It is incredibly hard to win consistently - 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: It is incredibly hard to win consistently (/thread-14689.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: It is incredibly hard to win consistently (/thread-14689.html)
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - Goose - 10-27-2017
(10-27-2017, 10:08 AM)cardcrimson link Wrote:That one line probably sums it up as well as I've seen. As head coach, he's the perfect guy for Stanford. As OC, sometimes you have to wonder. Great coordinators make adjustments as the game progresses, we saw zero adjustments last night.Well, that is just not so. In the first half, all the runs were between the tackles. In the second half, they started running wide fairly often. It may be the backs just had to be "reminded" to read the blocks, but at least that happened. Also, we started running more middle distance pass routes, instead of all the short stuff we tried initially. This didn't help much, but it was an adjustment that needed to be made.
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - washingtonismoney - 10-27-2017
(10-27-2017, 10:13 AM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17801.msg208680#msg208680 date=1509124114]Well, that is just not so. In the first half, all the runs were between the tackles. In the second half, they started running wide fairly often. It may be the backs just had to be "reminded" to read the blocks, but at least that happened. Also, we started running more middle distance pass routes, instead of all the short stuff we tried initially. This didn't help much, but it was an adjustment that needed to be made.
That one line probably sums it up as well as I've seen. As head coach, he's the perfect guy for Stanford. As OC, sometimes you have to wonder. Great coordinators make adjustments as the game progresses, we saw zero adjustments last night.
[/quote]
Yeah, adjustments were made. The big adjustment -- at QB -- wasn't. Which goes back to the theory that the coaches are very attached to Chryst, for reasons that can only be speculated about.
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - Goose - 10-27-2017
(10-27-2017, 10:21 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Yeah, adjustments were made. The big adjustment -- at QB -- wasn't. Which goes back to the theory that the coaches are very attached to Chryst, for reasons that can only be speculated about.Agree.
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - BostonCard - 10-27-2017
(10-27-2017, 08:32 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Since 2011, Stanford is 9-3 (.750) after a bye versus 70-19 (.789) overall. Against the spread during the same time frame, Stanford is 7-5 (.583) versus 54-34 overall (.614). Note that Stanford is the second-best team against the spread overall since 2011 versus somewhere in the 30s against the spread after the bye. Small sample size on the data-slicing, of course, but perhaps an indicator of underperformance.
No, it is not an indicator of anything. The two records after a bye (straight up and against the spread) are perfectly compatible with being a subset of the overall records. They are about as close to even as you could possibly make them (if you change 9-3 to 10-2, it's an .833 record, which is farther away from .789 than 9-3 is; if you change 7-5 to 8-4, it's a .666 recordm which is further from .614 than .583). In fact, what is uncanny is how closely it hews to the overall record.
If you want to be statistically rigorous about it, the best record that he could have had that would have indicated a statistically significant (p < .05) underperformance in games after a bye week compared to games overall would have been 5-7 overall, 3-9 against the spread. Which is to say that "small sample size on data-slicing" is the correct answer.
BC
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - dabigv13 - 10-27-2017
College football wins/losses are tough to analyze with a normal distribution without running into the issue of small numbers.
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - terry - 10-27-2017
(10-27-2017, 09:52 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:the fourth down completion on Stanford's last drive was so lucky, it's ridiculous
Of all the plays last night, that play absolutely was not lucky. Stanford executed EXACTLY what it was trying to do. When you make a plan and execute your plan perfectly, it's not luck. It was the best executed play of the night, on a night when there weren't many of them. Give them credit for one of the few things they did really well. I thought Shaw should have changed QBs, but Chryst threw that one perfectly.
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - CardinalSagehen - 10-27-2017
(10-27-2017, 09:52 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:Coach Shaw may be the luckiest head coach in college football - he certainly was last night (I mean, the fourth down completion on Stanford's last drive was so lucky, it's ridiculous) - and that has allowed the defenders to point to W/L record, which is certainly important.
Yeah, thats right, he must have lucked his way to a 70-19 record and the fifth most wins in CFB, with only top 20 recruiting talent.Â
Shaws stubbornly deliberate approach is going to lose us some games, quite maddeningly. But its also going to win us quite a few more. If you look at the complete data set, Im sure youll see that weve won far more than our share of really tight games. Thats not by chance, not some incredible 89-game streak of luck.Â
Shaw plays not to lose and is effective in so doing roughly 80% of the time. What is so wrong with that? Do you think with better offensive coaching, we could be #1, as good as Alabama?Â
Also -
MSU was 3-9 last year.
ND and Oregon were 4-8 last year.
FSU is now 2-5 after tonights loss.
We have experienced nothing close to these kinds of dispiriting results.Â
Am I content with Conference Championships, Rose Bowls, NY6 Bowls, and a consistent Top 5/10/20 program? Or even just being in the hunt in November? Yes, unabashedly, I am.Â
If we ever get great QB play again, we might be able to set our sights higher for the Playoff. In the meanwhile, lets not get hysterical about the fact that our team is simply top 20 good at this point.Â
But I still want to see Costello. ;)
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - BostonCard - 10-27-2017
(10-27-2017, 09:25 PM)dabigv link Wrote:College football wins/losses are tough to analyze with a normal distribution without running into the issue of small numbers.
A binomial distribution is probably more appropriate.
BC
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - lex24 - 10-27-2017
Ive been saying for a long time that Stanfords offense is best when its run heavy. If you analyze the numbers over the years it is an unassailable fact.
(10-27-2017, 08:42 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=17801.msg208641#msg208641 date=1509118522]
I'm on board with this, with a few caveats: it's somewhat on the players. As the announcers noted, after as many games as Chryst has started, he ought to be able to go through progressions instead of fixating on his primary read. Our defense should have been better at avoiding idiotic drive-extending penalties. Our running backs should have been better at identifying the holes that were there and attacking them.
Well, yes and no. For example we know special teams has been consistently good since Alamar came to town, so I blame Reid more than Alamar on the silly penalty. (Which probably shouldn't've been a penalty, to be fair.)
On the other hand, if the coaches consistently trot out a player who's incapable of performing, it's on them on some level:
1) They can either replace him with a better player (which it appears Costello likely is)
2) or change the gameplan to accommodate his skills, inconsistent as they might be.
It's time to revive the CTCard theory: that everything that goes wrong in the offense tends to be throwing too much. Note that Chryst averaged 4.3 YPA -- but that doesn't include sacks. Throw those in and the average Chryst dropback performed worse than the average Scarlett carry. If the coaches were stuck on Chryst, they should've let Scarlett shoulder the load. But Chryst threw 33 passes to Scarlett's 17 carries -- odd, considering the purported power-run emphasis of the Stanford coaches.
[/quote]
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - akiddoc - 10-27-2017
That particular pass by Chryst is one he throws better than Costello. Costello throws a flatter harder ball. Chryst tends to throw a softer arced ball good for catching at the high point. But if you are going to throw that ball, you have to anticipate where your receiver is going to come open and throw it a split second sooner. Chryst reverted to his stare down, late delivery last night and OSU was well prepared for it.
Costello is more decisive. That could be bad or good, depending on his vision and awareness of the field. Chryst reverting to his old habits was definitely bad. I've said it many times on other boards: Shaw subscribes to the John Gruden philosophy that the QB must be the master of the playbook and able to outsmart the opposing team by calling the correct play every time at the line. Other teams try to win by having better athletes. Stanford tries to win by being smarter. At some point the better athlete will outplay the better prepared. The coach has to make the call for when that line is crossed.
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - teejers1 - 10-27-2017
Terry, how can you say that play was not lucky? I'm not even willing to conceded "executed perfectly" unless you tell me that Smith was the only receiver in the route beyond 10 yards. Because I know one thing: Kaden was blanketed and in any other situation, throwing that pass at all would have been a terrible decision (it still may have been had someone else been even a bit open).
And I still think Stanford was incredibly lucky the cover man didn't deflect that ball away - I have a hard time believing he failed to do that because (a) Chryst knew exactly where to put it to avoid that result, and (b) Chryst actually threw it to exactly that small window. Occam tells me that it was desperation time (and it was) and Chryst had to let it fly. He did. And he threw a catchable ball (not a lawn dart/Cordivit; not a flyer). But the completion was more than 50% luck, given the coverage.
P.S. The best executed play was the long out pass to the sideline. Then I'd go with the last TD pass. Those struck me as well executed with minimal luck involved.
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - Hulk01 - 10-28-2017
No one has suggested Chryst has Luck's skills. In the Oregon game, Chryst did make at least six throws--the two deep touch passes to AW, the slants to AW (2), Wedington, and Smith, and the rolling TD throw to AW--that were Luck-like.Â
In isolated cases and in clean pockets, he's shown the ability to make a variety of throws--those are three very different throws that hint at real arm talent--the talent that earned him all the stars as a QB recrit. But the best anyone can say, as I will, is that Chryst's given hints of that talent, which is only one of several needed in a quarterback. Luck had the whole package. Mills might.
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - ATLCard - 10-28-2017
Whether the 4th down pass was lucky or not is a matter of semantics. Shaw and Chryst wanted a particular outcome on that call, and it was beautifully executed -- so beautifully executed that even though there was a minuscule window for success given the perfect coverage, Chryst and Smith were able to execute and get the pass completed. However, since the same call had failed every time before in that game due to terrible Chryst execution (see the earlier pass to Colby Parkinson that was wide open but completely botched by Chryst), you have to say it was lucky to make the call and expect it would happen this time.
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - winflop - 10-28-2017
(10-28-2017, 05:36 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:In isolated cases and in clean pockets, he's shown the ability to make a variety of throws
Your caveats are the story here. Most D1 starters can make a variety of throws given a clean pocket. Good D1 starters can make them under pressure and can move to evade pressure. Chryst does neither of those well, which is part of what makes his ceiling limited.
And I'll respectfully disagree about his arm strength which is another ceiling element. The primary test of that is outside routes and Chryst doesn't get the ball there quickly enough. Saw it at least three times on 5-15 yard downfield out routes Thursday and on a WR screen in the second half that was snuffed because it took too long to get the ball there.
Chryst is an above average QB but his upside is limited and his inconsistency means that he will NEVER be good enough to lead a team to a conference championship much less a CFP berth - and that is the bar now given the talent level on the roster. Costello might not be any better in terms of today or potential but we don't know yet. We know what Chryst is and isn't.
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - Goose - 10-28-2017
(10-28-2017, 08:34 AM)winflop link Wrote:Your caveats are the story here. Most D1 starters can make a variety of throws given a clean pocket. Good D1 starters can make them under pressure and can move to evade pressure. Chryst does neither of those well, which is part of what makes his ceiling limited.You are certainly correct here. Chryst doesn't like pressure, and it affects his decision making even more than it does his execution. He just thinks very slowly when the play isn't going as drawn up on the board and his first choice receiver isn't wide open.
Quote:And I'll respectfully disagree about his arm strength which is another ceiling element. The primary test of that is outside routes and Chryst doesn't get the ball there quickly enough. Saw it at least three times on 5-15 yard downfield out routes Thursday and on a WR screen in the second half that was snuffed because it took too long to get the ball there.True, but I attribute that more to slow decision making than a weak arm. Chryst just doesn't get the ball out quick. I see it more as mental than physical. You can't telegraph the WR screen by turning sideways and staring at the target for two seconds. You have to get the ball there before the defenders can react.
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - BostonCard - 10-28-2017
I agree with Goose. Chryst can put enough zip on the ball when he wants to. The reason it seems slow is that he is slow to pull the trigger and throw it. Hes just too hesitant.
Id love to fit him with an augmented reality helmet that trains him to glance at a receiver, after which point that portion o father field blacks out. That would force him to either throw or move to the next olayer in the progression.
BC
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - Hurlburt88 - 10-28-2017
I thought we pioneers VR training for QB's . . . I have to assume they are doing stuff like this, and we are not making progress. So either program not structured properly, or target not receptive to the learnings
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - BostonCard - 10-28-2017
(10-28-2017, 01:54 PM)hurlburt88 link Wrote:I thought we pioneers VR training for QB's . . . I have to assume they are doing stuff like this, and we are not making progress. So either program not structured properly, or target not receptive to the learnings
We use VR a lot, but Id like to see us use augmented reality. Basically, the player is actually on the field, and the AR overlays stuff onto his field of view. So it could be something like a countdown clock to make him aware of how much time hes in his pocket, or potentiallly highlighting something (like an open receiver on the other side of the field), or blacking a portion of his field of view out to force him not to look at one option for too long.
BC
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - Goose - 10-28-2017
(10-28-2017, 01:59 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:We use VR a lot, but Id like to see us use augmented reality. Basically, the player is actually on the field, and the AR overlays stuff onto his field of view. So it could be something like a countdown clock to make him aware of how much time hes in his pocket, or potentiallly highlighting something (like an open receiver on the other side of the field), or blacking a portion of his field of view out to force him not to look at one option for too long.Great ideas. I think the VR headset can be made to actually track the QB's eyes and tell if he is looking at the same area for too long. That way, there would be no doubt about any "staring down" issue.
BC
Re: It is incredibly hard to win consistently - CowboyIndian - 10-28-2017
(10-28-2017, 02:29 PM)Goose link Wrote:. I think the VR headset can be made to actually track the QB's eyes and tell if he is looking at the same area for too long. That way, there would be no doubt about any "staring down" issue.
Can they attach it to a shock collar?