ASU Game Thread - 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: ASU Game Thread (/thread-16610.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: ASU Game Thread (/thread-16610.html)
RE: ASU Game Thread - OutsiderFan - 10-19-2018
All great points, d4.
How about looking at all the wins that involved turtling? Why should I bother watching Stanford play when basically half the game is going to be boring? More to the point, why do I want to see my team constantly put its defense in positions where it must perform or the team will lose (or allowed opponent to tie), because the offense basically calls it quits? I want to occasionally see some throats stepped on so I can see the 2nd and 3rd team guys play. And I want to see defenses pay for ignoring all possibilities but a handoff to a RB.
Stanford should have won that game by two scores and coasted to an easy win, based on what I saw of the two teams. It was preposterous that Stanford's defense - and myself personally just watching - had to sweat it out until the final second. Yay, they won. But let me be clear. I don't find any entertainment in watching my team get stuffed for 3, 4, 5, 6 yard losses on run plays I know the defense is expecting, and I really don't like relying on the defense to make stops to win games the offense could have otherwise won. This is especially the case given how many penalties can be called against the defense when the other team is passing.
RE: ASU Game Thread - d4cohn - 10-19-2018
(10-19-2018, 11:58 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: All great points, d4.
How about looking at all the wins that involved turtling? Why should I bother watching Stanford play when basically half the game is going to be boring? More to the point, why do I want to see my team constantly put its defense in positions where it must perform or the team will lose (or allowed opponent to tie), because the offense basically calls it quits? I want to occasionally see some throats stepped on so I can see the 2nd and 3rd team guys play. And I want to see defenses pay for ignoring all possibilities but a handoff to a RB.
Stanford should have won that game by two scores and coasted to an easy win, based on what I saw of the two teams. It was preposterous that Stanford's defense - and myself personally just watching - had to sweat it out until the final second. Yay, they won. But let me be clear. I don't find any entertainment in watching my team get stuffed for 3, 4, 5, 6 yard losses on run plays I know the defense is expecting, and I really don't like relying on the defense to make stops to win games the offense could have otherwise won. This is especially the case given how many penalties can be called against the defense when the other team is passing.
My response would be if #74 doesn't commit a ridiculously unnecessary hold on the Scarlett screen pass, and Costello makes anything close to a good throw to OSB in first half, game is over after three, everyone gets to see the backups, and Coach Shaw doesn't have to risk anything. With a 14 point lead heading into the fourth (as opposed to a 22 point lead), Shaw's priority was getting out of Tempe with a win, which we weren't able to do in our last trip there in 2014. And Shaw's priority was also keeping us in the division/conference title race. If Stanford goes on to win the division/conference (cross fingers and knock on wood, even if it will be a tall order against UW), is anyone really going to care we only beat ASU by 7 instead of 14?
RE: ASU Game Thread - Austroturf - 10-19-2018
(10-19-2018, 09:39 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: BC, I think this summarizes what you missed in the 2H.
These were consecutive Stanford drives, starting in the 2nd quarter.
8 plays, 63 yards - FG
12 plays, 76 yards - FG
8 plays, 75 yards - TD
7 plays, 80 yards - TD
Followed by:
5 plays, 5 yards - punt
3 plays, -2 yards - punt
3 plays, 0 yards - punt
5 plays, 33 yards - punt
Here are a few more statistics to flesh out the flow of the game. These are not perfect, but give an idea of how the offense performed in the four separate quarters. I have compiled the number of run plays, passing plays, yards-per-play, first downs and the associated totals.
Stanford Offense vs. ASU 2018
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
Run 11 11 9 13 44
Yards 9 49 48 20 126
YPP 0.8 4.5 5.3 1.5 2.9
Pass 6 14 10 1 31
Yards 29 94 98 13 234
YPP 4.8 6.7 9.8 13 7.6
1st downs 3 9 10 1 23
Total Yards 38 143 146 33 360
Total Plays 17 25 19 14 75
Total YPP 2.2 5.7 7.7 2.4 4.8
%Run 64.7 44.0 47.4 92.9 58.7
%Pass 35.3 56.0 52.6 7.1 41.3
Points 0 6 14 0 20
Sorry for the formatting, but I haven't figured out how to import an Excel table yet. What this data shows is a tale of a middle and two ends. As Spiny_Norman points out, all of our points came on possessions 5,6,7 and 8. Numbers 5 and 6 came in the 2nd quarter, while drives 7 and 8 were at the beginning of the second half. As can be seen from the stats, we generated 80% of our total offensive production in the 2nd and 3rd quarters. We also had 19 of our 23 first downs in this "middle period". Our yards per play was two to three times higher than in quarters one and four. And as can been seen, our mix of pass and run was slightly tilted toward passing, with positive results for both areas of offense. When we passed more, we ran better; when we ran better, our passing production improved. Yes, we were helped by some PI penalties on drive 7; but the data is too clear to lead to any other conclusion: mixing it up on offense is positively correlated with offensive production and points total.
I was also frustrated to see Shaw go into turtle mode in the fourth quarter. Yes, he often gets away with it and wins by not playing to lose. But there have been examples to the contrary, as well. One of the more famous cases was in the 2011 Fiesta Bowl against Oklahoma State. Shaw was convinced he had the necessary field position for the winning FG in regulation and quit driving. Rather than have Luck strike paydirt and seal the deal, he put the game on the foot of freshman Jordan Williamson. After all, driving might have resulted in a sack, a fumble or an interception. But with an all world QB, maybe you score and take the onus off your kicker. Well, we all know how that ended. Shaw's game management shows that he is very loath to risk what he has for what he doesn't yet have (i.e., more points, another first down, etc.). Rather than seeing the potential third TD to put the game out of reach against ASU, he instead had visions of Costello's pick six in the Utah game. All legitimate; and, yes, we got the ugly W and ride proudly out of Tempe with a 5-2 record. But this is not how champions play. When you have an opponent on the ropes, you finish them off. You don't invite them back into the game by turtling down and going into self-defense mode. Frustrating as a fan, to say the least.
RE: ASU Game Thread - stupac2 - 10-19-2018
I don't care if Shaw has or hasn't done this before, and I don't care if this time it lead to the win. In modern football coaches have finally started to realize that possessing the football is the most important part of the game, and that "taking risks" is only in comparison to an asinine, incorrect baseline. Coaches have finally started to realize to run your regular offense in these situations, because that's what leads to wins. Running into the line 3 times and punting is stupid. We were playing stupid. We're Stanford! Of all the things we should be "stupid" is not one of them.
The only explanation I can see is that Shaw was afraid Costello's injury would hamper him and that putting the ball into the air was riskier than normal. I don't think Costello's stats back that up, but if that's what Shaw was thinking, well, fine. That's less stupid. But try something. ASU was clearly selling out to stop the run, make them pay somehow.
Maybe this won't happen again, but the fact that we've been decrying the early-game offense since the first game of the year and we still came out and averaged 2.2 yards per play is telling me that Shaw isn't learning. And that's inexcusable. Gameplan to the talents of the team you have, no the team you want. Shaw isn't doing that, and it's infuriating.
(And, note, that I have traditionally been a big Shaw defender. I think that in previous years he has done a good job, and a lot of the complaints about him are poorly founded. But he massively screwed up that game and is massively screwing up this season and needs to fix it, fast.)
RE: ASU Game Thread - winflop - 10-19-2018
(10-19-2018, 11:56 AM)d4cohn Wrote:(10-19-2018, 11:51 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I seem to remember reading that David Shaw teams had never lost a lead that they took into the 4th quarter until last year's WSU game. Then of course they did it again in the Alamo Bowl.
And neither of those games were lost due to "turtling". I know last night may not be the most aesthetically pleasing, or best for all of our nerves, but Coach Shaw, in his 8+ years at Stanford, has never blown a game in which we were leading, and his football equivalent of "parking the bus" offense cost us the game.
At best, people can point to a couple of decisions in tied ball games, with kickers missing short kicks, and punting on fourth and long around the +35.
For me it's mostly a philosophical difference. When you have your foot on the opponent's neck, I think you push down rather than hold or pull back. Last night we had a 2-1 TOP advantage. The ASU defense had already played nearly 30 minutes at the start of the 4th quarter. With a two-score lead you have a chance to put the game away completely with even a FG, and at that point the offense was working with 4 scores in the previous five tries. I think you take that momentum and use it to give your opponent zero hope of coming back and coast the rest of the way. You also reduce the risk of injury to starters which is critical right now with so many guys down or nursing injuries and a correspondingly thinner depth chart.
The ends don't justify the means for me.
RE: ASU Game Thread - Austroturf - 10-19-2018
(10-19-2018, 01:25 PM)winflop Wrote:Completely agree. Offense is often the best defense. A TD scored is worth just as much as one defended. And your point about TOP is well-taken: we had a 65:35 TOP advantage over the entire game, but let that slip in the 4th quarter. My estimates of the play-by-play data show that we had a shade over 7 minutes of TOP in the 4th quarter, which means ASU got the other eight. And that was with us beginning the quarter in possession of the ball; but after that tripping penalty and two ineffectual runs, we punted and went on the defensive. ASU's paltry offensive output during the first three quarters was largely due to our TOP dominance: their offense was rarely on the field, while our defense was fresh and ready to stuff them. We flipped that advantage in the 4th quarter by entering turtle mode.(10-19-2018, 11:56 AM)d4cohn Wrote:(10-19-2018, 11:51 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I seem to remember reading that David Shaw teams had never lost a lead that they took into the 4th quarter until last year's WSU game. Then of course they did it again in the Alamo Bowl.
And neither of those games were lost due to "turtling". I know last night may not be the most aesthetically pleasing, or best for all of our nerves, but Coach Shaw, in his 8+ years at Stanford, has never blown a game in which we were leading, and his football equivalent of "parking the bus" offense cost us the game.
At best, people can point to a couple of decisions in tied ball games, with kickers missing short kicks, and punting on fourth and long around the +35.
For me it's mostly a philosophical difference. When you have your foot on the opponent's neck, I think you push down rather than hold or pull back. Last night we had a 2-1 TOP advantage. The ASU defense had already played nearly 30 minutes at the start of the 4th quarter. With a two-score lead you have a chance to put the game away completely with even a FG, and at that point the offense was working with 4 scores in the previous five tries. I think you take that momentum and use it to give your opponent zero hope of coming back and coast the rest of the way. You also reduce the risk of injury to starters which is critical right now with so many guys down or nursing injuries and a correspondingly thinner depth chart.
The ends don't justify the means for me.
RE: ASU Game Thread - OutsiderFan - 10-19-2018
What makes this all the more galling is this.
Kyle Wittingham, who is the closest to Shaw when it comes to style of play preferred of all the other Pac-12 coaches, is now running intellectual circles around Shaw with his analytics book, held by someone right by him the whole game. Of ALL the schools playing college football, shouldn't Stanford be leading the field in this department? Totally ignoring the statistical realities of competition will get you beat by teams that don't.
If Wittingham has a book near him to be consulted for various situations, I'm convinced Utah used data to game plan and call plays against Stanford, and am further convinced one of the reasons they beat Stanford so soundly is precisely because they played the numbers against Stanford. Shaw, not being willing to change his style, is especially susceptible to opponents using data to prepare for and play against his team.
RE: ASU Game Thread - BostonCard - 10-19-2018
(10-19-2018, 05:26 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(10-18-2018, 11:46 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I was out to dinner the whole second half. Sounds like I missed two great drives in the third quarter, a few nice plays by adebo and not much else.
BC
Pretty much. It was like this:
Let's play it tight and see if we can establish the run early. Uh oh, we better do something, so let's try scoring. With a 14 pt lead, let's not take any chances and try killing the clock.
Literally, that's how it went. Not inspiring or entertaining at all. When fans would rather go out to dinner than watch Stanford play football, that's a real problem. You are in the entertainment business. Give us a reason to pay attention.
I find myself watching less of Stanford games this season than ever before:
Watched all of SDSU
Watched half of USC
Watched none of UCD
Watched 3/4 of Oregon
Watched 1/3 Notre Dame
Watched 1/3 of Utah
Watched 3/4 of ASU
Entertain me, and I'll watch. Bore me and I won't.
Actually, Stanford is in the education business, not the entertaining business. Don't ever forget that.
BC
RE: ASU Game Thread - Austroturf - 10-19-2018
(10-19-2018, 03:35 PM)BostonCard Wrote:That's a good reminder. If only there were some sort of visible face-off of Stanford's German department vs. Michigan's German department. That might usher in a completely new age.(10-19-2018, 05:26 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(10-18-2018, 11:46 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I was out to dinner the whole second half. Sounds like I missed two great drives in the third quarter, a few nice plays by adebo and not much else.
BC
Pretty much. It was like this:
Let's play it tight and see if we can establish the run early. Uh oh, we better do something, so let's try scoring. With a 14 pt lead, let's not take any chances and try killing the clock.
Literally, that's how it went. Not inspiring or entertaining at all. When fans would rather go out to dinner than watch Stanford play football, that's a real problem. You are in the entertainment business. Give us a reason to pay attention.
I find myself watching less of Stanford games this season than ever before:
Watched all of SDSU
Watched half of USC
Watched none of UCD
Watched 3/4 of Oregon
Watched 1/3 Notre Dame
Watched 1/3 of Utah
Watched 3/4 of ASU
Entertain me, and I'll watch. Bore me and I won't.
Actually, Stanford is in the education business, not the entertaining business. Don't ever forget that.
BC
RE: ASU Game Thread - BostonCard - 10-19-2018
(10-19-2018, 01:20 PM)stupac2 Wrote: I don't care if Shaw has or hasn't done this before, and I don't care if this time it lead to the win. In modern football coaches have finally started to realize that possessing the football is the most important part of the game, and that "taking risks" is only in comparison to an asinine, incorrect baseline. Coaches have finally started to realize to run your regular offense in these situations, because that's what leads to wins. Running into the line 3 times and punting is stupid. We were playing stupid. We're Stanford! Of all the things we should be "stupid" is not one of them.
The only explanation I can see is that Shaw was afraid Costello's injury would hamper him and that putting the ball into the air was riskier than normal. I don't think Costello's stats back that up, but if that's what Shaw was thinking, well, fine. That's less stupid. But try something. ASU was clearly selling out to stop the run, make them pay somehow.
Maybe this won't happen again, but the fact that we've been decrying the early-game offense since the first game of the year and we still came out and averaged 2.2 yards per play is telling me that Shaw isn't learning. And that's inexcusable. Gameplan to the talents of the team you have, no the team you want. Shaw isn't doing that, and it's infuriating.
(And, note, that I have traditionally been a big Shaw defender. I think that in previous years he has done a good job, and a lot of the complaints about him are poorly founded. But he massively screwed up that game and is massively screwing up this season and needs to fix it, fast.)
Well, that's not quite right either. You have to adjust your game plan to the situation at hand. You wouldn't, for example, use your base offense if you have 2 minutes left in the game and are behind a score, since you have to be able to stop the clock. Likewise, if you are clearly ahead it is a reasonable strategy to "turtle" and trade time outs for possessions. That is especially true if you have a solid running game and have a decent chance of getting a first down running.
The problem in this case was that a) Shaw started turtling too early and b) we don't have the offense to have a shot of getting a first down running it three times. I think you do have to adjust your game plan for the game situation, but I do think in this particular case (and probably to an extent in general) Shaw is a bit too conservative too soon. That is, I think there is an optimal amount of shifting from your typical run/pass mix to a more run oriented offense that depends on your lead, the time remaining, and the relative strengths of your run and pass game, and that Shaw probably adjusts to running the ball too much too soon (particularly this year).
BC
RE: ASU Game Thread - d4cohn - 10-19-2018
(10-19-2018, 02:04 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: What makes this all the more galling is this.
Kyle Wittingham, who is the closest to Shaw when it comes to style of play preferred of all the other Pac-12 coaches, is now running intellectual circles around Shaw with his analytics book, held by someone right by him the whole game. Of ALL the schools playing college football, shouldn't Stanford be leading the field in this department? Totally ignoring the statistical realities of competition will get you beat by teams that don't.
If Wittingham has a book near him to be consulted for various situations, I'm convinced Utah used data to game plan and call plays against Stanford, and am further convinced one of the reasons they beat Stanford so soundly is precisely because they played the numbers against Stanford. Shaw, not being willing to change his style, is especially susceptible to opponents using data to prepare for and play against his team.
I definitely think Stanford can (and probably is) using analytics in terms of its game planning and playcalling. We could certainly probably do more though. And with regards to game planning and playcalling when the game is still in doubt, I am in agreement with the notion that we need to throw more, throw to set up the run, not pound the ball into the line etc. However, how Shaw managed that fourth quarter in terms of avoiding turnovers, avoiding sacks, avoiding blocked punts, basically disaster plays was analytics (we had a >83% to win the game throughout the fourth quarter, including in most stretches a >95% to win). Only way we lose that game is a disaster play that gives them a short field, or a turnover for a touchdown. We may not be using analytics as much as I would like, or as much as Whittingham does, or using it enough when the game was in doubt, but the turtle strategy was all about playing the win probability.
RE: ASU Game Thread - BostonCard - 10-19-2018
(10-19-2018, 02:04 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: What makes this all the more galling is this.
Kyle Wittingham, who is the closest to Shaw when it comes to style of play preferred of all the other Pac-12 coaches, is now running intellectual circles around Shaw with his analytics book, held by someone right by him the whole game. Of ALL the schools playing college football, shouldn't Stanford be leading the field in this department? Totally ignoring the statistical realities of competition will get you beat by teams that don't.
If Wittingham has a book near him to be consulted for various situations, I'm convinced Utah used data to game plan and call plays against Stanford, and am further convinced one of the reasons they beat Stanford so soundly is precisely because they played the numbers against Stanford. Shaw, not being willing to change his style, is especially susceptible to opponents using data to prepare for and play against his team.
I don't know when Utah started using advanced analytics, but in terms of impact on its win/loss record, it isn't immediately obvious. They are 4-2 so far this year, which is an improvement over last year, but they were 9-4 in 2016, 10-3 in 2015, and 9-4 in 2014, so it is not immediately obvious to me that the technological embrace has made a big difference on the bottom line (winning and losing football games).
As for why Utah beat Stanford so soundly a couple weeks ago... a 4-0 difference in turnovers will do that (plus a bonehead running into the kicker on a punt that led to a touchdown). Otherwise, the two teams were well matched by most metrics (total yards, 432-421, first downs 26-22, etc.). I don't think you needed advanced analytics to know that Stanford likes to throw the "box out" play to its big wide receivers when near the goal line. Most teams couldn't do much about it, so credit Utah for converting that to two interceptions, one a pick six.
BC
RE: ASU Game Thread - winflop - 10-19-2018
(10-19-2018, 03:35 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Actually, Stanford is in the education business, not the entertaining business. Don't ever forget that.
BC
Stanford University is in the education business. The Stanford Athletic Department is in both the education AND entertainment businesses.
RE: ASU Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 10-20-2018
By the way, for all the mishegas in Stanford fan circles, ESPN's FPI graded the ASU win out at an ... 89. (In the back half of the year, when Shaw teams typically play better, Stanford usually averages in the mid- to low- 80s. Though Stanford's grades have been dropping in recent years.)