about this I'm really curious for his thinking on this.
     - He failed to get the play in quickly enough to give Mills time to call an audible at the line
     - He failed to call a timeout and avoid a delay of game penalty that turned a TD opportunity into an FG. Could have really used those 4 points...would be great to ask him why he didn't call timeout there?
4. COVID isn't an acceptable excuse for being outcoached and outplayed. Every opponent is dealing with it too, some with even greater challenges. Colorado had no spring practice and Dorrell didn't even see his players in person until about 8 weeks ago. And yet his team was far better prepared on Saturday
5. Mills & Weddington might have made the margin of victory closer at Oregon, but with the Limburger Tree-Fense Oregon could have named its score in the second half. They clearly took their foot off the gas pedal at 35. Could have easily hung 42 and maybe even 49 on the board if they'd needed to.

I hope that you or your fellow media colleagues who cover Stanford will start pressing Shaw a little more about his (and his staff's) role in what is now the longest losing streak since 2006. I think that Saturday's loss is largely on his shoulders. That was a winnable game with better coaching, regardless of the execution issues.

[gailtate]

Thanks again for yet another great TreeCast Troy!

Five thoughts/reactions:
1. Your tone conveyed a sense of growing frustration with the program. You were spot on about the team not performing to anywhere near the level of talent on the depth chart (albeit lower than in the peak of this program from 2010-2016). Welcome to the club!
2. Shaw's opening statement was once-again very frustrating. He seemed to put almost all the blame on the players with his repeated comments about "execution" and didn't seem to take any responsibility for himself or his staff. Frankly, I'm sick of this crap.
3. Interesting that Shaw commented about the first two red zone possessions but not the third one where:
     - He called a play on 4th & goal from the 1 that put Mills in the shotgun. I really fail to understand this because it completely removes the threat of a QB sneak. I'd love it if you could ask Shaw about this I'm really curious for his thinking on this.
     - He failed to get the play in quickly enough to give Mills time to call an audible at the line
     - He failed to call a timeout and avoid a delay of game penalty that turned a TD opportunity into an FG. Could have really used those 4 points...would be great to ask him why he didn't call timeout there?
4. COVID really isn't an acceptable excuse for being outcoached and outplayed. Every opponent is dealing with it too, some with even greater challenges. Colorado had no spring practice and Dorrell didn't even see his players in person until about 8 weeks ago. And yet his team was far better prepared on Saturday
5. Mills & Weddington might have made the margin of victory closer at Oregon, but with the Limburger Tree-Fense Oregon could have named its score in the second half. They clearly took their foot off the gas pedal at 35. Could have easily hung 42 and maybe even 49 on the board if they'd needed to.

I hope that you or your fellow media colleagues who cover Stanford will start pressing Shaw a little more about his (and his staff's) role in what is now the longest losing streak since 2006. I think that Saturday's loss is largely on his shoulders. That was a winnable game with better coaching, regardless of the execution issues.

Well put, Winflop. Bang-on, with an economy of words.

[gailtate]

Thanks again for yet another great TreeCast Troy!

Five thoughts/reactions:
1. Your tone conveyed a sense of growing frustration with the program. You were spot on about the team not performing to anywhere near the level of talent on the depth chart (albeit lower than in the peak of this program from 2010-2016). Welcome to the club!
2. Shaw's opening statement was once-again very frustrating. He seemed to put almost all the blame on the players with his repeated comments about "execution" and didn't seem to take any responsibility for himself or his staff. Frankly, I'm sick of this crap.
3. Interesting that Shaw commented about the first two red zone possessions but not the third one where:
     - He called a play on 4th & goal from the 1 that put Mills in the shotgun. I really fail to understand this because it completely removes the threat of a QB sneak. I'd love it if you could ask Shaw about this I'm really curious for his thinking on this.
     - He failed to get the play in quickly enough to give Mills time to call an audible at the line
     - He failed to call a timeout and avoid a delay of game penalty that turned a TD opportunity into an FG. Could have really used those 4 points...would be great to ask him why he didn't call timeout there?
4. COVID really isn't an acceptable excuse for being outcoached and outplayed. Every opponent is dealing with it too, some with even greater challenges. Colorado had no spring practice and Dorrell didn't even see his players in person until about 8 weeks ago. And yet his team was far better prepared on Saturday
5. Mills & Weddington might have made the margin of victory closer at Oregon, but with the Limburger Tree-Fense Oregon could have named its score in the second half. They clearly took their foot off the gas pedal at 35. Could have easily hung 42 and maybe even 49 on the board if they'd needed to.

I hope that you or your fellow media colleagues who cover Stanford will start pressing Shaw a little more about his (and his staff's) role in what is now the longest losing streak since 2006. I think that Saturday's loss is largely on his shoulders. That was a winnable game with better coaching, regardless of the execution issues.

Well put, Winflop. Bang-on, with an economy of words.

[Phogge]

It’s never Shaw’s fault.

[Phogge]

It’s never Shaw’s fault.

[BostonCard]

2. Shaw's opening statement was once-again very frustrating. He seemed to put almost all the blame on the players with his repeated comments about "execution" and didn't seem to take any responsibility for himself or his staff. Frankly, I'm sick of this crap.

I'm not sure why "execution" is taken here as absolving the coaching staff.  If anything, it is more of an indictment of the staff than playcalling, since it is up to the staff to teach the players how to execute the plays they call.  I looked at the highlights of the game.  Colorado's second touchdown of the second half was a touchdown pass to Jerry Rice's son, who was wide open because no one rotated during a corner blitz.  I can guarantee you that is not what the coaching staff diagrammed up (I mean, I assume even you can appreciate they would not willfully leave a receiver wide open).  But that doesn't mean the coaching staff can call a corner blitz and not take responsibility when your fifth year senior free safety doesn't rotate to cover.  We don't run a ton of corner blitzes, but I would have hoped that something as basic as "when the cornerback is blitzing, the free safety needs to rotate over immediately to cover his receiver or the guy will walk into the end zone untouched".  Antoine is on his fifth year in the program, and though he has clear limitations in terms of size and speed, this was a mental error.  So what are these guys doing in practice?

The other Colorado touchdowns were the same.  In the first touchdown, the Oregon receiver got inside leverage on Kendell Williamson after he bit on a fake WR screen while Curtis Robinson was caught flatfooted.  It was a 55-yard touchdown reception on a slant!  Williamson is a junior and Robinson is RS senior.  There is a well known lack of development for the defensive players (especially at inside linebacker and safety) that has been a sore spot for years!  Whose fault is that if not the coaching staffs?

Down 7-3, Mills hits Wilson on the numbers after Wilson got a step on his defender.  It would have been a touchdown, but Wilson dropped the ball, and we settled for a field goal in a game we lost by 3.  I don't know what could have been done with the play-calling to fix that, but Wilson is a junior, and has dropped other catchable balls in the past, so this was not a fluke miss.  Unlike Akina or the now departed Hansen, Kennedy has recruited well, but given the strength of that recruiting unit, why are they still flubbing basic tasks?

On Colorado's second touchdown, Jordan Fox comically lost outside contain (on the weak side!) and watched the QB run right around him on read option where the QB kept.  This is not an obscure playcall and Fox is a redshirt senior.  What the hell has Anderson been teaching players?  But guess what, it doesn't end there.  On Colorado's third touchdown (in the first drive of the second half), Colorado ran the same play.  And Fox again didn't keep outside contain on the weakside.  You would think that somebody would have told him, "hey bud, if you try crashing in on the running back from the back side, we have nobody there if the QB keeps the ball".  I suppose it is possible that this was meant to be a run blitz, but then we had nobody to rotate outside.

On Colorado's last touchdown, let's give their offensive line some credit; there was some nice straight ahead blocking there, of the kind we used to do to people but can't seem to any more, and there was a nice hole for their running back.  Hey, sometimes the opponent plays well.  But on the play before, we again lost outside contain as Jonathan McGill crashed on a run blitz and Fox (I think) again failed to seal the outside.  At least this time he was actually blocked rather than misdiagnosing the play (though it's possible he did too).  Kyu Kelley took a bad angle to the running back.

Anyway, none of these are mistakes by true freshmen who are playing in their first games after abbreviated practices.  They are mistakes by guys who have been in the program three, four, or even five years, and they are mental, not physical mistakes.  That's on the coaches, for not teaching the players how to recognize the play and to flow to where they are supposed to go.  It's also a sign that players aren't trusting their teammates, and again, that's on the coaches.

BC

[BostonCard]

2. Shaw's opening statement was once-again very frustrating. He seemed to put almost all the blame on the players with his repeated comments about "execution" and didn't seem to take any responsibility for himself or his staff. Frankly, I'm sick of this crap.

I'm not sure why "execution" is taken here as absolving the coaching staff.  If anything, it is more of an indictment of the staff than playcalling, since it is up to the staff to teach the players how to execute the plays they call.  I looked at the highlights of the game.  Colorado's second touchdown of the second half was a touchdown pass to Jerry Rice's son, who was wide open because no one rotated during a corner blitz.  I can guarantee you that is not what the coaching staff diagrammed up (I mean, I assume even you can appreciate they would not willfully leave a receiver wide open).  But that doesn't mean the coaching staff can call a corner blitz and not take responsibility when your fifth year senior free safety doesn't rotate to cover.  We don't run a ton of corner blitzes, but I would have hoped that something as basic as "when the cornerback is blitzing, the free safety needs to rotate over immediately to cover his receiver or the guy will walk into the end zone untouched".  Antoine is on his fifth year in the program, and though he has clear limitations in terms of size and speed, this was a mental error.  So what are these guys doing in practice?

The other Colorado touchdowns were the same.  In the first touchdown, the Oregon receiver got inside leverage on Kendell Williamson after he bit on a fake WR screen while Curtis Robinson was caught flatfooted.  It was a 55-yard touchdown reception on a slant!  Williamson is a junior and Robinson is RS senior.  There is a well known lack of development for the defensive players (especially at inside linebacker and safety) that has been a sore spot for years!  Whose fault is that if not the coaching staffs?

Down 7-3, Mills hits Wilson on the numbers after Wilson got a step on his defender.  It would have been a touchdown, but Wilson dropped the ball, and we settled for a field goal in a game we lost by 3.  I don't know what could have been done with the play-calling to fix that, but Wilson is a junior, and has dropped other catchable balls in the past, so this was not a fluke miss.  Unlike Akina or the now departed Hansen, Kennedy has recruited well, but given the strength of that recruiting unit, why are they still flubbing basic tasks?

On Colorado's second touchdown, Jordan Fox comically lost outside contain (on the weak side!) and watched the QB run right around him on read option where the QB kept.  This is not an obscure playcall and Fox is a redshirt senior.  What the hell has Anderson been teaching players?  But guess what, it doesn't end there.  On Colorado's third touchdown (in the first drive of the second half), Colorado ran the same play.  And Fox again didn't keep outside contain on the weakside.  You would think that somebody would have told him, "hey bud, if you try crashing in on the running back from the back side, we have nobody there if the QB keeps the ball".  I suppose it is possible that this was meant to be a run blitz, but then we had nobody to rotate outside.

On Colorado's last touchdown, let's give their offensive line some credit; there was some nice straight ahead blocking there, of the kind we used to do to people but can't seem to any more, and there was a nice hole for their running back.  Hey, sometimes the opponent plays well.  But on the play before, we again lost outside contain as Jonathan McGill crashed on a run blitz and Fox (I think) again failed to seal the outside.  At least this time he was actually blocked rather than misdiagnosing the play (though it's possible he did too).  Kyu Kelley took a bad angle to the running back.

Anyway, none of these are mistakes by true freshmen who are playing in their first games after abbreviated practices.  They are mistakes by guys who have been in the program three, four, or even five years, and they are mental, not physical mistakes.  That's on the coaches, for not teaching the players how to recognize the play and to flow to where they are supposed to go.  It's also a sign that players aren't trusting their teammates, and again, that's on the coaches.

BC

[Goose]

Anyway, none of these are mistakes by true freshmen who are playing in their first games after abbreviated practices.  They are mistakes by guys who have been in the program three, four, or even five years, and they are mental, not physical mistakes.  That's on the coaches, for not teaching the players how to recognize the play and to flow to where they are supposed to go.  It's also a sign that players aren't trusting their teammates, and again, that's on the coaches.


BC

Mostly agree. The only question I have is should they trust their teammates when their teammates are making the kind of mental errors you cite? I would expect that many guys have some 'splaining to do. I fear that in today's Stanford football, accountability to your teammates just isn't on the table. I am sure Richard Sherman would be in several people's face. Who on today's team is going to do that?

---

I sometimes wonder if their isn't some kind of a "stupidity field" that descends on Stanford players when they take the field these days. Consider Isaiah Sanders having an opportunity on 3rd and 1. He probably has a total of less than 6 plays in his "package". He needs to make 1 yard. He can probably do that with ANY of his play calls if nobody just falls on their face.

He has started games for Air Force. He is a graduate transfer. He has graduated from the AFA. He will soon have control of deadly force in the defense of the nation. He is a trained war fighter. He knows about "the unforgiving minute". He knows how to prioritize. All this, and he doesn't even get a play off! That isn't on Shaw. Shaw has had only weeks with this guy. He had all the training he needed before he ever got to Stanford.

I can see him running low on time and therefore running a less than optimal play choice, but to get a yard, running right up the middle makes more sense than forcing us to call a time out. What if Shaw doesn't call the time out? We lose 5 yards. Obviously not an acceptable situation. Run something! That is what they sent you out there to do!

[Goose]

Anyway, none of these are mistakes by true freshmen who are playing in their first games after abbreviated practices.  They are mistakes by guys who have been in the program three, four, or even five years, and they are mental, not physical mistakes.  That's on the coaches, for not teaching the players how to recognize the play and to flow to where they are supposed to go.  It's also a sign that players aren't trusting their teammates, and again, that's on the coaches.


BC

Mostly agree. The only question I have is should they trust their teammates when their teammates are making the kind of mental errors you cite? I would expect that many guys have some 'splaining to do. I fear that in today's Stanford football, accountability to your teammates just isn't on the table. I am sure Richard Sherman would be in several people's face. Who on today's team is going to do that?

---

I sometimes wonder if their isn't some kind of a "stupidity field" that descends on Stanford players when they take the field these days. Consider Isaiah Sanders having an opportunity on 3rd and 1. He probably has a total of less than 6 plays in his "package". He needs to make 1 yard. He can probably do that with ANY of his play calls if nobody just falls on their face.

He has started games for Air Force. He is a graduate transfer. He has graduated from the AFA. He will soon have control of deadly force in the defense of the nation. He is a trained war fighter. He knows about "the unforgiving minute". He knows how to prioritize. All this, and he doesn't even get a play off! That isn't on Shaw. Shaw has had only weeks with this guy. He had all the training he needed before he ever got to Stanford.

I can see him running low on time and therefore running a less than optimal play choice, but to get a yard, running right up the middle makes more sense than forcing us to call a time out. What if Shaw doesn't call the time out? We lose 5 yards. Obviously not an acceptable situation. Run something! That is what they sent you out there to do!

[teejers1]

2. Shaw's opening statement was once-again very frustrating. He seemed to put almost all the blame on the players with his repeated comments about "execution" and didn't seem to take any responsibility for himself or his staff. Frankly, I'm sick of this crap.

I'm not sure why "execution" is taken here as absolving the coaching staff.  If anything, it is more of an indictment of the staff than playcalling, since it is up to the staff to teach the players how to execute the plays they call.  

Seriously?  To quote or President-elect:  "C'mon, man!"

The drop by Wilson was an execution problem.  The DOGs, calling timeouts to avoid same, running a 5-minute offense when every second is precious, not thinking "where am I in four down territory" and calling plays accordingly, having under-talented defense and taking few chances, etc. are all coaching problems.  Buddy was convinced that Stanford's ails on O were all "execution issues."  Ted actually told Terry and me that at a meeting with him way back when (you know it was Terry who had the pull, not I).  That is a very large red flag for me.  Denial is a bad thing.  Shaw in denial (and has been for years about the O side of the ball).

In contrast . . . 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...hing-doing

[teejers1]

2. Shaw's opening statement was once-again very frustrating. He seemed to put almost all the blame on the players with his repeated comments about "execution" and didn't seem to take any responsibility for himself or his staff. Frankly, I'm sick of this crap.

I'm not sure why "execution" is taken here as absolving the coaching staff.  If anything, it is more of an indictment of the staff than playcalling, since it is up to the staff to teach the players how to execute the plays they call.  

Seriously?  To quote or President-elect:  "C'mon, man!"

The drop by Wilson was an execution problem.  The DOGs, calling timeouts to avoid same, running a 5-minute offense when every second is precious, not thinking "where am I in four down territory" and calling plays accordingly, having under-talented defense and taking few chances, etc. are all coaching problems.  Buddy was convinced that Stanford's ails on O were all "execution issues."  Ted actually told Terry and me that at a meeting with him way back when (you know it was Terry who had the pull, not I).  That is a very large red flag for me.  Denial is a bad thing.  Shaw in denial (and has been for years about the O side of the ball).

In contrast . . . 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...hing-doing

[BostonCard]

Sheesh Teejers.  On four out of the five Colorado touchdowns, there was a blown assignment.  I mean, delays of game and time outs are highly visible, and easy to counterfactualize, but at best you can consider them indicators rather than causative of a problem, and in the end we scored 32 points.  But when our coaches can't even get our players to be in the right position to make a play, when they are messing up the most fundamental concepts of football such as keeping outside contain (not once, but twice on virtually identical plays, the second time without even having a pulling guard) to me that is a more serious indictment of the coaches.

I mean, you can fix all the time outs and delays of game, and maybe we have a little more clock to mount a last drive, but if you fix the fundamentals (to be sure, a more demanding task, but one that ought to be well within the capability of an average coach), then we win this thing in a blowout.  For as long as Shaw has been a coach, we have had issues with delays of game, and while they are frustrating, they didn't prevent us from going to three Rose Bowls in four years.  What is dispiriting now is that either we are not recruiting the same caliber of players, or we aren't coaching them up to make fundamental football plays (and to me, I think it's more the latter).

Sure, the DoG's and TO's are frustrating, but unless we fix the deeper issues we are going to be a below average team in the Pac-12.

BC

[BostonCard]

Sheesh Teejers.  On four out of the five Colorado touchdowns, there was a blown assignment.  I mean, delays of game and time outs are highly visible, and easy to counterfactualize, but at best you can consider them indicators rather than causative of a problem, and in the end we scored 32 points.  But when our coaches can't even get our players to be in the right position to make a play, when they are messing up the most fundamental concepts of football such as keeping outside contain (not once, but twice on virtually identical plays, the second time without even having a pulling guard) to me that is a more serious indictment of the coaches.

I mean, you can fix all the time outs and delays of game, and maybe we have a little more clock to mount a last drive, but if you fix the fundamentals (to be sure, a more demanding task, but one that ought to be well within the capability of an average coach), then we win this thing in a blowout.  For as long as Shaw has been a coach, we have had issues with delays of game, and while they are frustrating, they didn't prevent us from going to three Rose Bowls in four years.  What is dispiriting now is that either we are not recruiting the same caliber of players, or we aren't coaching them up to make fundamental football plays (and to me, I think it's more the latter).

Sure, the DoG's and TO's are frustrating, but unless we fix the deeper issues we are going to be a below average team in the Pac-12.

BC

[teejers1]

Sheesh Teejers.  On four out of the five Colorado touchdowns, there was a blown assignment.  I mean, delays of game and time outs are highly visible, and easy to counterfactualize, but at best you can consider them indicators rather than causative of a problem, and in the end we scored 32 points.  But when our coaches can't even get our players to be in the right position to make a play, when they are messing up the most fundamental concepts of football such as keeping outside contain (not once, but twice on virtually identical plays, the second time without even having a pulling guard) to me that is a more serious indictment of the coaches.

I mean, you can fix all the time outs and delays of game, and maybe we have a little more clock to mount a last drive, but if you fix the fundamentals (to be sure, a more demanding task, but one that ought to be well within the capability of an average coach), then we win this thing in a blowout.  For as long as Shaw has been a coach, we have had issues with delays of game, and while they are frustrating, they didn't prevent us from going to three Rose Bowls in four years.  What is dispiriting now is that either we are not recruiting the same caliber of players, or we aren't coaching them up to make fundamental football plays (and to me, I think it's more the latter).

Sure, the DoG's and TO's are frustrating, but unless we fix the deeper issues we are going to be will continue to be a below average team in the Pac-12.

BC

As with other subject matter, we'll just have to agree to disagree when a coach complains about "execution issues."  

As for last sentence, FIFY.

[teejers1]

Sheesh Teejers.  On four out of the five Colorado touchdowns, there was a blown assignment.  I mean, delays of game and time outs are highly visible, and easy to counterfactualize, but at best you can consider them indicators rather than causative of a problem, and in the end we scored 32 points.  But when our coaches can't even get our players to be in the right position to make a play, when they are messing up the most fundamental concepts of football such as keeping outside contain (not once, but twice on virtually identical plays, the second time without even having a pulling guard) to me that is a more serious indictment of the coaches.

I mean, you can fix all the time outs and delays of game, and maybe we have a little more clock to mount a last drive, but if you fix the fundamentals (to be sure, a more demanding task, but one that ought to be well within the capability of an average coach), then we win this thing in a blowout.  For as long as Shaw has been a coach, we have had issues with delays of game, and while they are frustrating, they didn't prevent us from going to three Rose Bowls in four years.  What is dispiriting now is that either we are not recruiting the same caliber of players, or we aren't coaching them up to make fundamental football plays (and to me, I think it's more the latter).

Sure, the DoG's and TO's are frustrating, but unless we fix the deeper issues we are going to be will continue to be a below average team in the Pac-12.

BC

As with other subject matter, we'll just have to agree to disagree when a coach complains about "execution issues."  

As for last sentence, FIFY.

[winflop]

Sheesh Teejers.  On four out of the five Colorado touchdowns, there was a blown assignment.  I mean, delays of game and timeouts are highly visible, and easy to counterfactualize, but at best you can consider them indicators rather than causative of a problem, and in the end we scored 32 points.  But when our coaches can't even get our players to be in the right position to make a play, when they are messing up the most fundamental concepts of football such as keeping outside contain (not once, but twice on virtually identical plays, the second time without even having a pulling guard) to me that is a more serious indictment of the coaches.

The indictment I have of the coaches is that there isn't a better alternative to guys with multiple years under their belt in the program who still make these fundamental mistakes over and over again. They haven't recruited and developed better players. Among our current two-deep at DB, other than Kyu Blu-Kelly and maybe McGill there might only be one other guy who would have even seen the field five years ago.

[winflop]

Sheesh Teejers.  On four out of the five Colorado touchdowns, there was a blown assignment.  I mean, delays of game and timeouts are highly visible, and easy to counterfactualize, but at best you can consider them indicators rather than causative of a problem, and in the end we scored 32 points.  But when our coaches can't even get our players to be in the right position to make a play, when they are messing up the most fundamental concepts of football such as keeping outside contain (not once, but twice on virtually identical plays, the second time without even having a pulling guard) to me that is a more serious indictment of the coaches.

The indictment I have of the coaches is that there isn't a better alternative to guys with multiple years under their belt in the program who still make these fundamental mistakes over and over again. They haven't recruited and developed better players. Among our current two-deep at DB, other than Kyu Blu-Kelly and maybe McGill there might only be one other guy who would have even seen the field five years ago.

[BostonCard]

Sheesh Teejers.  On four out of the five Colorado touchdowns, there was a blown assignment.  I mean, delays of game and timeouts are highly visible, and easy to counterfactualize, but at best you can consider them indicators rather than causative of a problem, and in the end we scored 32 points.  But when our coaches can't even get our players to be in the right position to make a play, when they are messing up the most fundamental concepts of football such as keeping outside contain (not once, but twice on virtually identical plays, the second time without even having a pulling guard) to me that is a more serious indictment of the coaches.

The indictment I have of the coaches is that there isn't a better alternative to guys with multiple years under their belt in the program who still make these fundamental mistakes over and over again. They haven't recruited and developed better players. Among our current two-deep at DB, other than Kyu Blu-Kelly and maybe McGill there might only be one other guy who would have even seen the field five years ago.

Agreed. Moreover even the guys who have been with the program three plus years aren’t better than they were when they started. I mean, was Adebo last year any better than he was a redshirt freshman?  Is Robinson any better today than he was his redshirt freshman year (even allowing for a position change).  Has Antoine, now a fifth year senior, made any progress?  If it were one or two guys, maybe you think these are players who decided to coast, but when the entire lineup makes the same basic mistakes it has made year after year, that’s on the coaches.

To the extent that anyone focuses on playcalling and things like delays of game is to see the tip of the iceberg without appreciating the problems underneath, which have a greater impact and are probably harder to solve.

BC

[BostonCard]

Sheesh Teejers.  On four out of the five Colorado touchdowns, there was a blown assignment.  I mean, delays of game and timeouts are highly visible, and easy to counterfactualize, but at best you can consider them indicators rather than causative of a problem, and in the end we scored 32 points.  But when our coaches can't even get our players to be in the right position to make a play, when they are messing up the most fundamental concepts of football such as keeping outside contain (not once, but twice on virtually identical plays, the second time without even having a pulling guard) to me that is a more serious indictment of the coaches.

The indictment I have of the coaches is that there isn't a better alternative to guys with multiple years under their belt in the program who still make these fundamental mistakes over and over again. They haven't recruited and developed better players. Among our current two-deep at DB, other than Kyu Blu-Kelly and maybe McGill there might only be one other guy who would have even seen the field five years ago.

Agreed. Moreover even the guys who have been with the program three plus years aren’t better than they were when they started. I mean, was Adebo last year any better than he was a redshirt freshman?  Is Robinson any better today than he was his redshirt freshman year (even allowing for a position change).  Has Antoine, now a fifth year senior, made any progress?  If it were one or two guys, maybe you think these are players who decided to coast, but when the entire lineup makes the same basic mistakes it has made year after year, that’s on the coaches.

To the extent that anyone focuses on playcalling and things like delays of game is to see the tip of the iceberg without appreciating the problems underneath, which have a greater impact and are probably harder to solve.

BC

[Phogge]

McGill absolutely doesn’t see the field five years ago. What disappoints me most is Andres Fox. In a small sample from two years ago he looked like somebody with a push. Didn’t happen. Reid and J Fox have had some success (not much) getting to the QB and neither would have played much five years ago. I think it’s mostly lack of talent BC with coaching a secondary issue. The road ahead is not promising.

[Phogge]

McGill absolutely doesn’t see the field five years ago. What disappoints me most is Andres Fox. In a small sample from two years ago he looked like somebody with a push. Didn’t happen. Reid and J Fox have had some success (not much) getting to the QB and neither would have played much five years ago. I think it’s mostly lack of talent BC with coaching a secondary issue. The road ahead is not promising.

[BostonCard]

Booker is one guy who probably would have started 5 years ago based on talent, but doesn't seem to have improved a lot since his freshman year.

BC

[BostonCard]

Booker is one guy who probably would have started 5 years ago based on talent, but doesn't seem to have improved a lot since his freshman year.

BC

[SamuelMcF]

Booker is one guy who probably would have started 5 years ago based on talent, but doesn't seem to have improved a lot since his freshman year.

BC

Disagree. He is now an absolute MONSTER against the run.

(Still can't get to the QB though.)

[SamuelMcF]

Booker is one guy who probably would have started 5 years ago based on talent, but doesn't seem to have improved a lot since his freshman year.

BC

Disagree. He is now an absolute MONSTER against the run.

(Still can't get to the QB though.)

[BostonCard]

He was always good against the run... the question is how much better he has gotten.  That guy projected to go after three years as a second day draft pick.  Now, I have no idea, but I have a hard time seeing him being drafted after this year.

BC

[BostonCard]

He was always good against the run... the question is how much better he has gotten.  That guy projected to go after three years as a second day draft pick.  Now, I have no idea, but I have a hard time seeing him being drafted after this year.

BC

[slide]

Agreed. Moreover even the guys who have been with the program three plus years aren’t better than they were when they started. I mean, was Adebo last year any better than he was a redshirt freshman?  Is Robinson any better today than he was his redshirt freshman year (even allowing for a position change).  Has Antoine, now a fifth year senior, made any progress?  If it were one or two guys, maybe you think these are players who decided to coast, but when the entire lineup makes the same basic mistakes it has made year after year, that’s on the coaches.

To the extent that anyone focuses on playcalling and things like delays of game is to see the tip of the iceberg without appreciating the problems underneath, which have a greater impact and are probably harder to solve.

BC

on your exchange with Teejers, I don't see it necessarily as an either or situation.  I think both can be correct.  Shaw as a playcaller/offensive schemer/game manager sure seems to have regressed.  the repeated DOGs, the wasted timeouts, the predictability of call based on personnel, the poor clock management (I've been told no play clocks used at Shaw practices -- is that true?) etc are maddening.  in short, he does not appear to be developing/adapting, but regressing.  the old Fritz Hollings saw comes to mind:  "there is no education in the 2nd kick of a mule."  I now wonder if our mule is just damned tired of kicking.

on the BC side, I agree about the developmental issues (physical, mental) that are obvious with a not-so-young team.  I think a lot of this is on the coaches and our coaches just don't seem to be the same caliber as in the more recent past.  we seem to be trading down from the days of Fangio and Roman as coordinators.  a bright spot of late has been the OL, at least in the Oregon game, plus may be the RBs under Gould.  lastly, our talent pipeline appears to mirroring this downturn.  the incoming class will collectively not replace the outbound talent.  I also wonder about the makeup of the recruits mirroring the head man.  Harbaugh signed a lot of hair on fire types; I don't see that trait as much now.

[slide]

Agreed. Moreover even the guys who have been with the program three plus years aren’t better than they were when they started. I mean, was Adebo last year any better than he was a redshirt freshman?  Is Robinson any better today than he was his redshirt freshman year (even allowing for a position change).  Has Antoine, now a fifth year senior, made any progress?  If it were one or two guys, maybe you think these are players who decided to coast, but when the entire lineup makes the same basic mistakes it has made year after year, that’s on the coaches.

To the extent that anyone focuses on playcalling and things like delays of game is to see the tip of the iceberg without appreciating the problems underneath, which have a greater impact and are probably harder to solve.

BC

on your exchange with Teejers, I don't see it necessarily as an either or situation.  I think both can be correct.  Shaw as a playcaller/offensive schemer/game manager sure seems to have regressed.  the repeated DOGs, the wasted timeouts, the predictability of call based on personnel, the poor clock management (I've been told no play clocks used at Shaw practices -- is that true?) etc are maddening.  in short, he does not appear to be developing/adapting, but regressing.  the old Fritz Hollings saw comes to mind:  "there is no education in the 2nd kick of a mule."  I now wonder if our mule is just damned tired of kicking.

on the BC side, I agree about the developmental issues (physical, mental) that are obvious with a not-so-young team.  I think a lot of this is on the coaches and our coaches just don't seem to be the same caliber as in the more recent past.  we seem to be trading down from the days of Fangio and Roman as coordinators.  a bright spot of late has been the OL, at least in the Oregon game, plus may be the RBs under Gould.  lastly, our talent pipeline appears to mirroring this downturn.  the incoming class will collectively not replace the outbound talent.  I also wonder about the makeup of the recruits mirroring the head man.  Harbaugh signed a lot of hair on fire types; I don't see that trait as much now.

[gailtate]

Agreed. Moreover even the guys who have been with the program three plus years aren’t better than they were when they started. I mean, was Adebo last year any better than he was a redshirt freshman?  Is Robinson any better today than he was his redshirt freshman year (even allowing for a position change).  Has Antoine, now a fifth year senior, made any progress?  If it were one or two guys, maybe you think these are players who decided to coast, but when the entire lineup makes the same basic mistakes it has made year after year, that’s on the coaches.

To the extent that anyone focuses on playcalling and things like delays of game is to see the tip of the iceberg without appreciating the problems underneath, which have a greater impact and are probably harder to solve.

BC

on your exchange with Teejers, I don't see it necessarily as an either or situation.  I think both can be correct.  Shaw as a playcaller/offensive schemer/game manager sure seems to have regressed.  the repeated DOGs, the wasted timeouts, the predictability of call based on personnel, the poor clock management (I've been told no play clocks used at Shaw practices -- is that true?) etc are maddening.  in short, he does not appear to be developing/adapting, but regressing.  the old Fritz Hollings saw comes to mind:  "there is no education in the 2nd kick of a mule."  I now wonder if our mule is just damned tired of kicking.

on the BC side, I agree about the developmental issues (physical, mental) that are obvious with a not-so-young team.  I think a lot of this is on the coaches and our coaches just don't seem to be the same caliber as in the more recent past.  we seem to be trading down from the days of Fangio and Roman as coordinators.  a bright spot of late has been the OL, at least in the Oregon game, plus may be the RBs under Gould.  lastly, our talent pipeline appears to mirroring this downturn.  the incoming class will collectively not replace the outbound talent.  I also wonder about the makeup of the recruits mirroring the head man.  Harbaugh signed a lot of hair on fire types; I don't see that trait as much now.

Nice, even-handed summary. I've lost patience with those who refuse to recognize any of the above. Since the 1960's, I've seen four cycles of renewal/descent/renewal, from Ralston to Harbaugh. During each descent, the defeatists saw declining programs as the inevitable Stanford default condition brought on simply by Stanford being Stanford. Calls for coaching change were more or less derided as unbecoming and uncouth. As we approach a moment of truth in the next couple of years--and what appears to be a clear decline--is another cycle inevitable? Renewal is possible. Just takes the right guy(s) at the right time.

[gailtate]

Agreed. Moreover even the guys who have been with the program three plus years aren’t better than they were when they started. I mean, was Adebo last year any better than he was a redshirt freshman?  Is Robinson any better today than he was his redshirt freshman year (even allowing for a position change).  Has Antoine, now a fifth year senior, made any progress?  If it were one or two guys, maybe you think these are players who decided to coast, but when the entire lineup makes the same basic mistakes it has made year after year, that’s on the coaches.

To the extent that anyone focuses on playcalling and things like delays of game is to see the tip of the iceberg without appreciating the problems underneath, which have a greater impact and are probably harder to solve.

BC

on your exchange with Teejers, I don't see it necessarily as an either or situation.  I think both can be correct.  Shaw as a playcaller/offensive schemer/game manager sure seems to have regressed.  the repeated DOGs, the wasted timeouts, the predictability of call based on personnel, the poor clock management (I've been told no play clocks used at Shaw practices -- is that true?) etc are maddening.  in short, he does not appear to be developing/adapting, but regressing.  the old Fritz Hollings saw comes to mind:  "there is no education in the 2nd kick of a mule."  I now wonder if our mule is just damned tired of kicking.

on the BC side, I agree about the developmental issues (physical, mental) that are obvious with a not-so-young team.  I think a lot of this is on the coaches and our coaches just don't seem to be the same caliber as in the more recent past.  we seem to be trading down from the days of Fangio and Roman as coordinators.  a bright spot of late has been the OL, at least in the Oregon game, plus may be the RBs under Gould.  lastly, our talent pipeline appears to mirroring this downturn.  the incoming class will collectively not replace the outbound talent.  I also wonder about the makeup of the recruits mirroring the head man.  Harbaugh signed a lot of hair on fire types; I don't see that trait as much now.

Nice, even-handed summary. I've lost patience with those who refuse to recognize any of the above. Since the 1960's, I've seen four cycles of renewal/descent/renewal, from Ralston to Harbaugh. During each descent, the defeatists saw declining programs as the inevitable Stanford default condition brought on simply by Stanford being Stanford. Calls for coaching change were more or less derided as unbecoming and uncouth. As we approach a moment of truth in the next couple of years--and what appears to be a clear decline--is another cycle inevitable? Renewal is possible. Just takes the right guy(s) at the right time.

[Goose]

I also wonder about the makeup of the recruits mirroring the head man.  Harbaugh signed a lot of hair on fire types; I don't see that trait as much now.

Of all the issues people have raised, I personally believe this is the most valid one. I am sure we have lots of guys who are motivated and want to succeed, but they aren't "hair on fire" types. Many of our previously successful players were "3 star" type guys (because we couldn't get 4/5 star ones), but they were 150% guys. It appears we now have more talented but much less motivated players. Having an entire team of "crazies" isn't a good idea, but having your share really helps. They make the people around them better. We don't seem to have that.

[Goose]

I also wonder about the makeup of the recruits mirroring the head man.  Harbaugh signed a lot of hair on fire types; I don't see that trait as much now.

Of all the issues people have raised, I personally believe this is the most valid one. I am sure we have lots of guys who are motivated and want to succeed, but they aren't "hair on fire" types. Many of our previously successful players were "3 star" type guys (because we couldn't get 4/5 star ones), but they were 150% guys. It appears we now have more talented but much less motivated players. Having an entire team of "crazies" isn't a good idea, but having your share really helps. They make the people around them better. We don't seem to have that.

[BostonCard]

Nice post slide.  I don't mean to imply that certain play calls are not frustrating or non-optimal.  There is, of course, room for improvement there.  However, the amount of "ink" spilled on criticizing the play-calling is disproportionate to its impact, and I try to call attention to the underappreciated problems.

I try to go back to the days of Buddy Teevens.  I always remember him calling hilariously incompetent shotgun draws that would get swallowed up at or below the line of scrimmage.  Now, that same play worked well when Teevens was the assistant for Steve Spurier at Florida, so it is not that the play was intrinsically flawed.  The problem was that the Stanford offensive line (depleted by Willingham's recruiting neglect) couldn't open holes, and the running backs couldn't hit them.  Had Teevens had the athletes Spurrier enjoyed at Florida, would the shotgun draw maybe not have been the butt of jokes?  Maybe we are not a 10-2 team no matter who Teevens has in the backfield because Teevens is not an FBS caliber coach, but I don't think Bill Walsh would have coached a winning season in 2002.

I also remember when towards the end of a game against USC where we were just dominating them at the LoS, a USC DLmen was quoted "If you guys run power one more time, I'm done; I'm subbing myself out."  The play was utterly predictable, and yet USC could do nothing about it.  I would much rather be in this situation where we are utterly overwhelmed at the LoS, no matter what the playcalls are.

That being said, in between an utterly dominant machine of an offense as we had in 2010/2011/2015, and the completely overwhelmed offenses of the dark ages, there is a role for coaching to maximize productivity.  A five yard penalty due to a delay of game won't have much of an impact if you can reliably gain 7 yards per play, and conversely if you can't string together three plays to get you a first down, then you weren't going to get a first down anyways.  But in between, a 5-yard DoG can make the difference between a drive continuing and a drive stalling.

BC

[BostonCard]

Nice post slide.  I don't mean to imply that certain play calls are not frustrating or non-optimal.  There is, of course, room for improvement there.  However, the amount of "ink" spilled on criticizing the play-calling is disproportionate to its impact, and I try to call attention to the underappreciated problems.

I try to go back to the days of Buddy Teevens.  I always remember him calling hilariously incompetent shotgun draws that would get swallowed up at or below the line of scrimmage.  Now, that same play worked well when Teevens was the assistant for Steve Spurier at Florida, so it is not that the play was intrinsically flawed.  The problem was that the Stanford offensive line (depleted by Willingham's recruiting neglect) couldn't open holes, and the running backs couldn't hit them.  Had Teevens had the athletes Spurrier enjoyed at Florida, would the shotgun draw maybe not have been the butt of jokes?  Maybe we are not a 10-2 team no matter who Teevens has in the backfield because Teevens is not an FBS caliber coach, but I don't think Bill Walsh would have coached a winning season in 2002.

I also remember when towards the end of a game against USC where we were just dominating them at the LoS, a USC DLmen was quoted "If you guys run power one more time, I'm done; I'm subbing myself out."  The play was utterly predictable, and yet USC could do nothing about it.  I would much rather be in this situation where we are utterly overwhelmed at the LoS, no matter what the playcalls are.

That being said, in between an utterly dominant machine of an offense as we had in 2010/2011/2015, and the completely overwhelmed offenses of the dark ages, there is a role for coaching to maximize productivity.  A five yard penalty due to a delay of game won't have much of an impact if you can reliably gain 7 yards per play, and conversely if you can't string together three plays to get you a first down, then you weren't going to get a first down anyways.  But in between, a 5-yard DoG can make the difference between a drive continuing and a drive stalling.

BC

[Goose]

That being said, in between an utterly dominant machine of an offense as we had in 2010/2011/2015, and the completely overwhelmed offenses of the dark ages, there is a role for coaching to maximize productivity.  A five yard penalty due to a delay of game won't have much of an impact if you can reliably gain 7 yards per play, and conversely if you can't string together three plays to get you a first down, then you weren't going to get a first down anyways.  But in between, a 5-yard DoG can make the difference between a drive continuing and a drive stalling.


BC

Totally agree. It has always amazed me that a guy who dislikes surprises and plans everything like David Shaw doesn't have a method to eliminate these DOGs that are caused by getting the play in late. Furthermore, if you have a well coached team that can execute a play that isn't "optimal" but is rather "good enough" (no matter what the Cardboard may say) beats a DOG penalty. Some of the DOGs are on the QB just taking too much time himself. Those are bad and shouldn't happen. Good coaching can minimize them. DOGs caused by the coaching staff OTOH should NEVER happen.

[Goose]

That being said, in between an utterly dominant machine of an offense as we had in 2010/2011/2015, and the completely overwhelmed offenses of the dark ages, there is a role for coaching to maximize productivity.  A five yard penalty due to a delay of game won't have much of an impact if you can reliably gain 7 yards per play, and conversely if you can't string together three plays to get you a first down, then you weren't going to get a first down anyways.  But in between, a 5-yard DoG can make the difference between a drive continuing and a drive stalling.


BC

Totally agree. It has always amazed me that a guy who dislikes surprises and plans everything like David Shaw doesn't have a method to eliminate these DOGs that are caused by getting the play in late. Furthermore, if you have a well coached team that can execute a play that isn't "optimal" but is rather "good enough" (no matter what the Cardboard may say) beats a DOG penalty. Some of the DOGs are on the QB just taking too much time himself. Those are bad and shouldn't happen. Good coaching can minimize them. DOGs caused by the coaching staff OTOH should NEVER happen.