Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. (/thread-18182.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: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. (/thread-18182.html)
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - Treebound - 09-22-2019
Love this comment from the article:
"Walters, a Broyles Award finalist for the nation's top assistant, is considered one of the rising stars in the coaching ranks."
David Shaw needs help, and Troy would be a great option.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - BostonCard - 09-22-2019
Note, Walters doesn’t call the plays in Nebraska. I would still be tickled pink to bring him in.
BC
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - winflop - 09-23-2019
(09-22-2019, 11:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Note, Walters doesn’t call the plays in Nebraska. I would still be tickled pink to bring him in.
BC
Walters wouldn't be calling plays here either, much as we'd like to see different.
Mudhead - Mudhead - 09-23-2019
(09-21-2019, 09:44 PM)d4cohn Wrote:p(09-21-2019, 07:44 PM)81alum Wrote: Losing our three most prolific receivers from last year, while having Costello sidelined with injury when he needed to be working with the new ones, seems to have prevented us from developing any kind of downfield threat. We won't win many games unless that gets corrected--if only to loosen up defenses.
Given how young and still developing the freshmen on the OL are, the biggest thing we need is a vertical WR (obviously someone like JJAW, but even some with just pure speed like Michael Rector). Perhaps Michael Wilson can be that guy, but I don't think he is there yet. OSB seems best suited to run deep crossing routes that take a lot of time that we just don't have at the OL right now.
As such, there is no vertical guy to stretch the defense and prevent the defense from bearing down on our backfield.
I think you’ve nailed it.... and there is no easy fix. If you can’t protect the passer against three man rushes , stunts or blitzes your QB has to release the ball very quickly. (Otherwise you will be bringing in a new QB as the current one is dragged off the field.) I’ve never thrown a pass but I’ll bet when you have to do that, you tend to go to the receiver most easily available. You lock on. And if you are play calling, you do a lot of screen and quick routes.
Defenses aren’t dumb. They figure out what you are doing and press cover. Until and unles we have a healthy offensive line in which each player plays his same position for more than two consecutive quarters, we will, ever know whether Shaw, Pritchard or Bill Walsh himself can call plays. Your play calling options are very limited.
Now, the second level question that bugs we is why are we so injury prone in our offensive line?. Or were we always and just had the depth to cover it.?
I fear it begins and ends with a functioning offensive line. Once you have that, you can judge the play calling. Until you do, how can you tell.?
lex24 - lex24 - 09-23-2019
Walters is not going to happen. That would involve a 180 degree shift in offensive philosophy. So forget it. If changes are to be made, it will involve an OC philosophically in tune - a west coast type/power oriented offense. Look at places where they run such offenses and are successful. Or maybe NFL QB coaches that are young and on the rise. Maybe the guy at SF. Shane Day. Or better yet, Mike Lafleur, the Niners passing game coordinator.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - Phogge - 09-23-2019
They do not need to run a total uptempo offense but they do need dynamism from the QB. Case in point was DTR the other night. Things finally came together and he was outstanding. He did have receivers who were open and he may not be able to sustain his success but he's the kind of package who takes defenses out of their rhythm. TOS has Stanford in on a five star dual in 2021 so maybe there is a thought of going after him. You don't have to completely change the system to make it work. Plus the offense is boring to watch and a run option on a broken play by a kid with speed would liven it up and might make somebody who has season tickets willing to reup.
RE: lex24 - ADPinWDC - 09-23-2019
(09-23-2019, 08:21 AM)lex24 Wrote: Walters is not going to happen. That would involve a 180 degree shift in offensive philosophy. So forget it. If changes are to be made, it will involve an OC philosophically in tune - a west coast type/power oriented offense. Look at places where they run such offenses and are successful. Or maybe NFL QB coaches that are young and on the rise. Maybe the guy at SF. Shane Day. Or better yet, Mike Lafleur, the Niners passing game coordinator.
What do we have this season?... a 270 degree shift of offensive philosophy, and dizziness?
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - CTcard - 09-23-2019
Stanford's offense is horrendous right now, but most of the problems go well beyond issues of choosing better play calls and probably any particular overall scheme.
My biggest concern is that Costello is not healthy - even beyond hitting his thumb on a helmet in the first half. Costello has shown he can be a very good QB, beyond just the ability of JJAW to make amazing catches, and was very good as recently as the Northwestern game before he got knocked out. Now he cannot make throws he made before and appears much less decisive.
The OL is holding up better than I would have feared given the personnel situation. It's not good, but it is not clear it is the weak link.
The running game is bad, but better than last year. Our RBs are averaging 4.9 yards/carry. Last year they were a little under 4.6. In 2013 (the year with Gaffney returning as lead back) we averaged 5.0, though on a lot of carries. Our best modern-times years for RB yds/carry were 2016 (McCaffrey's last year) at 6.2 and 2017 (Love goes nuts) at 6.7.
Our passing game is a disaster, but we're using it a lot. Our official percentage of pass plays is 54.4%, but our called passes are clearly over 60% (10 official sacks, and at least 10 more desperation scrambles I would say). Yet our PER is currently at 106, that's 33 points south of anyone else in the conference and about 20 points south of Stanford's worst passing season in the past decade (2016, the Burns and Chryst show).
The receivers can't get open, can't make contested catches, and Costello cannot throw right now with accuracy or velocity. Not sure what scheme solves that.
Some of this is that we have only played good teams so far. (Oregon's defense is very good by the way - even if they haven't faced only juggernauts. Even Nevada is 3-1 with a win over Purdue.) But since there isn't a single functioning part of the offense, it seems silly to recommend any particular strategy at the moment - none look likely to succeed.
I guess all in all, the only hope I really feel for the offense is that five of the next six opponents have poor defenses and somewhere in there Costello might heal up. If he can't then I would try Mills again. What I wouldn't do is start rotating through the whole bench fantasizing that one will suddenly catch fire out of nowhere.
-----------
On a more optimistic note: the defense seems schizophrenic but at least occasionally good. That was a good performance vs Oregon - fewer yards and points than Oregon managed against Auburn and far lower than against their other opponents. They also giave up fewer yards and points than Northwestern has put up versus anyone else - and they played Michigan State. Even the second half versus UCF was credible, though it may be that UCF had simply quit trying by that point.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - BostonCard - 09-23-2019
(09-23-2019, 01:24 PM)CTcard Wrote: The receivers can't get open, can't make contested catches, and Costello cannot throw right now with accuracy or velocity. Not sure what scheme solves that.
It might be worth asking why our receivers can't get open. It's not because they are any slower than receivers we've had in the past who have been able to get open. So one of three things: either they don't have time to get open (because of OL issues), are not learning how to run routes properly (player development), or the routes they are running are easily defended by our opponents (possibly scheme).
BC
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - OL84 - 09-23-2019
Good post, CT. KJ is not well and the WR's are struggling. Part of the WR's problem is that the QB's are not hitting them, but they appear to be struggling with reading the D and are therefore not in position to get open.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - donkey687 - 09-23-2019
(09-23-2019, 01:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote:#4 gets open and makes tough catches. Let's throw to him more.(09-23-2019, 01:24 PM)CTcard Wrote: The receivers can't get open, can't make contested catches, and Costello cannot throw right now with accuracy or velocity. Not sure what scheme solves that.
It might be worth asking why our receivers can't get open. It's not because they are any slower than receivers we've had in the past who have been able to get open. So one of three things: either they don't have time to get open (because of OL issues), are not learning how to run routes properly (player development), or the routes they are running are easily defended by our opponents (possibly scheme).
BC
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - qwerty49 - 09-23-2019
(09-23-2019, 01:50 PM)donkey687 Wrote:(09-23-2019, 01:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote:#4 gets open and makes tough catches. Let's throw to him more.(09-23-2019, 01:24 PM)CTcard Wrote: The receivers can't get open, can't make contested catches, and Costello cannot throw right now with accuracy or velocity. Not sure what scheme solves that.
It might be worth asking why our receivers can't get open. It's not because they are any slower than receivers we've had in the past who have been able to get open. So one of three things: either they don't have time to get open (because of OL issues), are not learning how to run routes properly (player development), or the routes they are running are easily defended by our opponents (possibly scheme).
BC
Honestly that starts with Costello looking for him instead of locking onto Parkinson and throwing into double coverage.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - towen883 - 09-23-2019
The final score wasn't close, but it would have been far worse if the opposing coach was Kelly or the Pirate---they both would have run it up a lot more.
I hate to say this, but watching our offense this year brings uncomfortable memories of Wlat.....
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - CTcard - 09-24-2019
(09-23-2019, 01:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: It might be worth asking why our receivers can't get open. It's not because they are any slower than receivers we've had in the past who have been able to get open. So one of three things: either they don't have time to get open (because of OL issues), are not learning how to run routes properly (player development), or the routes they are running are easily defended by our opponents (possibly scheme).
It's definitely worth it.
Broadly I'd go with player development as at least the foremost issue.
I haven't been able to watch enough this year to have a really good feel (or more exactly to rewatch enough - because in real time I'm too much of a fan to analyze), but it seems to me that firstly the WRs aren't recognizing the defenses, so they end up doing things like sitting down in what they think is a gap in the zone while the defense is actually playing man. I also think the routes aren't crisp or run with purpose, so guys are just running around or even running toward coverage as much as trying to get open.
You are correct that it's not because they are slower than previous guys - Stanford has almost always had slower than average receivers. But, only rarely to WRs get open by explicitly running away from the defenders in a foot race. One of my favourite Stanford players was DeRonnie Pitts. By memory he was slightly slower than most Centers, but is also #2 on the Stanford all-time receptions list.
Like others in this thread I think Wilson is our best receiver at the moment, but he still runs indecisive routs and what appear to be the wrong routs at times. Weddington has promise but he seems to be confined to the dinks and dump offs role, which makes him harder to evaluate. Parkinson by his height has some "he's open even when he's covered" nature, but he needs to be tougher and play the box out game better.
Those three have to be the core of our receiving corps and I see each could break out, but none give me much confidence yet.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - Mick - 09-24-2019
CTcard Wrote:Jerry Rice ran a 4.59 40.BostonCard Wrote:It might be worth asking why our receivers can't get open. It's not because they are any slower than receivers we've had in the past who have been able to get open. So one of three things: either they don't have time to get open (because of OL issues), are not learning how to run routes properly (player development), or the routes they are running are easily defended by our opponents (possibly scheme).
It's definitely worth it.
Broadly I'd go with player development as at least the foremost issue.
I haven't been able to watch enough this year to have a really good feel (or more exactly to rewatch enough - because in real time I'm too much of a fan to analyze), but it seems to me that firstly the WRs aren't recognizing the defenses, so they end up doing things like sitting down in what they think is a gap in the zone while the defense is actually playing man. I also think the routes aren't crisp or run with purpose, so guys are just running around or even running toward coverage as much as trying to get open.
You are correct that it's not because they are slower than previous guys - Stanford has almost always had slower than average receivers. But, only rarely to WRs get open by explicitly running away from the defenders in a foot race. One of my favourite Stanford players was DeRonnie Pitts. By memory he was slightly slower than most Centers, but is also #2 on the Stanford all-time receptions list.
Like others in this thread I think Wilson is our best receiver at the moment, but he still runs indecisive routs and what appear to be the wrong routs at times. Weddington has promise but he seems to be confined to the dinks and dump offs role, which makes him harder to evaluate. Parkinson by his height has some "he's open even when he's covered" nature, but he needs to be tougher and play the box out game better.
Those three have to be the core of our receiving corps and I see each could break out, but none give me much confidence yet.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - winflop - 09-24-2019
(09-24-2019, 09:13 AM)CTcard Wrote:(09-23-2019, 01:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: It might be worth asking why our receivers can't get open. It's not because they are any slower than receivers we've had in the past who have been able to get open. So one of three things: either they don't have time to get open (because of OL issues), are not learning how to run routes properly (player development), or the routes they are running are easily defended by our opponents (possibly scheme).
It's definitely worth it.
Broadly I'd go with player development as at least the foremost issue.
I haven't been able to watch enough this year to have a really good feel (or more exactly to rewatch enough - because in real time I'm too much of a fan to analyze), but it seems to me that firstly the WRs aren't recognizing the defenses, so they end up doing things like sitting down in what they think is a gap in the zone while the defense is actually playing man. I also think the routes aren't crisp or run with purpose, so guys are just running around or even running toward coverage as much as trying to get open.
You are correct that it's not because they are slower than previous guys - Stanford has almost always had slower than average receivers. But, only rarely to WRs get open by explicitly running away from the defenders in a foot race. One of my favourite Stanford players was DeRonnie Pitts. By memory he was slightly slower than most Centers, but is also #2 on the Stanford all-time receptions list.
Like others in this thread I think Wilson is our best receiver at the moment, but he still runs indecisive routs and what appear to be the wrong routs at times. Weddington has promise but he seems to be confined to the dinks and dump offs role, which makes him harder to evaluate. Parkinson by his height has some "he's open even when he's covered" nature, but he needs to be tougher and play the box out game better.
Those three have to be the core of our receiving corps and I see each could break out, but none give me much confidence yet.
Have also seen/heard that route combos are a problem but I don't know enough to say what the root cause is. All I know is that other than Wilson nobody else in the WR corps can get separation and that means defenses can key on Parkinson and single-cover the rest
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - Treebound - 09-24-2019
I'll posit one more reason for our lack of pass production: Outside of Wilson, I don't see what one of my coaches called "the Mine Mentality." On 50/50 balls, who wants it more? Back shoulder passes, under thrown balls, high passes to the corner, boxing out positioning....I just don't see it coming consistently from anyone. Instead I see people quitting on routes and balls. I don't think I've seen Feheko catch a single pass this year?
Maybe we can't get as much separation as with JJ or Shaggy, but come on, fight for the damn ball like your life depended on it. KJs having a tough go, but I've seen same very catchable balls dropped and the level of effort lacking. Go climb the ladder to make the catch or sell out like Adebo's amazing interception last year when the UCLA wideout quit on the ball in the end zone. I just don't see the attitude or the effort and that is what really pains me.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - StanfordMatt - 09-25-2019
The only way Troy Walters is coming back to Stanford is as the head coach. Anything else would be taking a step back in his career.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - BostonCard - 09-25-2019
(09-24-2019, 09:13 AM)CTcard Wrote: You are correct that it's not because they are slower than previous guys - Stanford has almost always had slower than average receivers. But, only rarely to WRs get open by explicitly running away from the defenders in a foot race. One of my favourite Stanford players was DeRonnie Pitts. By memory he was slightly slower than most Centers, but is also #2 on the Stanford all-time receptions list.
Speaking of DeRonnie Pitts, he came back and got an MBA. He just gave a talk on financial wellness to the football team.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v5k483dzxGk&feature=youtu.be
BC
(09-25-2019, 12:10 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: The only way Troy Walters is coming back to Stanford is as the head coach. Anything else would be taking a step back in his career.
Coaches sometimes get fired and have to take a “step back”. I think Nebraska will be patient with Frost, and at 3-1 I think they will be in a good position to get 7 or more wins this year, but expectations are high and at some point they will want him to win the BigTen, which is hard with teams like Ohio State and Wisconsin.
BC
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - CrazedZooChimp - 09-25-2019
(09-25-2019, 12:10 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: The only way Troy Walters is coming back to Stanford is as the head coach. Anything else would be taking a step back in his career.
Oh, I dunno about that. Especially since if Frost has another ~.500 year at Nebraska his whole staff might be out of a job. And based on their loss to Colorado and how close Illinois came to beating them, seems very possible.