Just 3 things . . . - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Just 3 things . . . (/thread-22525.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Just 3 things . . . (/thread-22525.html)
Just 3 things . . . - teejers1 - 11-06-2021
1. Shaw. Sea. Level. (Worse than anything we've ever seen, including in Buddy/Wlat years);
2. Only one move can now instill what is totally missing from the program and its fan base: hope. And we all know what that move is. Just cleaning house and replacing the coordinators will not do the trick; and
3. We all know that Muir will not do it.
It doesn't get more discouraging than that.
P.S. Again, will the last person in the building please turn out the lights.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Phogge - 11-06-2021
Stanford is now in its Isadora Duncan era.. there is nothing there, there.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - gailtate - 11-06-2021
We're effed. Muir reports to Shaw and MTL doesn't know if it's pumped or stuffed.
(11-06-2021, 06:15 AM)Phogge Wrote: Stanford is now in its Isadora Duncan era.. there is nothing there, there.
Gertrude Stein.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - martyup - 11-06-2021
Were home game attendance numbers this low in the Buddy years?
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Row80Critic - 11-06-2021
Meanwhile, Shaw points at his players: "When you miss tackles, that's why you give up those big, big plays," Shaw said. "It's inexcusable." "Obviously we missed some guys who aren't out there. ... That being said, we have 11 out there at a time, strap it up and get out there and play."
As a capper to the worst game in 15+ years, EJ slipped on his cleats in the tunnel after the game, trying to interact with someone in the crowd. He went down hard and was in obvious pain with no trainers to notice. A teammate finally saw him and helped him off the concrete and down the tunnel with one leg up and holding no weight.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - JohnR34231 - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 08:23 AM)Row80Critic Wrote: Meanwhile, Shaw points at his players: "When you miss tackles, that's why you give up those big, big plays," Shaw said. "It's inexcusable." "Obviously we missed some guys who aren't out there. ... That being said, we have 11 out there at a time, strap it up and get out there and play."
As a capper to the worst game in 15+ years, EJ slipped on his cleats in the tunnel after the game, trying to interact with someone in the crowd. He went down hard and was in obvious pain with no trainers to notice. A teammate finally saw him and helped him off the concrete and down the tunnel with one leg up and holding no weight.
My God, people are now getting hurt walking off the field.
Well, it's been that kind of year I guess.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - CardinalSagehen - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 09:03 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(11-06-2021, 08:23 AM)Row80Critic Wrote: Meanwhile, Shaw points at his players: "When you miss tackles, that's why you give up those big, big plays," Shaw said. "It's inexcusable." "Obviously we missed some guys who aren't out there. ... That being said, we have 11 out there at a time, strap it up and get out there and play."
As a capper to the worst game in 15+ years, EJ slipped on his cleats in the tunnel after the game, trying to interact with someone in the crowd. He went down hard and was in obvious pain with no trainers to notice. A teammate finally saw him and helped him off the concrete and down the tunnel with one leg up and holding no weight.
My God, people are now getting hurt walking off the field.
Well, it's been that kind of year I guess.
This is truly unbelievable.
EJ was really the only bright spot. He was quick and elusive on a couple runs. There was nowhere to go on one of them, but he was fun to watch. And his dad was in attendance to watch this dumpster fire.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Phogge - 11-06-2021
EJ needs to get out of Palo Alto.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - JohnR34231 - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 11:02 AM)Phogge Wrote: EJ needs to get out of Palo Alto.
What is also truly unbelievable is we now have Stanford "fans" telling players to transfer.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - gailtate - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 10:53 AM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:(11-06-2021, 09:03 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(11-06-2021, 08:23 AM)Row80Critic Wrote: Meanwhile, Shaw points at his players: "When you miss tackles, that's why you give up those big, big plays," Shaw said. "It's inexcusable." "Obviously we missed some guys who aren't out there. ... That being said, we have 11 out there at a time, strap it up and get out there and play."
As a capper to the worst game in 15+ years, EJ slipped on his cleats in the tunnel after the game, trying to interact with someone in the crowd. He went down hard and was in obvious pain with no trainers to notice. A teammate finally saw him and helped him off the concrete and down the tunnel with one leg up and holding no weight.
My God, people are now getting hurt walking off the field.
Well, it's been that kind of year I guess.
This is truly unbelievable.
EJ was really the only bright spot. He was quick and elusive on a couple runs. There was nowhere to go on one of them, but he was fun to watch. And his dad was in attendance to watch this dumpster fire.
It will take influencers like EJ's dad (and more like) them to speak truth to Arrillaga. Not a good sign that Emmitt Smith's tweet about the predictability of the offense had to be deleted. Or maybe it was useful. We're talking about it.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - BostonCard - 11-06-2021
You know whose offense was deadly predictable? Utah’s. They predictably ran the ball down our throat, with nothing fancy, to the tune of 441 yards rushing and 581 yards of total offense. I mean, pretty much all of us knew that they were going to run it between the tackles most of the runs, and yet most of the time, the first time a Stanford defender touched the rusher around 5 yards downfield. And with our poor tackling, they averaged 9.6 yards every single time a Utah running back touched the ball.
To the extent any team tried things like an end around and having the wildcat QB throw it to the tight end, it was Stanford. The problem was not that we didn’t try anything innovative in the playcalling it’s that whatever we tried, whether predictable or not, generally didn’t work.
Which is to say, I would rather do a few unimaginative things really well, than fail to execute a brilliant plan. The biggest indictment of the coaches is not that they call a predictable game, it’s that they have failed to teach the kids how to play fundamental football: blocking, tackling, assignments, etc. “better play calling” ain't fixing that.
BC
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Goose - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 01:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Which is to say, I would rather do a few unimaginative things really well, than fail to execute a brilliant plan. The biggest indictment of the coaches is not that they call a predictable game, it’s that they have failed to teach the kids how to play fundamental football: blocking, tackling, assignments, etc. “better play calling” ain't fixing that.Agree. The team did not exhibit any degree of basic competence. That is on everybody, players, coaches, administrators. Losing a game is bad. Looking like you have no clue what you are doing and are totally unable to execute anything is several orders of magnitude worse.
BC
RE: Just 3 things . . . - gailtate - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 01:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You know whose offense was deadly predictable? Utah’s. They predictably ran the ball down our throat, with nothing fancy, to the tune of 441 yards rushing and 581 yards of total offense. I mean, pretty much all of us knew that they were going to run it between the tackles most of the runs, and yet most of the time, the first time a Stanford defender touched the rusher around 5 yards downfield. And with our poor tackling, they averaged 9.6 yards every single time a Utah running back touched the ball.
To the extent any team tried things like an end around and having the wildcat QB throw it to the tight end, it was Stanford. The problem was not that we didn’t try anything innovative in the playcalling it’s that whatever we tried, whether predictable or not, generally didn’t work.
Which is to say, I would rather do a few unimaginative things really well, than fail to execute a brilliant plan. The biggest indictment of the coaches is not that they call a predictable game, it’s that they have failed to teach the kids how to play fundamental football: blocking, tackling, assignments, etc. “better play calling” ain't fixing that.
BC
Well, let's see. Looks like Stanford can't do much of anything really well, BUT they make up for it by not doing anything else really well. That's quite a team that Shaw is suiting up right now. At least, the players who ARE suiting up.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Goose - 11-06-2021
"Well, I mean, it's more than the quarterbacks," Shaw said. "That's part of it. You know, we got to be able to stop the run, we got to be able to run the ball. Those are things we been saying all year. Got to make some major adjustments to get that opportunity to do that. It was not good tonight."
David Shaw. No secret here. That is what we have needed to do all year and have not done. Quo Vadis?
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Phogge - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 07:07 AM)gailtate Wrote: We're effed. Muir reports to Shaw and MTL doesn't know if it's pumped or stuffed.
(11-06-2021, 06:15 AM)Phogge Wrote: Stanford is now in its Isadora Duncan era.. there is nothing there, there.
Gertrude Stein.
Not Ben Stein?
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Row80Critic - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 01:52 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-06-2021, 01:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Which is to say, I would rather do a few unimaginative things really well, than fail to execute a brilliant plan. The biggest indictment of the coaches is not that they call a predictable game, it’s that they have failed to teach the kids how to play fundamental football: blocking, tackling, assignments, etc. “better play calling” ain't fixing that.Agree. The team did not exhibit any degree of basic competence. That is on everybody, players, coaches, administrators. Losing a game is bad. Looking like you have no clue what you are doing and are totally unable to execute anything is several orders of magnitude worse.
BC
Not to quibble, since I think we all agree Shaw fielded one of the worst Stanford football efforts of our lifetimes last night. But, the difference I see with Shaw in terms of predictability and play-calling is that Shaw keeps doing things that don't work, drive-to-drive, quarter-to-quarter, week-to-week, and season-to-season. It's one thing to run up the middle with Gerhart 37 times a game, if it's working. It's an entirely different thing to run the same plays week after week that simply are not working, and then to do it with such amazing predictability. It's just inexplicable.
It's not just the play calls, it's his overall inability or unwillingness to see and/or react to reality. I'm sure West is a great kid, but how many times does he need to get sacked before trying someone else -- maybe someone who could roll the pocket or keep his eyes up in the total absence of protection. Shaw picked West to start at the beginning of the season, and so far he looks to be 4th on the depth chart in terms of on-field performance. Is that stubborn adherence to starting upper classman or just an inability to see who's better? Neither is a good trait for a head coach. And what about Sanders. The wildcat DOESN'T WORK in the middle of drives like that when everyone knows what's coming, yet Shaw keeps sending Sanders out there with a target on his head to play kill the pill against two and a half tons of humanity. It's not fair to the players. At one point, even the band started chanting "let him throw, let him throw." And another thing.... ah, never mind. Looks like I picked the WRONG week to quit sniffing glue.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - 76lsjumb - 11-06-2021
Against whom does our Offense practice each week? That’s right - our Defense. When our Offense runs plays during the week, it’s not unlikely that it is reasonably successful. Why mess with success when it’s working? Indeed, installing an entirely different offensive scheme in practice may actually produce worse results in practice.
So, when game time arrives, does it make more sense to run an offense that has worked in practice and with which the players are familiar or one that is less familiar and which may very well have looked less successful in practice?
More succinctly, with a defense as poor as ours, it’s not surprising the offense doesn’t really improve - or the offensive scheme isn’t radically altered over the course of the season.
By analogy for the WBB fans among us, I think it’s highly likely the intra-squad scrimmage last week was more beneficial to development (although undeniably much less fun) than today’s roadkill game. Any number of things worked today that almost certainly will not when we play Texas.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - BostonCard - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 03:53 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: Not to quibble, since I think we all agree Shaw fielded one of the worst Stanford football efforts of our lifetimes last night. But, the difference I see with Shaw in terms of predictability and play-calling is that Shaw keeps doing things that don't work, drive-to-drive, quarter-to-quarter, week-to-week, and season-to-season. It's one thing to run up the middle with Gerhart 37 times a game, if it's working. It's an entirely different thing to run the same plays week after week that simply are not working, and then to do it with such amazing predictability. It's just inexplicable.
I don’t know how you can look at the offense 10 years ago and compare it today, and conclude Shaw does the same thing season to season. It’s probably easier to describe the things that are similar to 10 years ago than the things that are different. We still huddle, and we still feature passes to the tight end. And that’s about it for similarities to 10 years ago.
Let’s start with formation. We used to run most of our plays out of the i-formation with 21 personnel (1 rb, 1 fb, 1 te, and 2 wrs). Now we run most of our plays out of the shotgun with 11 personnel. The fullback rarely features, and we are more likely to run an empty backfield than we are to have 2 running backs. An empty backfield was something we only used to run on third and long, and even then, we liked having a running back in there for protection.
Next, let’s look at the run/pass mix. In 2011, we had 417 passing attempts and 518 rushing attempts (running 55.4% of the time). This year, we have had 282 passing attempts and 250 rushing attempts (running just 47% of the time). The disparity is even more stark when you take sacks into account, as the 27 times our QB’s count as sacks are considered rushes, even though they were dropbacks. If you reclassify the times our Qb’s were sacked, we only ran 41.9% of the time (Luck was only sacked 11 times in 2011, so even if you reclassify the runs in 2011, we still ran it 54.2% of the time).
The disparity is even more significant if you look at first down. While we still run more than we pass on first down (51.7% rushes), back then we ran it a lot more than we passed it on first down (63% rushes). And that was with Andrew Luck, a senior QB.
Moreover, how we run has changed. As I mentioned, our primary formation and personnel has changed. So has the offensive line’s blocking scheme. Whereas before our quintessential play was Power, with a pulling guard and a lead fullback and a zone blocking scheme, now we run duo (or at least, that’s what we were supposed to have been running, but we do it so poorly it’s hard to tell) and count on the running back to read the linebacker and pick his hole. Duo is a man blocking scheme, and we rarely, if ever pull our linemen (probably because they are not nimble enough to do it effectively). I don’t know that we’ve run power this season. Sacrilege!
Furthermore, how we pass has changed. Because we used to run effectively out of the I formation, a lot of our passing was built off play action passing, of which Luck and Hogan were masters. The receivers were not barn burners, but took advantage of the play fake and crisp route running to create separation from the DB. Now we occasionally run some play action, but mostly we are running three wide receiver sets with big tall receivers, where we count on their height to win the ball one on one against the DB’s. In 2011, our top receiving targets were 6’1” Griff Whalen, 6’2” Chris Owusu, and 6’2” Ty Montgomery (along with 6’6” TE Coby Fleener). This year, our top receivers are 6’3” Elijah Higgins, 6’5” John Humphreys, and 6’4” Brycen Tremayne, (along with 6’5” TE Benjamin Yurosek); our receivers now are 2-3 inches taller than 10 years ago, and we rely on that plus the occasional slant, for most of our passing yardage. Other than the fact that the tight end still features heavily in our passing offense, the passing game we use today would have been unrecognizeable 10 years ago.
Shaw may or may not be stubborn. It is probably fair to criticize him for taking too long to adjust from his game plan when it doesn’t work (see Nov 5). But for goodness sakes, people, let’s put to rest the idea that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy in 10 years. Except for our tempo, or lack thereof, we are probably much closer to a run and shoot offense now than we are a power offense of 10 years ago. And there is a contingent of people on this board who think the problem is not that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy enough, but that he strayed from what was working, and that we should go back to being a ball-control, power running team, a proposition that I am sympathetic to. It is of course hard to disentangle cause from effect, but our offensive production has declined as we’ve moved away from being a power running, ball control offense.
Whatever it is, it can’t be any worse than what we witnessed yesterday, can it?
BC
RE: Just 3 things . . . - slide - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 07:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Whatever it is, it can’t be any worse than what we witnessed yesterday, can it?
BC
let's hope not. it is hard to get worse than the opening with turtle mode and then going downhill from there.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - BostonCard - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 08:21 PM)slide Wrote:(11-06-2021, 07:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Whatever it is, it can’t be any worse than what we witnessed yesterday, can it?
BC
let's hope not. it is hard to get worse than the opening with turtle mode and then going downhill from there.
Our goose was cooked when we failed to recruit a QB in 2019, which meant that when McKee went down our choices were between a guy we offered way too early who basically didn’t pan out, a wildcat qb, and a true freshman. We could have come out slinging with West, and our first series would have gone: incomplete, 5-yard sack, 3-yard completion, punt. You take that and lack of development of the rest of the team, and you play this game 10 times and come out with 10 losses.
As far as strategies go, turtle gets wasn’t any more fated to be doomed than any other. Maybe you keep it close through some freak plays (a kickoff return for a touchdown, a big turnover, etc.), and playing for fewer possessions by trying to eat up clock is not… crazy.
I worry about what happens when McKee is gone, which could be as soon as after this season. That Patu didn’t see action until the last series really makes me wonder if there will be a viable QB in the mix after McKee leaves, because I don’t know what would make a coach see the work product on the field with West behind center and not say, “yeah he’s a true freshman, but he can’t be any worse”.
BC