The CardBoard
Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - 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: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? (/thread-12786.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - cardfan77 - 10-01-2016

I was really looking forward to the start of football season.  I was excited to see what kind of creative  formation and plays that coach Shaw & Bloomgreen have designed for their talented players in skill positions.  It seems like coach Shaw & Bloomgren conservative ways have recurred.  Is the playbook missing?  Did they forget to bring to Pasadena & Seattle?

I really hope that this loss will wake up the beast in them (coaches &  players) and start playing like we know they are capable of.  Season is quite young.  Players can only get better from this loss.  Hopefully the injury bug has moved on..... far far far away

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - cardfan77 - 10-01-2016

I was really looking forward to the start of football season.  I was excited to see what kind of creative  formation and plays that coach Shaw & Bloomgreen have designed for their talented players in skill positions.  It seems like coach Shaw & Bloomgren conservative ways have recurred.  Is the playbook missing?  Did they forget to bring to Pasadena & Seattle?

I really hope that this loss will wake up the beast in them (coaches &  players) and start playing like we know they are capable of.  Season is quite young.  Players can only get better from this loss.  Hopefully the injury bug has moved on..... far far far away

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - TRD - 10-01-2016

(09-30-2016, 10:15 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=TRD link=topic=15830.msg174375#msg174375 date=1475296985]
All three.

I can't wait until next week to watch Shaw pound CMac into 9 in the box on EVERY first down play.

You mean...unlike tonight when we passed on first a lot and our receivers couldn't get open while our OL was matador-ing and Burns was either getting sacked or hurried? Yeah, that's probably a good idea.
[/quote]

None of that is actually true.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/playbyplay?gameId=400869124

Here is the sequence of 1st down plays.

They were down 30-0 at this point.

I am seriously worried for Christian McCaffrey's safety. The playbook for playing Stanford this year is very clear: hit them hard, take advantage of the inexperience at certain positions and Shaw's predictable play calling.


Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - TRD - 10-01-2016

(09-30-2016, 10:15 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=TRD link=topic=15830.msg174375#msg174375 date=1475296985]
All three.

I can't wait until next week to watch Shaw pound CMac into 9 in the box on EVERY first down play.

You mean...unlike tonight when we passed on first a lot and our receivers couldn't get open while our OL was matador-ing and Burns was either getting sacked or hurried? Yeah, that's probably a good idea.
[/quote]

None of that is actually true.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/playbyplay?gameId=400869124

Here is the sequence of 1st down plays.

They were down 30-0 at this point.

I am seriously worried for Christian McCaffrey's safety. The playbook for playing Stanford this year is very clear: hit them hard, take advantage of the inexperience at certain positions and Shaw's predictable play calling.


Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - winflop - 10-01-2016

(09-30-2016, 09:33 PM)cardcrimson link Wrote:How would you break down the percentages?

My estimations

30% out coached
35% out prepared
35% out played

That's 65% outcoached to me.  Preparation is on the coaches.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - winflop - 10-01-2016

(09-30-2016, 09:33 PM)cardcrimson link Wrote:How would you break down the percentages?

My estimations

30% out coached
35% out prepared
35% out played

That's 65% outcoached to me.  Preparation is on the coaches.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - OutsiderFan - 10-01-2016

Stanford looked and played like an FCS team last night.  When all areas of the team are so comprehensively awful, after playing well enough to beat three solid to good teams, it's kind of hard to draw conclusions.
I will try...

Washington's DL is gigantic, every one of them as big/heavy as any Stanford OL, and their LBs are small.  The DL is able to hold its position and the LBs easily fill the gaps.  I assumed that since Stanford handled UCLA, with Vanderdoes and company, they would be able to move the ball on the ground, but only with a balanced attack. 

I actually feel this game was lost before it was played.  It turns out those of us who were concerned about too many touches for CMac, and too little from the passing game, were validated.  After leaning so heavily on CMac running for the first three games, UW knew Stanford would break its tendencies, and they were absolutely ready.  I'm not going to say that if Stanford started with 7 OL and running, that would have been more effective, but what I am saying is that UW knew to rush Burns and worry about the run after, and Stanford played right into their hands.

But what is the most galling is how conventional Stanford's offense is.  Where are the bootlegs with easy throws to a TE or FB in the flat?  Where are the rollouts?  Why not do something to move the QB around, when you know the defense is expecting you to pass early?  The play that epitomizes the Stanford offensive mindset was the ridiculous play in the second half when they lined up 3 OL in the middle of the field and split three out wide, with Love lined up behind.  Everyone in the stadium knew that was going to be a pass to Love.  But the thing that makes it foolish is you're asking OL to make blocks on quicker guys in space.  You'd be far, far better off keeping your 5 OL in the middle, and then bunching up say Irwin and JJAW with Love behind, so they would be blockers, and there would be fewer defenders in the area.

Burns just doesn't have the quick reactions necessary.  Like the Stanford offense in general, he is slow and deliberate.  There were times he could have thrown balls to open receivers before being sacked, but he just couldn't react fast enough.  He needed to get more work before this game, to get more actual reps, but he never got them.  Given Chryst threw the best pass of the night, dropped by JJAW, I don't know what to do. It just baffles me how different this team looks from the one I saw last March.  They threw the ball a lot, and looked good doing it.  Speaking of JJAW, how many drops by him?  He caught everything last week, and had a lot of drops, save for the nice TD grab. 

The defense wasn't aggressive either. The thing that was most awful about their performance was they took away the big plays, but they were beaten all over the field, 5-7 yards per play, without fail.  They did a pretty decent job on the inside runs, but the outside contain was pathetic, and the cushions they gave the receivers were just way too soft.  I would have played press man-to-man more often just to interrupt the routes a little bit, and mix the looks Browning was given.

Event the ST, that had been so good this year, was awful.  So it was a comprehensive team implosion for sure.  That makes me feel better about the hopes for improvement than say if the offense moved the ball well, but couldn't score in the red zone, and they stopped up the run, but gave up 500 yards passing.  It wasn't just one or two areas that failed because they are severe weaknesses.  It was a total failure everywhere.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - OutsiderFan - 10-01-2016

Stanford looked and played like an FCS team last night.  When all areas of the team are so comprehensively awful, after playing well enough to beat three solid to good teams, it's kind of hard to draw conclusions.
I will try...

Washington's DL is gigantic, every one of them as big/heavy as any Stanford OL, and their LBs are small.  The DL is able to hold its position and the LBs easily fill the gaps.  I assumed that since Stanford handled UCLA, with Vanderdoes and company, they would be able to move the ball on the ground, but only with a balanced attack. 

I actually feel this game was lost before it was played.  It turns out those of us who were concerned about too many touches for CMac, and too little from the passing game, were validated.  After leaning so heavily on CMac running for the first three games, UW knew Stanford would break its tendencies, and they were absolutely ready.  I'm not going to say that if Stanford started with 7 OL and running, that would have been more effective, but what I am saying is that UW knew to rush Burns and worry about the run after, and Stanford played right into their hands.

But what is the most galling is how conventional Stanford's offense is.  Where are the bootlegs with easy throws to a TE or FB in the flat?  Where are the rollouts?  Why not do something to move the QB around, when you know the defense is expecting you to pass early?  The play that epitomizes the Stanford offensive mindset was the ridiculous play in the second half when they lined up 3 OL in the middle of the field and split three out wide, with Love lined up behind.  Everyone in the stadium knew that was going to be a pass to Love.  But the thing that makes it foolish is you're asking OL to make blocks on quicker guys in space.  You'd be far, far better off keeping your 5 OL in the middle, and then bunching up say Irwin and JJAW with Love behind, so they would be blockers, and there would be fewer defenders in the area.

Burns just doesn't have the quick reactions necessary.  Like the Stanford offense in general, he is slow and deliberate.  There were times he could have thrown balls to open receivers before being sacked, but he just couldn't react fast enough.  He needed to get more work before this game, to get more actual reps, but he never got them.  Given Chryst threw the best pass of the night, dropped by JJAW, I don't know what to do. It just baffles me how different this team looks from the one I saw last March.  They threw the ball a lot, and looked good doing it.  Speaking of JJAW, how many drops by him?  He caught everything last week, and had a lot of drops, save for the nice TD grab. 

The defense wasn't aggressive either. The thing that was most awful about their performance was they took away the big plays, but they were beaten all over the field, 5-7 yards per play, without fail.  They did a pretty decent job on the inside runs, but the outside contain was pathetic, and the cushions they gave the receivers were just way too soft.  I would have played press man-to-man more often just to interrupt the routes a little bit, and mix the looks Browning was given.

Event the ST, that had been so good this year, was awful.  So it was a comprehensive team implosion for sure.  That makes me feel better about the hopes for improvement than say if the offense moved the ball well, but couldn't score in the red zone, and they stopped up the run, but gave up 500 yards passing.  It wasn't just one or two areas that failed because they are severe weaknesses.  It was a total failure everywhere.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - stupac2 - 10-01-2016

When faced with a game like this there's simply no answer to the question "what went wrong?" besides "literally everything". The OL couldn't block. The receivers couldn't get open. The QB couldn't make reads. The defense couldn't shed blocks. The DL got 0 pressure. The OLBs lost contain. The DBs couldn't cover. We couldn't even punt worth a damn!

The thing is, sometimes this happens. This is the NFL, but anyone remember in 2014 when the Patriots went to the Chiefs (IIRC on a short week) and completely destroyed? Everyone wrote them off, then that team won the super bowl. Sometimes an entire team just short circuits, and when it's against a good team this happens. There are at least 8 games left in this season, plenty of time to turn it around.


WiM, about recruiting, other than not taking a QB in '15 (which was probably a mistake), could we really have done better? It's not like these LBs were scrubs coming out of high school.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - stupac2 - 10-01-2016

When faced with a game like this there's simply no answer to the question "what went wrong?" besides "literally everything". The OL couldn't block. The receivers couldn't get open. The QB couldn't make reads. The defense couldn't shed blocks. The DL got 0 pressure. The OLBs lost contain. The DBs couldn't cover. We couldn't even punt worth a damn!

The thing is, sometimes this happens. This is the NFL, but anyone remember in 2014 when the Patriots went to the Chiefs (IIRC on a short week) and completely destroyed? Everyone wrote them off, then that team won the super bowl. Sometimes an entire team just short circuits, and when it's against a good team this happens. There are at least 8 games left in this season, plenty of time to turn it around.


WiM, about recruiting, other than not taking a QB in '15 (which was probably a mistake), could we really have done better? It's not like these LBs were scrubs coming out of high school.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - washingtonismoney - 10-01-2016

(10-01-2016, 06:45 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:WiM, about recruiting, other than not taking a QB in '15 (which was probably a mistake), could we really have done better? It's not like these LBs were scrubs coming out of high school.

Well, given the game was (seemingly) lost on the lines, I'd focus there. Between 2013-2015 classes, the team recruited 9 offensive linemen -- on the light side, I'd say. (I think rule of thumb is to recruit 3.5 OL per class.) Lost Oser to injury, which stretched things. And then only two highly-ranked OL (Tucker and Nick Wilson). To be fair Burkett's offer list suggests a markedly better player, and to be fair he's looked pretty good in the first three games of the season.

Defensive line-wise, the team hit big on Thomas and Phillips. But then the team is relying on an undersized Dylan Jackson for familiar, re-hashed reasons.

Now, fortunately the line recruiting looks promising on both sides of the ball for 2015-17. So I'm pretty fine with the future. But this year was setting up so well, and it looks like the team won't take maximum advantage.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - washingtonismoney - 10-01-2016

(10-01-2016, 06:45 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:WiM, about recruiting, other than not taking a QB in '15 (which was probably a mistake), could we really have done better? It's not like these LBs were scrubs coming out of high school.

Well, given the game was (seemingly) lost on the lines, I'd focus there. Between 2013-2015 classes, the team recruited 9 offensive linemen -- on the light side, I'd say. (I think rule of thumb is to recruit 3.5 OL per class.) Lost Oser to injury, which stretched things. And then only two highly-ranked OL (Tucker and Nick Wilson). To be fair Burkett's offer list suggests a markedly better player, and to be fair he's looked pretty good in the first three games of the season.

Defensive line-wise, the team hit big on Thomas and Phillips. But then the team is relying on an undersized Dylan Jackson for familiar, re-hashed reasons.

Now, fortunately the line recruiting looks promising on both sides of the ball for 2015-17. So I'm pretty fine with the future. But this year was setting up so well, and it looks like the team won't take maximum advantage.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - stupac2 - 10-01-2016

Well how much of that is in Shaw's control. Usually there are plenty of admissible OL, but we've struggled with DL for a while now. Even in the golden age of our defense from '12-'14 we were relying on guys who were, to be frank, lucky hits (Gardner and Perry especially). These last few years it's been the opposite, no one seems to be developing and turning into a good player in their 3rd or 4th year, and we've suffered. But is that Shaw's fault, or is it the standard problem of recruiting at Stanford being really hard?

Also, pretty much everyone besides Saban has these composition problems sometimes. It's frustrating that we've had similar weaknesses the past few years, but a couple misses in a row will do that.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - stupac2 - 10-01-2016

Well how much of that is in Shaw's control. Usually there are plenty of admissible OL, but we've struggled with DL for a while now. Even in the golden age of our defense from '12-'14 we were relying on guys who were, to be frank, lucky hits (Gardner and Perry especially). These last few years it's been the opposite, no one seems to be developing and turning into a good player in their 3rd or 4th year, and we've suffered. But is that Shaw's fault, or is it the standard problem of recruiting at Stanford being really hard?

Also, pretty much everyone besides Saban has these composition problems sometimes. It's frustrating that we've had similar weaknesses the past few years, but a couple misses in a row will do that.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - DenverCard - 10-01-2016

My take is that Stanford came into this game mentally and physically spent.  The UCLA game, in particular, was a physical war.  Not only were six players out with injuries, but in seeing how flat Stanford was from the outset against Washington, it's my sense that the entire team was beat up.  They lacked that critical emotional element that in football makes such a difference, and for this reason played way below their baseline.

It's also my impression that with rare exception, Stanford "wins hard." As opposed to wins easy.  And by this, I speak to something other than the style of play centered on a running game.  As such, to play their best, Stanford must expend more physical and mental energy, and are therefore more vulnerable to bad games than if their game planning was more elegant, savvy, or spontaneous.  By analogy, I watched Washington's receiver, Ross, run next to one of Stanford's DBs.  Ross's speed was so fluid and effortless, whereas the DB was chugging hard to keep up with him, expending much more energy to try to hang with him.

Abstract, and lacking in data, I know, but I'm curious if these musings resonate with others.

Having said that, I believe Washington is the better team, perhaps simply because, top to bottom, they have better players.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - DenverCard - 10-01-2016

My take is that Stanford came into this game mentally and physically spent.  The UCLA game, in particular, was a physical war.  Not only were six players out with injuries, but in seeing how flat Stanford was from the outset against Washington, it's my sense that the entire team was beat up.  They lacked that critical emotional element that in football makes such a difference, and for this reason played way below their baseline.

It's also my impression that with rare exception, Stanford "wins hard." As opposed to wins easy.  And by this, I speak to something other than the style of play centered on a running game.  As such, to play their best, Stanford must expend more physical and mental energy, and are therefore more vulnerable to bad games than if their game planning was more elegant, savvy, or spontaneous.  By analogy, I watched Washington's receiver, Ross, run next to one of Stanford's DBs.  Ross's speed was so fluid and effortless, whereas the DB was chugging hard to keep up with him, expending much more energy to try to hang with him.

Abstract, and lacking in data, I know, but I'm curious if these musings resonate with others.

Having said that, I believe Washington is the better team, perhaps simply because, top to bottom, they have better players.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - washingtonismoney - 10-01-2016

(10-01-2016, 07:36 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Well how much of that is in Shaw's control. Usually there are plenty of admissible OL, but we've struggled with DL for a while now. Even in the golden age of our defense from '12-'14 we were relying on guys who were, to be frank, lucky hits (Gardner and Perry especially). These last few years it's been the opposite, no one seems to be developing and turning into a good player in their 3rd or 4th year, and we've suffered. But is that Shaw's fault, or is it the standard problem of recruiting at Stanford being really hard?

Also, pretty much everyone besides Saban has these composition problems sometimes. It's frustrating that we've had similar weaknesses the past few years, but a couple misses in a row will do that.

Certainly possible and fair. Hard to go back and figure out all the counterfactuals. Still, that's why we're here, I think.

(Well, aside from a brobdingnagian injury crisis. I mean... four starters, plus an in-game injured starter, plus a couple important backups...that's not nothing.)

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - washingtonismoney - 10-01-2016

(10-01-2016, 07:36 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Well how much of that is in Shaw's control. Usually there are plenty of admissible OL, but we've struggled with DL for a while now. Even in the golden age of our defense from '12-'14 we were relying on guys who were, to be frank, lucky hits (Gardner and Perry especially). These last few years it's been the opposite, no one seems to be developing and turning into a good player in their 3rd or 4th year, and we've suffered. But is that Shaw's fault, or is it the standard problem of recruiting at Stanford being really hard?

Also, pretty much everyone besides Saban has these composition problems sometimes. It's frustrating that we've had similar weaknesses the past few years, but a couple misses in a row will do that.

Certainly possible and fair. Hard to go back and figure out all the counterfactuals. Still, that's why we're here, I think.

(Well, aside from a brobdingnagian injury crisis. I mean... four starters, plus an in-game injured starter, plus a couple important backups...that's not nothing.)

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - TRD - 10-01-2016

(10-01-2016, 07:36 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Well how much of that is in Shaw's control.

Plenty. Bill Beli-cheat just went 3-0 with Jimmy Garafalo and Jacoby Brisette.  Understand that this isn't pro football but in game coaching, preparation, and game planning, make an enormous difference in football.

Re: Out coached? Out prepared? Out played? - TRD - 10-01-2016

(10-01-2016, 07:36 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Well how much of that is in Shaw's control.

Plenty. Bill Beli-cheat just went 3-0 with Jimmy Garafalo and Jacoby Brisette.  Understand that this isn't pro football but in game coaching, preparation, and game planning, make an enormous difference in football.