Assessing our assessments - 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: Assessing our assessments (/thread-16936.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: Assessing our assessments (/thread-16936.html)
RE: Assessing our assessments - BostonCard - 12-03-2018
Phillips, Reid, Meeks
How much better would our defense have been had they stayed another year? The vacuum created by Justin Reid’s departure (especially) was gargantuan, especially when coupled with the injuries we’ve had at the position.
Adebo/Holder is arguably a better duo than Meeks/Holder, but given the prevalence of the nickel, the trio of Adebo/Meeks/Holder would have been much better than Adebo/Holder/Murphy.
And even though over time I think our defensive line will grow to be a strength, there is no question that having Harrison Phillips in there would have made it much better.
BC
RE: Assessing our assessments - Hulk01 - 12-03-2018
Put me in the wait and see with Carberry.
It's not clear that the extra practice focus on pass protection, if it in fact occured. produced an improvement.
We were sacked on 4.47 percent of our attempts in 2017, and on 4.85 percent this season.
It's possible, of courser that many or most players improved their technique and skill but the injuries limited them individually and their play as a unit. Pass protection is more complex and requires more practice, particularly as a unit.
If we don't improve our run blocking significantly, that will all but moots our discussions about the team's prospects. We'll be talking about what we might do to finish 8-4, rather than how we might put together an 11-2 season.
RE: Assessing our assessments - Goose - 12-03-2018
(12-03-2018, 08:09 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: If we don't improve our run blocking significantly, that will all but moots our discussions about the team's prospects. We'll be talking about what we might do to finish 8-4, rather than how we might put together an 11-2 season.Totally agree. We can't be unable to run and have success. The fact we did as well as we have this year was a bit of a miracle. We were built to be a ball-control running team that would occasionally throw a pass over the top for a big play. The fact we were able to become almost "air-raid lite" and win some games that way would have been considered insanity last August. Next year, we don't have JJAW, Smith, or Irwin. There will be some drop-off due to lack of experience, and we will need to change philosophy. We can't always throw jump balls. Parkinson is big, but the others aren't so much. Irwin could often get open, and ran precise routes so the QB would always know where he would be. It also helped that many teams eventually double covered JJ. Next year, we won't have that threat.
RE: Assessing our assessments - Hulk01 - 12-03-2018
Fehoko may be Arcega-Whitesideish.
St. Brown was open Saturday, and during the year. He can be our Rector with overall better skills; he's got a package.
The extent to which our staff used Wedington in his true freshmen year signals that he has great potential, already proven.
And Wilson gives us a YAC receiver, something we do without ten seasons in eleven.
Finally, I really like Colby Bowman and the slot receiver committed in 2020.
We'll drop off some receiving with Parkinson, but might make it up in better blocking.
Short version: Optimistic about our WRs, really like our QB, RB won't be weaker and could be stronger. Herbig is a defiinite loss even if he didn't shine this year.
RE: Assessing our assessments - Goose - 12-03-2018
(12-03-2018, 11:28 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: Short version: Optimistic about our WRs, really like our QB, RB won't be weaker and could be stronger. Herbig is a defiinite loss even if he didn't shine this year.I agree with you that there is talent at the WR position. Some of them are young, so it may take a "a while" for it to develop. The QB is certainly an asset, and can be even more of an asset if he isn't always throwing into tight windows. The less than great turnover numbers come at least partially from having to do that.
I take it from your comment that you believe Herbig will be gone. I may have missed it, but AFAIK, he hasn't declared. Naturally, I would like to see him have one more injury free year at Stanford. Did I miss him saying he is going this year?
RE: Assessing our assessments - OutsiderFan - 12-03-2018
(12-03-2018, 11:28 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: Fehoko may be Arcega-Whitesideish.
St. Brown was open Saturday, and during the year. He can be our Rector with overall better skills; he's got a package.
The extent to which our staff used Wedington in his true freshmen year signals that he has great potential, already proven.
And Wilson gives us a YAC receiver, something we do without ten seasons in eleven.
Finally, I really like Colby Bowman and the slot receiver committed in 2020.
We'll drop off some receiving with Parkinson, but might make it up in better blocking.
Short version: Optimistic about our WRs, really like our QB, RB won't be weaker and could be stronger. Herbig is a defiinite loss even if he didn't shine this year.
Hulk, you forgot Elijah Higgins, who is a real possibility from what I have gathered, with his Hudl vid reported 4.1 GPA and 1250 SAT.
I see Fehoko as something Stanford has lacked since probably Ed McCaffrey, a tall WR with speed to get deep. Fehoko probably would have played over Wilson if he wasn't spending this season getting back into football shape following his mission.
I can't remember a time when I felt so sanguine about WRs at Stanford, even with JJAW and Irwin both likely gone.
RE: Assessing our assessments - Hulk01 - 12-03-2018
I'd say that we--and we're probably typical of the fans of college teams--generally end up with the seasons and performances we expect.
That's partly because a Wisdom of the Crowd effect occurs, where our perceptions are influenced and then solidified by the views of others who post and opine.
But I'd also say that none of us would have predicted that so few players would have break out years, and that so few would have significant break in years--guys who take starting roles and contribute nicely.
And I think that's one reason we lost four games. We didn't get the usual break in and break out seasons. Adebo and JJ, by my definition, may be it. And in most seasons, we get at least seven of those guys or more.
There seems a good chance next season will get us back to the mean. St, Brown, Fehoko, Wilson, Fox, Booker, Little (at run blocking), perhaps one of the young ILBs--there are some candidates,
And as always, I'll be intrigued and hopeful.
RE: Assessing our assessments - BostonCard - 12-03-2018
I'd nominate Costello and Kaden Smith as breakout performers. Costello especially has gone from a guy who took over midyear to one of the best QB's in the conference. I also think some guys like Booker, Reid, and Andres Fox qualify as having break-in years.
BC
(12-03-2018, 11:15 AM)Goose Wrote:(12-03-2018, 08:09 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: If we don't improve our run blocking significantly, that will all but moots our discussions about the team's prospects. We'll be talking about what we might do to finish 8-4, rather than how we might put together an 11-2 season.The fact we were able to become almost "air-raid lite" and win some games that way would have been considered insanity last August.
Other than the frequency we threw the ball, our offense bore no resemblance to an air-raid offense. Like, insofar as passing offenses are concerned, the way we passed and the way an air raid offense passes is just about diametrically opposite.
BC
RE: Assessing our assessments - CTcard - 12-03-2018
(12-03-2018, 01:03 PM)Hulk01 Wrote: We didn't get the usual break in and break out seasons. Adebo and JJ, by my definition, may be it. And in most seasons, we get at least seven of those guys or more.
Some others to at least consider ...
Costello.
2017 = started 7 games, 150 yds/gm (in starts), PER = 139 (season long), all while playing second option to Love's 2000+ yard rushing season.
2018 = started all 12 games, 286 yds/gm, PER = 158, all while carrying the offensive load due to no run game.
Parkinson
2017 = 10 catches for 97 yds.
2018 = 28 catches for 476 yds. (and one really brobdingnagian game)
Gabe Reid
2017 = redshirt
2018 = tops in sacks, second in TFL, became solid full time player. 34 tackles.
Sean Barton
2016 = 35 tackles
2017 = 14 tackles, 3 games played
2018 = 84 tackles, played most every down.
Jordan Fox
2017 = 14 tackles
2018 = 55 tackles (4th on team)
and, while not as spectacular overall, Irwin's numbers went up as much as JJAW's. Kaden Smith as well.
Irwin
2017 = 43 catches, 461 yds, 8 punt returns for 68 yds.
2018 = 60 catches, 685 yds, 14 punt returns for 162 yds.
JJAW
2017 = 48 catches, 781 yds, 9 TDs.
2018 = 60 catches, 969 yds, 14 TDs.
Smith
2017 = 23 catches, 414 yds.
2018 = 47 catches, 635 yds (only 10 games played)
RE: Assessing our assessments - Hulk01 - 12-03-2018
It gets into definitions that each of us have.
And perhaps I am romanticizing several past seasons, but let me take a shot at last season.
Love erupted. Vesuvius.
JJ broke out big.
Smith broke in, and then had a spectacular game against Notre Dame. So he didn't surprise me this year, just continued what I expected.
Costello broke in big.
Ditto Walker Little--freshman offensive player of the year in the Pac 12, no>
Herbig stepped way up: first team all conference. (He's honorable mention this year, likely--a break down.).
Okereke broke out, with that amazing game against the Huskies.
Reid broke out, with several highlight plays.
Phillips stepped up his game significantly, from HM to 1st team all conference.
That seems very different from what we saw this season. Was there a surprise other than Adebo? Just doesn't seem like the same, and relatively typical, Stanford season.
RE: Assessing our assessments - Goose - 12-03-2018
(12-03-2018, 01:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote:It is certainly true that the type of passes we threw were different than the "air raid" offense. The frequency was more my point. However we did come to rely on our passing game as opposed to our running game. In some ways, we are now "one dimensional". Our run attempts are change of pace rather than the main thrust. I think you would agree this is a pretty big change and not at all anticipated at the start of the season.
(12-03-2018, 11:15 AM)Goose Wrote: The fact we were able to become almost "air-raid lite" and win some games that way would have been considered insanity last August.
Other than the frequency we threw the ball, our offense bore no resemblance to an air-raid offense. Like, insofar as passing offenses are concerned, the way we passed and the way an air raid offense passes is just about diametrically opposite.
BC
RE: Assessing our assessments - BostonCard - 12-03-2018
(12-03-2018, 01:58 PM)Goose Wrote: It is certainly true that the type of passes we threw were different than the "air raid" offense. The frequency was more my point. However we did come to rely on our passing game as opposed to our running game. In some ways, we are now "one dimensional". Our run attempts are change of pace rather than the main thrust. I think you would agree this is a pretty big change and not at all anticipated at the start of the season.
Oh,I agree with the facts; I was just pushing back against the characterization of the offense as “air-raid lite”. The only similarity between the two offenses was the frequency of passes versus runs.
BC
lex24 - lex24 - 12-03-2018
No, it was not “virtually the same personnel “. Not even close. The injuries saw to that. They did not play one game with their projected o-line. And Love was hurt most of the year. If the line had stayed even relatively intact and they had the marked drop off that took place than you could point to coaching. But with injuries it’s impossible to know.
As for Anderson I find your comments relatively amazing. He’s been hailed as a terrific defensive coordinator for years. And he’s produced. Do you think he got dumb all of a sudden? How about Akina? I think he is considered one of if not the best defense of backfield coach in college football. The safeties did not perform well this year. Did he get them? Did he forget how to scheme? Did he forget how to teach? Did you forget how to coach?
If, as you always seem to want to do, you want to place blame entirely on the coaching staff for the four losses ( but no credit to them for the 8 wins) then I think the appropriate place to look is recruiting. It’s dropped off. That I grant you is a problem.
(12-02-2018, 01:29 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It's great when you predict doom, but it's glory instead. It's frustrating when you correctly predict doom. Nothing is more maddening than predicting glory and the reality is doom, especially when the glory had been seen already.
Stanford went from #6 in FBS in YPC to #109, with virtually the same personnel. I don't know how this can be explained any other way than by coaching failure. Players don't all regress at once unless the coaching they are getting is sub-par. The only materially different guy not playing OL in 2017 was Dave Bright. Nobody can tell me this drop can any way be explained by losing one guy. By contrast, Notre Dame had two OL drafted in the Top 10 of the NFL draft and went from #3 to #57
There are problems with the Offense, but to me, the real issue is the Defense. Stanford has some very talented young defenders, but I just don't know if Lance Anderson should continue to be trusted. His unit has declined in performance steadily for years.
Pac-12 (FBS) YPP 2014: #1 (#2)
Pac-12 (FBS) YPP 2015: #4 (#64)
Pac-12 (FBS) YPP 2016: #4 (#41)
Pac-12 (FBS) YPP 2017: #7 (#90)
Pac-12 (FBS) YPP 2018: #9 (#69)
If Cal, with no better talent than Stanford has, can be #2 (#16), there really is no reason Stanford shouldn't be better on Defense.
If Shaw does prioritize getting better on Defense and running the ball more effectively, and mixes in a potent passing attack with the best QB he's had since Luck, maybe 2019 can be one of those odd year runs to a conference title. But there must be staff changes because it seems clear some new thinking needs to be infused into the program.
Yes. The surprise to me was how much the passing game changed. Became much more multi-dimensional.
One of you stat guys out there may have this: Id love to see YAC yards in 2018 compared to 2017. My perception is that they will be significantly higher because they ran more drag routes crossing routes screen passes (which they finally started to run quite well after a couple years of pure futility).
Believe I heard this, but admittedly I may have dreamed it: in 2017 every single touchdown pass they threw was to the end zone. In other words they did not have one touchdown pass that involved even one yard of YAC. Which to me was a brobdingnagian indictment on the passing game. That was not the case this year
(12-03-2018, 01:58 PM)Hulk01 Wrote: It gets into definitions that each of us have.
And perhaps I am romanticizing several past seasons, but let me take a shot at last season.
Love erupted. Vesuvius.
JJ broke out big.
Smith broke in, and then had a spectacular game against Notre Dame. So he didn't surprise me this year, just continued what I expected.
Costello broke in big.
Ditto Walker Little--freshman offensive player of the year in the Pac 12, no>
Herbig stepped way up: first team all conference. (He's honorable mention this year, likely--a break down.).
Okereke broke out, with that amazing game against the Huskies.
Reid broke out, with several highlight plays.
Phillips stepped up his game significantly, from HM to 1st team all conference.
That seems very different from what we saw this season. Was there a surprise other than Adebo? Just doesn't seem like the same, and relatively typical, Stanford season.
RE: Assessing our assessments - OutsiderFan - 12-03-2018
Mike McCarthy was fired today. He won a Super Bowl. Joel Quenneville won three Stanley Cups and was fired a month ago. Coaches get replaced when teams don't perform. If terrible performance is accepted, where does it end? Stanford should not be #9 in YPP allowed in the Pac-12 given who they have played.
Coaches get replaced all the time. It's partly why they are paid so much. I provided strong evidence for why Anderson needs to be questioned. And looking back on it, was his 2014 success a product of what Derek Mason put in place, so the further away from Mason Anderson is exposed?
Why do I blame coaches? Because they are paid to among other things:
1. Identify talent to fit what they want to do
2. Sell that talent on playing for them
3. Develop the skills necessary to play effectively
4. Install effective schemes
5. Get players to buy into and execute what they are told to do
6. Put players in positions to have success
7. Maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses
8. Properly scout opponents and attack their weaknesses
9. Win
The best head coaches and coordinators get more production than the sum of their individual parts. Stanford's defense was strong under Fangio, Tarver, and Mason. It hasn't been as good under Anderson outside his first season, and I would argue Stanford has had more talent by recruiting rankings under Anderson than the previous three mentioned had.
RE: Assessing our assessments - BostonCard - 12-03-2018
(12-03-2018, 04:37 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Mike McCarthy was fired today. He won a Super Bowl. Joel Quenneville won three Stanley Cups and was fired a month ago. Coaches get replaced when teams don't perform. If terrible performance is accepted, where does it end? Stanford should not be #9 in YPP allowed in the Pac-12 given who they have played.
Coaches get replaced all the time. It's partly why they are paid so much. I provided strong evidence for why Anderson needs to be questioned. And looking back on it, was his 2014 success a product of what Derek Mason put in place, so the further away from Mason Anderson is exposed?
Why do I blame coaches? Because they are paid to among other things:
1. Identify talent to fit what they want to do
2. Sell that talent on playing for them
3. Develop the skills necessary to play effectively
4. Install effective schemes
5. Get players to buy into and execute what they are told to do
6. Put players in positions to have success
7. Maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses
8. Properly scout opponents and attack their weaknesses
9. Win
The best head coaches and coordinators get more production than the sum of their individual parts. Stanford's defense was strong under Fangio, Tarver, and Mason. It hasn't been as good under Anderson outside his first season, and I would argue Stanford has had more talent by recruiting rankings under Anderson than the previous three mentioned had.
I think most studies about firing coaches shows roughly what you'd expect. There is a slight improvement in subsequent seasons but it is mostly due to reversion to the mean (a coach is more likely to be fired after a sub-par season, so if that was just random fluctuation, you'd expect improvement the next year). Over the long haul, coaching makes less of a difference than you would expect. Remember, Bill Belichick was fired from the Browns, but that says more about the Browns than it does about Bill Belichick. There are probably a handful of outlier coaches out there (Belichick is probably one), but for the vast majority of coaches who are minimally competent, you are just rearranging deck chairs by firing.
I don't have a definitive opinion about Anderson. I'd argue that our defensive success has correlated most strongly to our defensive line strength. At the height of our defense, we had one of the best DL's in Stanford history. More recently, we have been dreadfully thin at DL, despite the presence of an occasional star (Thomas, Phillips). I think we are finally at the point where we have the right combination of talent, depth, and experience to have a good to great DL, which is why I am sanguine about the defense next year and believe that next year, Anderson will be much more well-regarded.
BC
RE: Assessing our assessments - BobK - 12-03-2018
I’m cherry picking here but fire Dowhauer get Wiggin. Fire Wiggin get Elway. Fire Buddy get Wlat. It doesn’t always work out
RE: Assessing our assessments - BostonCard - 12-03-2018
(12-03-2018, 07:16 PM)BobK Wrote: I’m cherry picking here but fire Dowhauer get Wiggin. Fire Wiggin get Elway. Fire Buddy get Wlat. It doesn’t always work out
Or, how about Kiffin to Sarkisian to Helton to...
Your cherry picking (anecdotal data) is supported by several literature studies, summarized conveniently in this freakonomics blog:
http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/
Quote:We find that for particularly poorly performing teams, coach replacements have little effect on team performance as measured against comparable teams that did not replace their coach. However, for teams with middling records—that is, teams where entry conditions for a new coach appear to be more favorable—replacing the head coach appears to result in worse performance over subsequent years than comparable teams who retained their coach.
The quote above was from this paper on college football:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00929.x
The conclusion:
Quote:The findings have important implications for our understanding of how entry conditions moderate the effects of leadership succession on team performance, and suggest that the relatively common decision to fire head college football coaches for poor team performance may be ill advised.
Yes, it applies to football head coaches, but I would suspect even more so to assistant coaches.
And here is fivethirtyeight on pro football, which makes my earlier point about regression to the mean:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-not-much-evidence-a-new-coach-will-help-the-jets-49ers-or-falcons/
There are a bunch of studies in other sports, including soccer and basketball.
Remember folks, it's about the Jesses and Joes, not the X's and O's.
BC
RE: Assessing our assessments - BobK - 12-03-2018
Boston Card quoting Flauntskc. Love it.
Re the Jessie’s and joe’s. Last couple of years, until this year, I’ve been able to tell her that about Florida
RE: Assessing our assessments - CompSci87 - 12-03-2018
Guess Stanford was wrong to fire Wlat. ;-)
lex24 - lex24 - 12-03-2018
Actually of the 9 you posted the only one that matters is no 9: Win. The other 8 playba role in that. But winning is what matters. Stanford has under Shaw. At unprecedented levels.
You provided no evidence why Anderson needs to be questioned. Going into this season the defense was the question. And that was before they lost Toohill and Alfieri for half the year and Edwards for essentially all of it. Stanford doesn’t have the talent defensively right now that they did a couple years ago. In fact I start even close. Now it’s the job of the staff to go out and get that talent. So if recruiting is the issue that’s another story. I don’t know enough about that to comment. I do know that no matter how good a coach you are talent is the key.
Or put another way, take 1-8 and tell me where Anderson fell short.
BC has the right take. Stanford has defended well when its had a strong front seven. It had at best a below average front seven this year. Even in ‘17 with Phillips, it was at best average.
(12-03-2018, 05:46 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-03-2018, 04:37 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Mike McCarthy was fired today. He won a Super Bowl. Joel Quenneville won three Stanley Cups and was fired a month ago. Coaches get replaced when teams don't perform. If terrible performance is accepted, where does it end? Stanford should not be #9 in YPP allowed in the Pac-12 given who they have played.
Coaches get replaced all the time. It's partly why they are paid so much. I provided strong evidence for why Anderson needs to be questioned. And looking back on it, was his 2014 success a product of what Derek Mason put in place, so the further away from Mason Anderson is exposed?
Why do I blame coaches? Because they are paid to among other things:
1. Identify talent to fit what they want to do
2. Sell that talent on playing for them
3. Develop the skills necessary to play effectively
4. Install effective schemes
5. Get players to buy into and execute what they are told to do
6. Put players in positions to have success
7. Maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses
8. Properly scout opponents and attack their weaknesses
9. Win
The best head coaches and coordinators get more production than the sum of their individual parts. Stanford's defense was strong under Fangio, Tarver, and Mason. It hasn't been as good under Anderson outside his first season, and I would argue Stanford has had more talent by recruiting rankings under Anderson than the previous three mentioned had.
I think most studies about firing coaches shows roughly what you'd expect. There is a slight improvement in subsequent seasons but it is mostly due to reversion to the mean (a coach is more likely to be fired after a sub-par season, so if that was just random fluctuation, you'd expect improvement the next year). Over the long haul, coaching makes less of a difference than you would expect. Remember, Bill Belichick was fired from the Browns, but that says more about the Browns than it does about Bill Belichick. There are probably a handful of outlier coaches out there (Belichick is probably one), but for the vast majority of coaches who are minimally competent, you are just rearranging deck chairs by firing.
I don't have a definitive opinion about Anderson. I'd argue that our defensive success has correlated most strongly to our defensive line strength. At the height of our defense, we had one of the best DL's in Stanford history. More recently, we have been dreadfully thin at DL, despite the presence of an occasional star (Thomas, Phillips). I think we are finally at the point where we have the right combination of talent, depth, and experience to have a good to great DL, which is why I am sanguine about the defense next year and believe that next year, Anderson will be much more well-regarded.
BC