The CardBoard
Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - 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: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" (/thread-16895.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - Viking_Guy - 11-26-2018

One statistic I would be very interested in reading: success running on 3rd and 4th and under 2 yards, especially out of the ogre, over the last several years.  A formation/tactic that used to be automatic is now anything but, and yet we continued to try it (or the new variant, a one-back backfield and a 9-person offensive line.)  And have almost vanishingly rarely done anything other than a straight-ahead dive out of it.

And another interesting trendline would be comparing percentage of successful plays (using the definition of down and distance - 50% of yards to gain on first down, etc) by running and passing.  That's the sticking point for me about continuing to run unsuccessfully in an attempt to wind the clock - is a higher percentage of potential first downs in throwing worth the risk of an incompletion/interception?

VG

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - BostonCard - 11-26-2018

There are many ways to lose a game, not just punting the ball with plenty of time left and having the opposing team drive the ball 70+ yards for the go-ahead touchdown.  Another way to lose is to drop back for a pass, and throw an interception and watch the other team drive the ball 40 yards for the go-ahead touchdown (or worse throw a pick six).  Costello has thrown 11 interceptions in 367 pass attempts, roughly 3% of all drop-backs.  Let's give him 5 or so throws in a drive to ice the game; cumulatively that's a 1 in 6 chance that he throws an interception that leaves us in a worse situation than we started.

Then there is the fact that Costello's completion percentage is 67%, so there is a non-zero chance of throwing three incompletions in a series (or completing a pass short of the first down marker), plus about a 5% sack rate.  With the realization that each incompletion stops the clock, there is a chance that an aggressive approach relying on more passing at the end of a game leaves us in a worse position than running it three times into the pile and punting.

Lastly, this is cursed by the small number of games involved, but it is worth noting that we won both games in which we notably turtled (ASU and UCLA).

BC
(11-26-2018, 05:07 PM)Viking_Guy Wrote:  One statistic I would be very interested in reading: success running on 3rd and 4th and under 2 yards, especially out of the ogre, over the last several years.  A formation/tactic that used to be automatic is now anything but, and yet we continued to try it (or the new variant, a one-back backfield and a 9-person offensive line.)  And have almost vanishingly rarely done anything other than a straight-ahead dive out of it.

And another interesting trendline would be comparing percentage of successful plays (using the definition of down and distance - 50% of yards to gain on first down, etc) by running and passing.  That's the sticking point for me about continuing to run unsuccessfully in an attempt to wind the clock - is a higher percentage of potential first downs in throwing worth the risk of an incompletion/interception?

VG

This year, running the ball on third and 1-3 yards, we have 22 attempts, 10 first downs and 1 TD.  On fourth down, regardless of distance, we have 6 attempts, 3 first downs, and 1 TD.  Overall, it is about a 50/50 proposition.  

Throwing, we have 10 first downs and 1 TD on third and 1-3 yards in 18 attempts and 3 first downs and 1 TD in 6 attempts on fourth down.  The numbers are slightly better throwing the ball than running on third and short or fourth down.

Last year, we had 20 first downs and 3 touchdowns on 31 attempts on third and 1-3 yards, and 4 first downs on 6 attempts in fourth down.  Our conversion percentage running the ball has definitely dropped.

BC

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - Goose - 11-26-2018

(11-26-2018, 05:24 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Last year, we had 20 first downs and 3 touchdowns on 31 attempts on third and 1-3 yards, and 4 first downs on 6 attempts in fourth down.  Our conversion percentage running the ball has definitely dropped.

BC
And that is probably why we passed against UCLA with third and less than a yard. Problem is, as Stanford has proved in the past, if you can't make a yard on third and one without passing, you are not going to be able to control the game, the defense will wear down, and may times you will lose. Yes, those are the "bad old days". Even when you have great receivers and a great QB, if you are that one dimensional, you are in trouble.

lex24 - lex24 - 11-26-2018

And I’m calling BS on your BS. 57 percent pass rate (and rising) does not lie. The offense has changed markedly.

I’m not a fan of so-called turtling either. I hated the 4th Q vs ASU. I also remember Flemming saying that running three times on that last drive to force ASU to use all its TO’s was the wrong strategy as ASU even without timeouts would prob have enough time. I agreed with him. Funny thing is, he was wrong. ASU in fact DID run out of time.

Now, of course, with the luxury of second guessing we are all certain that if he did pass on one of those downs, they’d get a completion and a first down. ASU would be out of TO’s. Victory formation. Of course, it’s just also possible there is an incompletion, sack, or worse. Leaving ASU with a TO. Which would have made that last drive potentially quite different.

UCLA, my only complaint is I would have has Scarlett in on the 3d and I in the penultimate series.

Shaw’s late game with a lead philosophy was explained: I’m going to run the ball, make them burn timeouts, rely on my defense and make their offense be perfect. You can argue with it. But what you cannot argue is that despite all of our bitching and moaning over “turtling” (and I’m right there bitching and moaning) Shaw’s philosophy has worked remarkably well. They do not lose games they lead by more than 7 going into the 4th. Period.

This team with these injuries was not a 9-2 team. In fact, they just as easily could by 4-7 right now. (Oregon, ASU, UCLA. 3 close wins. All on the road. Oregon was playing well at the time. ASU mediocre but dangerous. And game 12 UCLA was not game 1 UCLA)

Carberry- Do you know in what way he’s been deficient this year? What techniques is he teaching that you don’t like? Do you think perhaps the fact that their top seven line men have been hurt made a bit of a difference. Washington State played with the same five offensive line guys all year. They srptarted every game. Stanford did not have one game in which the line they expected to start the season with played together for a full game. In fact, I don’t think that 5 ever started a game together.

Tavita. Really? I think he’s done very well flipping this offense. You think it was a game or two late fine. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t who knows. It’s easy to sit on your butt and make those decisions. Little tougher when you’re the one pulling the trigger. And quite frankly name the game they lost as a result? There isn’t one. Notre Dame was a significantly better team. And by the time of the Utah game they were already throwing the ball a lot. This simply gave away too many points in the game. (27 by my count) BTW - One of the big knocks on Tavita was that he couldnt develop quarterbacks. Well, does he get any credit for Costello’s marked improvement? If not, why not? So besides the fact that Tavita has been a nice little whipping boy for a few years please explain why you think he should be shown the door.

You didn’t mention firing Lance, I don’t think. But somebody did. This is the guy who’s been the darling of Stanford fans regarding its football coaches for years with his excellent halftime adjustments etc. Nobody complained about Anderson. But the talent level dropped off, they’re not playing all that well so all of a sudden he’s forgotten how to coach. I guess Akina has as well as they really struggled in the defensive backfield.

They missed some extra points this year too. So get rid of Alamar.

Shaw needs to up his recruiting game. That is a very valid criticism. Why they don’t have all there schollies filled is a mystery to me.

But on the field this year, they adjusted nicely. As a result they have another shot at an 8 win season. With the limitations they had coming in defensively, coupled with all the injuries, I actually think that’s an overachievement




(11-26-2018, 10:05 AM)winflop Wrote:  I'm calling BS on this.

He said the same kind of thing after the Wazzu loss last year, but showed little evidence of it until the last couple of games. And in two of the last four games (ASU, UCLA) where we had a lead, when push came to shove in crunch time, he reverted to his old bad habits and put the outcome of those games at risk by relying on the two weakest elements of this team - running game and defense.

Even if I'm wrong, he still took too long to learn it this year. Why is it that a lot of fans and media recognized the strengths and weaknesses of this team weeks before he did?

There are many, many positives to Coach Shaw but recognizing what his team is - and isn't - and adjusting gameplans and playcalling to those strengths and weaknesses is not one of them. You go to battle with the army you have, not the one you want to have. I maintain that had he done so this team would be 9-2 not 7-4. You also hire great people to cover your weak spots, and I think that neither Pritchard nor Carberry have done him any favors here and both were bad hires that need to be replaced this offseason.


RE: lex24 - winflop - 11-26-2018

(11-26-2018, 08:08 PM)lex24 Wrote:  And I’m calling BS on your BS.  57 percent pass rate (and rising) does not lie. The offense has changed markedly. 

Run/pass by game I think this offense should have been at least 60/40 pass/run starting with ND. That's close to the overall statistic but that's biased by the number of times Shaw HAD to pass after falling behind while being 50/50 or lower.

When he had the ability to choose, Shaw chose run too often through Game 7 and that's too damn late to have figured it out. That's 3 games, and I pin the Utah and UW losses on coaching.

re Carberry - He's the OL coach & run game coordinator. The run game sucks and the OL run blocking sucks. Yes, injuries but this OL is two-plus deep with 4- and 5-star recruits. Something has to change, and you can't fire the players.

We will have to disagree about an 8-win season being OK. I don't find that an acceptable result with the talent on this roster, especially on offense.

The defense has stunk of late, but unlike Carberry & Pritchard, Anderson has a track record which buys him time. Same story with Alamar.

I don't think Shaw's going to change a damn thing on his staff, and that also shows me that he hasn't learned much this year - or last year. I hope he surprises me.

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - cardcrimson - 11-26-2018

Pretty fair assessment Lex. I would suggest that Tavita's biggest issue is not having the huevos to snatch that laminated card from Shaw's hands. He needs to sit down with David and tell him, "Look, you promoted me to be the OC. Trust me to do my job. Give me the support and the players I need, and we'll be successful."

lex24 - lex24 - 11-26-2018

So you take no consideration of their top 7 lineman being hurt. You cannot have that type of attrition on a unit that demands cohesion and expect success. Further, what it meant was that they did not have, to steal your phrase, the army they came with. They expected to have the best running back in the nation running behind a dominant o line. The line was banged up beyond recognition. And Love was hurt most of the year. So the infantry was decimated. Leaving only an aerial attack. Any military historian will tell you, you cannot win on air power alone. (BTW- I don’t like football/war analogies. But you started it, so I ran with it.)

Shaw has come out throwing in damn near every game since Utah. But we have the narrative and it cannot be shaken. No matter the facts. (They have the second highest pass-run ratio in the Pac 12 behind only WSU.)

Yes they have excellent skill position players on offense. With a banged up line they could not control the LOS. Defensively they were thin coming into the season and lost Alfieri, Toohill for much of the year and Edwards for essentially all of it. Leaving them with an Old Fashioned style pre intellectual brutality Stanford football team. And that is NOT a good thing. Nor btw is a 60-40 pass run ratio. Give me 60-40 run pass any day. Look at Stanford’s best years. They occur when they run it more not less.

If they were relatively healthy I’d agree 8 wins was underachieving. But with these injuries....no

Can’t comment on Wash as I didn’t see it. But Utah? Let’s review. 0-0. Utah punts. Absurd roughing penalty extends drive. That’s 7. Costello misses a double team read throws a goal line pick six. That’s 10 to 14. Costello throws silly pick falling down while scrambling on a third down pass on about the Utah 20. 3 more. Stanford gives up a late FG after a PI in the last seconds of first half. 3 more. Buncom has a pick on a desperation downfield heave. Falls down. Guy catches it and walks in. 7 more . That’s 30 to 34 points. PLAYERS sometimes make mistakes. They made many against Utah. And they got creamed at the LOS on both sides.

Two questions- in your opinion do they EVER win a game because they outcoached the opposition? Or when they win is it the players, when they lose is it’s the coaches.

Second, you didn’t respond vis-à-vis Tavita. The CW was that he can’t develop QB’s. Well KJ has developed quite nicely. Is that in spite of a Tavita. Or does he get just a smidge of credit.

I repeat, I think Tavita has done a hell of a job. I’ll be more specific. He’s had no run game to work with. The passing game, which I have felt for years was too basic, has evolved. They have used more of the field. You have seen more drag routes, crossing routes. He’s utilized his TE’s very well. And he’s exploited mismatches. Beautifully. Which is one reason JJ has 14 TDs and Parkinson 7. Irwin has been used much more effectively. Plus Costello has flourished. His accuracy has improved markedly. He’s much more under control.

But again , the narrative. Tavitas young. Shawvita. Etc. Bull.






(11-26-2018, 09:37 PM)winflop Wrote:  
(11-26-2018, 08:08 PM)lex24 Wrote:  And I’m calling BS on your BS.  57 percent pass rate (and rising) does not lie. The offense has changed markedly. 

Run/pass by game
  • SDSU 28/31
  • U$C 28/27
  • UCD 33/33
  • UO 24/26. I don't have the first/second half splits but given we were down 24-7 I'd reckon the second half was more pass than run, and that was the part that worked
  • UFDG 24/27. Again, likely more pass heavy in the second half when we fell behind
  • Utah 27/41. Same story as the last two games. First half 50/50, passed when behind
  • ASU 43/29 + turtling
  • WSU 23/43
  • UW 23/43. Again, pass heavy when playing from behind. Run heavy in first half didn't work
  • OSU 30/37
  • UCLA 27/37
I think this offense should have been at least 60/40 pass/run starting with ND. That's close to the overall statistic but that's biased by the number of times Shaw HAD to pass after falling behind while being 50/50 or lower.

When he had the ability to choose, Shaw chose run too often through Game 7 and that's too damn late to have figured it out. That's 3 games, and I pin the Utah and UW losses on coaching.

re Carberry - He's the OL coach & run game coordinator. The run game sucks and the OL run blocking sucks. Yes, injuries but this OL is two-plus deep with 4- and 5-star recruits. Something has to change, and you can't fire the players.

We will have to disagree about an 8-win season being OK. I don't find that an acceptable result with the talent on this roster, especially on offense.

The defense has stunk of late, but unlike Carberry & Pritchard, Anderson has a track record which buys him time. Same story with Alamar.

I don't think Shaw's going to change a damn thing on his staff, and that also shows me that he hasn't learned much this year - or last year. I hope he surprises me.


RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - SamuelMcF - 11-26-2018

(11-26-2018, 09:50 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  Pretty fair assessment Lex. I would suggest that Tavita's biggest issue is not having the huevos to snatch that laminated card from Shaw's hands. He needs to sit down with David and tell him, "Look, you promoted me to be the OC. Trust me to do my job. Give me the support and the players I need, and we'll be successful."

He's 31, has never left Stanford, and owes Shaw his whole career. He was promoted precisely because he will never ever do that.

RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 11-26-2018

(11-26-2018, 09:37 PM)winflop Wrote:  
(11-26-2018, 08:08 PM)lex24 Wrote:  And I’m calling BS on your BS.  57 percent pass rate (and rising) does not lie. The offense has changed markedly. 

Run/pass by game
  • SDSU 28/31
  • U$C 28/27
  • UCD 33/33
  • UO 24/26. I don't have the first/second half splits but given we were down 24-7 I'd reckon the second half was more pass than run, and that was the part that worked
  • UFDG 24/27. Again, likely more pass heavy in the second half when we fell behind
  • Utah 27/41. Same story as the last two games. First half 50/50, passed when behind
  • ASU 43/29 + turtling
  • WSU 23/43
  • UW 23/43. Again, pass heavy when playing from behind. Run heavy in first half didn't work
  • OSU 30/37
  • UCLA 27/37

CTCard did the math earlier in this thread and showed the first half stats.  In the first half of each of the games starting with Oregon we passed more than we ran.

Quote:opponent     run    pass   %pass
UO              14       16       53
und             13       19       59
Utah            14       25       64
ASU            19       24       56
WSU           12       28       70
UW               7       26       79

It’s Simply not true that Shaw was trying to be stubborn and run heavily in the first half and only passed in the second half when we were behind.  I mean, maybe you think we should have passed more than what we did, but for Shaw to have his quarterback drop back to pass three fifths of the snaps is nothing short of remarkable, and displays a flexibility that belies your narrative.

BC

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - StanfordMatt - 11-27-2018

(11-26-2018, 10:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(11-26-2018, 09:50 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  Pretty fair assessment Lex. I would suggest that Tavita's biggest issue is not having the huevos to snatch that laminated card from Shaw's hands. He needs to sit down with David and tell him, "Look, you promoted me to be the OC. Trust me to do my job. Give me the support and the players I need, and we'll be successful."

He's 31, has never left Stanford, and owes Shaw his whole career. He was promoted precisely because he will never ever do that.

This x1,000.

At the UCLA game, a Stanford fan randomly shouted out in the third quarter, “Fire Pritchard.” I wanted to turn around and ask him:

1) How can you possibly be watching this game and be upset with an assistant coach on offense?

and

2) What makes you think Pritchard has any control over what we do on offense?

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - cardcrimson - 11-27-2018

(11-26-2018, 10:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(11-26-2018, 09:50 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  Pretty fair assessment Lex. I would suggest that Tavita's biggest issue is not having the huevos to snatch that laminated card from Shaw's hands. He needs to sit down with David and tell him, "Look, you promoted me to be the OC. Trust me to do my job. Give me the support and the players I need, and we'll be successful."

He's 31, has never left Stanford, and owes Shaw his whole career. He was promoted precisely because he will never ever do that.

And you know this how?

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - BobK - 11-27-2018

brobdingnagian assumption on Tavita. Agree with card crimson.

lex24 - lex24 - 11-27-2018

I ask for the third time: going into the season Tavita was criticized for his supposed inability to develop QB’s. Has Costello developed nicely? Does Tavita get any credit for that?

Also if you don’t think this offense is massively changed not just in gameplanning but in the passing game scheme that’s been employed you are so locked in to the narrative that you can’t see what is happening.

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - Phogge - 11-27-2018

The EQ is great. Entertainment Quotient off the charts. Track meets. Offense and defense. Can’t be stopped, can’t stop. Cardboard content greater when the coaches are questioned. Bull market. From Shag and the Wow Boys through Taylor and Cactus Jack to Plunk and Bunce, The Turk, Elway, Stenstrom to Luck always entertaining except for the Buddy/Walt years.

Except for Bart, Roth and Muncie and Aaron Rodgers always more for the buck at Stanford Stadium. I hope that they continue to throw but let’s recruit some defenders please. Every four years or so a Rose Bowl. IDGAF about the playoffs.

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - shakrat - 11-27-2018

(11-27-2018, 08:30 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:  
(11-26-2018, 10:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(11-26-2018, 09:50 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  Pretty fair assessment Lex. I would suggest that Tavita's biggest issue is not having the huevos to snatch that laminated card from Shaw's hands. He needs to sit down with David and tell him, "Look, you promoted me to be the OC. Trust me to do my job. Give me the support and the players I need, and we'll be successful."

He's 31, has never left Stanford, and owes Shaw his whole career. He was promoted precisely because he will never ever do that.

And you know this how?

Speculation about the motivation behind decisions, and the psychological makeup of personnel, are commonplace on this board. None of us know the details, but we compare our assessments. For what it's worth, my assessment matches that of SamuelMcF.

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - StanfordMatt - 11-27-2018

Sure, Tavita deserves some credit for Costello's development and the offense's success as a whole. But all of us also know that Shaw comes from an offensive background and is much more involved in the offense than the defense. I think it just comes down to the level of degree. Personally, I'm reluctant to give too much credit to Tavita just as I would never cast too much blame on him.

Just look at the title of this thread. Shaw is commenting that he personally has learned a lot this year and has had to make adjustments to the offense. Tavita isn't mentioned anywhere. If our defensive identity were to undergo a significant transformation, would Shaw be making statements like the ones referenced in the article? No, it would be Lance Anderson.

While the article and Shaw's quotes are just one piece of the puzzle in deciphering how our offensive braintrust operates, there have been several tea leaves over the years. It's rare, but Shaw drops them occasionally in his weekly press conferences. I remember a few years back when our offensive play calling was being criticized and Bloomgren was under fire, Shaw took some of the heat off Bloomgren by stating that he called plays in the red zone. Does Shaw still call plays in the red zone? Does he call all offensive plays? I don't think there have been any public statements on the topic since Tavita took over as OC, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

As far as SamuelMcF's comments, most of those are objective facts. It's a fact that Tavita is young at 31 for a Division I OC and that he's never worked anywhere outside of Stanford. He may be a great coach but there's no evidence to suggest that he has more control over the offense now than Bloomgren did when he was OC. If anything, the circumstantial evidence suggests the opposite is more likely true.

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - Goose - 11-27-2018

(11-26-2018, 10:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(11-26-2018, 09:50 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  Pretty fair assessment Lex. I would suggest that Tavita's biggest issue is not having the huevos to snatch that laminated card from Shaw's hands. He needs to sit down with David and tell him, "Look, you promoted me to be the OC. Trust me to do my job. Give me the support and the players I need, and we'll be successful."

He's 31, has never left Stanford, and owes Shaw his whole career. He was promoted precisely because he will never ever do that.
To be accurate, he owes Jim Harbaugh at least part of his career. That is where he got into coaching. Also, you should consider the possibility that he doesn't need to snatch the laminated card from Shaw's hands because Shaw listens to him. Oftentimes, a subordinate has a better chance influencing their boss by sweet reason than by saying "Your are an idiot. Let me do it." It is possible they are actually on the same page, and Tavita has moved Shaw to the current place where "He has learned a lot this year".
I don't know this is true. However, I don't know that it is not, and given the changes (perhaps slower than some wished for, but still pretty radical) it is an equally reasonable assumption.
Several times on this board I have suggested Tavita should go get a job in the NFL ranks. I say this not because I think he is no good, but rather to counter the idea that he is a yes man that knows nothing himself. For sure he would benefit from the experience. I am not so sure Stanford would gain thereby.

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - 82lsju - 11-27-2018

rumblings from Michigan sound like some of the rumblings here

Last season, Harbaugh knew he needed change so he dismissed Tim Drevno, and added Ed Warriner and Jim McElwain to the offensive coaching staff. There is still no actual offensive coordinator. Pep Hamilton calls the pass plays, Warriner calls the runs and Harbaugh has veto power. I’d love to see Harbaugh identify a young, dynamic offensive mind (Kliff Kingsbury?) and hand the offensive reins over to him. The head coach still has the ultimate say on what is called on the field, but a true OC can script a gameplan and use one play to set up another.

I don’t know if Harbaugh sees a problem or not, and that is part of the problem. He said after the loss Saturday they would work to make sure that something like that never happens again. 

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2018/11/27/michigan-football-jim-harbaugh/2120989002/

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - cardcrimson - 11-27-2018

(11-27-2018, 11:06 AM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-26-2018, 10:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(11-26-2018, 09:50 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  Pretty fair assessment Lex. I would suggest that Tavita's biggest issue is not having the huevos to snatch that laminated card from Shaw's hands. He needs to sit down with David and tell him, "Look, you promoted me to be the OC. Trust me to do my job. Give me the support and the players I need, and we'll be successful."

He's 31, has never left Stanford, and owes Shaw his whole career. He was promoted precisely because he will never ever do that.
Oftentimes, a subordinate has a better chance influencing their boss by sweet reason than by saying "Your are an idiot. Let me do it."

I was pretty much referring to play calling. Sweet reasoning during a game would most likely result in more DOG penalties. . . .

RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - Goose - 11-27-2018

(11-27-2018, 11:24 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:  I was pretty much referring to play calling. Sweet reasoning during a game would most likely result in more DOG penalties. . . .
True, but it seems we did a bit better on the DOG front this year. There is no question that the play calling this year has evolved considerably from the start of the year. While we all may question the exact play that was called at a particular time, I would argue that the overall strategy has certainly changed, and that is where an OC can have plenty of effect without actually calling the plays. It is very probable that Tavita would call the plays much like Shaw does, as those calls are based on the philosophy of the offense. If you want a different philosophy, you either have to convince Shaw or replace him. There is no doubt that the philosophy has changed substantially this year, willingly or under duress. How much of that is Tavita? I don't know, and I don't think anyone here does either. But to assert there is little or no contribution from the OC is no less an assumption than the opposite would be.
David Shaw is a "hands on" guy. However, he also seems to be a reasonable guy. Many coaches are "hands on" and not reasonable. Those coaches don't take input, because they know it all. I don't think Shaw is like that. That is based on nothing but his public persona, as I have never met the man. So, while it might not be flashy, Tavita may have a lot to do with what we are running today.