new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - 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: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux (/thread-19714.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: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux (/thread-19714.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - Goose - 05-17-2020
(05-17-2020, 01:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote:I like it that this post is data driven. Just to clarify, were his touches all runs inside the tackles? It may be that that isn't easily documented, but if it is, it would be interesting to know.(05-17-2020, 09:14 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(05-16-2020, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: If it is third and 1, who would you rather have carry the ball, BL or Toby?
Remound Wright
On third down and 1 - 3 yards to go:
Wright had 28 touches, 19 first downs, and 5 touchdowns (in 2015); his success rate was 68%, his touchdown rate was 18%
Bryce Love had 14 touches, 2 first downs, and 1 touchdown (in 2017) (he had 4 first downs in 7 attempts in 2018); his success rate was 14%, his touchdown rate was 7%
Toby had 31 touches, 21 first downs, and 2 touchdowns (in 2009); his success rate was 68%, his touchdown rate was 6%
However, on third down and 1-3 yards to go:
In 2015 CMac had 16 touches, and got a first down 12 times (no touchdowns); his success rate was better than anyone at 75%
In 2016 (without WRight) CMac had 23 touches, got a first down 19 times, and had 1 TD. His success rate was 83%!
So to answer the OP's question. On third and short, I want Christian McCaffrey in the backfield.
BC
RE: lex24 - Goose - 05-17-2020
(05-17-2020, 01:24 PM)lex24 Wrote: It’s wonderful to outsmart teams. You’ll win a few games that way. But it’s actually better to out physical team. Always. Bill Walsh was the smartest offensive football mind of his generation. In two years during his stint at Stanford against USC, Walsh managed seven points. Why? Did he get stupid all of a sudden? Was John Robinson smarter than Walsh? Did he have Stanford’s offense down cold? No. USC was able to physically dominate Stanford and they could do very little offensively. So you can outsmart all you want. I’ll take physical. That is what put Stanford on the map. If they can’t get back to it they’re not gonna win. Simple as thatI totally agree. You need to have at least equal athletes on the field or it will be a long day. However, being more physical that the other team doesn't mean just brute strength. It also means team speed and overall execution. Precisely run patterns can help compensate for not being quite as fast as the coverage man, but only if the QB can hit the receiver right on the break. Two different physical skills can cancel out a third physical advantage. However, what is certainly true is that if one team has a prohibitive "physical" advantage in one area, they will utilize it until it gets defeated. If your team has to be 100% perfect on every possession because Stanford is keeping the ball away, that is a big advantage to Stanford. However, if you are physically dominating the LOS on both sides of the ball, it isn't going to matter much how good the opposing QB may be.
Scheme can be a factor only when the teams are well enough matched that neither one can just repeatedly run the same plays and succeed. In the past, lots of teams could dominate Stanford physically. JH recruited guys that could match or exceed the other team's strengths, but it wasn't just in one area. It was across the board. Right now, as others have pointed out, our main problem is on defense. That is where we need to get more "physical".
lex24 - lex24 - 05-17-2020
(05-17-2020, 02:07 PM)Goose Wrote:(05-17-2020, 01:24 PM)lex24 Wrote: It’s wonderful to outsmart teams. You’ll win a few games that way. But it’s actually better to out physical team. Always. Bill Walsh was the smartest offensive football mind of his generation. In two years during his stint at Stanford against USC, Walsh managed seven points. Why? Did he get stupid all of a sudden? Was John Robinson smarter than Walsh? Did he have Stanford’s offense down cold? No. USC was able to physically dominate Stanford and they could do very little offensively. So you can outsmart all you want. I’ll take physical. That is what put Stanford on the map. If they can’t get back to it they’re not gonna win. Simple as thatI totally agree. You need to have at least equal athletes on the field or it will be a long day. However, being more physical that the other team doesn't mean just brute strength. It also means team speed and overall execution. Precisely run patterns can help compensate for not being quite as fast as the coverage man, but only if the QB can hit the receiver right on the break. Two different physical skills can cancel out a third physical advantage. However, what is certainly true is that if one team has a prohibitive "physical" advantage in one area, they will utilize it until it gets defeated. If your team has to be 100% perfect on every possession because Stanford is keeping the ball away, that is a big advantage to Stanford. However, if you are physically dominating the LOS on both sides of the ball, it isn't going to matter much how good the opposing QB may be.
Scheme can be a factor only when the teams are well enough matched that neither one can just repeatedly run the same plays and succeed. In the past, lots of teams could dominate Stanford physically. JH recruited guys that could match or exceed the other team's strengths, but it wasn't just in one area. It was across the board. Right now, as others have pointed out, our main problem is on defense. That is where we need to get more "physical".
Agree!
(05-17-2020, 01:30 PM)Goose Wrote:(05-17-2020, 01:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote:I like it that this post is data driven. Just to clarify, were his touches all runs inside the tackles? It may be that that isn't easily documented, but if it is, it would be interesting to know.(05-17-2020, 09:14 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(05-16-2020, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: If it is third and 1, who would you rather have carry the ball, BL or Toby?
Remound Wright
On third down and 1 - 3 yards to go:
Wright had 28 touches, 19 first downs, and 5 touchdowns (in 2015); his success rate was 68%, his touchdown rate was 18%
Bryce Love had 14 touches, 2 first downs, and 1 touchdown (in 2017) (he had 4 first downs in 7 attempts in 2018); his success rate was 14%, his touchdown rate was 7%
Toby had 31 touches, 21 first downs, and 2 touchdowns (in 2009); his success rate was 68%, his touchdown rate was 6%
However, on third down and 1-3 yards to go:
In 2015 CMac had 16 touches, and got a first down 12 times (no touchdowns); his success rate was better than anyone at 75%
In 2016 (without WRight) CMac had 23 touches, got a first down 19 times, and had 1 TD. His success rate was 83%!
So to answer the OP's question. On third and short, I want Christian McCaffrey in the backfield.
BC
I suspect most were. Stanford doesn’t run their backs outside the tackles all that much. I think defenses these days are so predicated on speed that it’s very hard to run outside. I mean how often do you see a good old fashioned power sweep? From anybody.
RE: lex24 - SamuelMcF - 05-17-2020
(05-17-2020, 02:39 PM)lex24 Wrote:(05-17-2020, 02:07 PM)Goose Wrote:(05-17-2020, 01:24 PM)lex24 Wrote: It’s wonderful to outsmart teams. You’ll win a few games that way. But it’s actually better to out physical team. Always. Bill Walsh was the smartest offensive football mind of his generation. In two years during his stint at Stanford against USC, Walsh managed seven points. Why? Did he get stupid all of a sudden? Was John Robinson smarter than Walsh? Did he have Stanford’s offense down cold? No. USC was able to physically dominate Stanford and they could do very little offensively. So you can outsmart all you want. I’ll take physical. That is what put Stanford on the map. If they can’t get back to it they’re not gonna win. Simple as thatI totally agree. You need to have at least equal athletes on the field or it will be a long day. However, being more physical that the other team doesn't mean just brute strength. It also means team speed and overall execution. Precisely run patterns can help compensate for not being quite as fast as the coverage man, but only if the QB can hit the receiver right on the break. Two different physical skills can cancel out a third physical advantage. However, what is certainly true is that if one team has a prohibitive "physical" advantage in one area, they will utilize it until it gets defeated. If your team has to be 100% perfect on every possession because Stanford is keeping the ball away, that is a big advantage to Stanford. However, if you are physically dominating the LOS on both sides of the ball, it isn't going to matter much how good the opposing QB may be.
Scheme can be a factor only when the teams are well enough matched that neither one can just repeatedly run the same plays and succeed. In the past, lots of teams could dominate Stanford physically. JH recruited guys that could match or exceed the other team's strengths, but it wasn't just in one area. It was across the board. Right now, as others have pointed out, our main problem is on defense. That is where we need to get more "physical".
Agree!
(05-17-2020, 01:30 PM)Goose Wrote:(05-17-2020, 01:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote:I like it that this post is data driven. Just to clarify, were his touches all runs inside the tackles? It may be that that isn't easily documented, but if it is, it would be interesting to know.(05-17-2020, 09:14 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(05-16-2020, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: If it is third and 1, who would you rather have carry the ball, BL or Toby?
Remound Wright
On third down and 1 - 3 yards to go:
Wright had 28 touches, 19 first downs, and 5 touchdowns (in 2015); his success rate was 68%, his touchdown rate was 18%
Bryce Love had 14 touches, 2 first downs, and 1 touchdown (in 2017) (he had 4 first downs in 7 attempts in 2018); his success rate was 14%, his touchdown rate was 7%
Toby had 31 touches, 21 first downs, and 2 touchdowns (in 2009); his success rate was 68%, his touchdown rate was 6%
However, on third down and 1-3 yards to go:
In 2015 CMac had 16 touches, and got a first down 12 times (no touchdowns); his success rate was better than anyone at 75%
In 2016 (without WRight) CMac had 23 touches, got a first down 19 times, and had 1 TD. His success rate was 83%!
So to answer the OP's question. On third and short, I want Christian McCaffrey in the backfield.
BC
I suspect most were. Stanford doesn’t run their backs outside the tackles all that much. I think defenses these days are so predicated on speed that it’s very hard to run outside. I mean how often do you see a good old fashioned power sweep? From anybody.
Very few. Especially now. Pretty much all the "outside the tackle" stuff nowadays consists of swing passes or reverses.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 05-17-2020
(05-17-2020, 02:46 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: Very few. Especially now. Pretty much all the "outside the tackle" stuff nowadays consists of swing passes or reverses.
Totally agree. Nobody runs a sweep anymore, although sometimes both BL and CMac would try to bounce outside when there was no hole. What I was trying to get at with BC is does a "touch" mean only a run, or does it include pass receptions? CMac also ran a "stretch" play with great success. We block the linebacker out wide (usually with a tight end) and the DT towards the inside. As I recall we used that quite a bit on short yardage. The DT usually didn't mind going inside so that was an "easy" block. The LB getting pushed out is the harder part. Once people wised up to it, it didn't work nearly as well.
RE: lex24 - winflop - 05-17-2020
(05-17-2020, 01:24 PM)lex24 Wrote: It’s wonderful to outsmart teams. You’ll win a few games that way. But it’s actually better to out physical team. Always. Bill Walsh was the smartest offensive football mind of his generation. In two years during his stint at Stanford against USC, Walsh managed seven points. Why? Did he get stupid all of a sudden? Was John Robinson smarter than Walsh? Did he have Stanford’s offense down cold? No. USC was able to physically dominate Stanford and they could do very little offensively. So you can outsmart all you want. I’ll take physical. That is what put Stanford on the map. If they can’t get back to it they’re not gonna win. Simple as that
This a million times, and it is a big part of why Stanford has struggled the last few years, with increasing frequency. The downhill trend started before Blomgren left, but Carberry has certainly not gotten it done the last two years. S&C has been a complete and total disaster two years running. I pray they get these two issues fixed whenever we next see them take the field, but my patience is shot here. Those two elements of the staff must see major improvements in the next season or there needs to be housecleaning there.
Also seemingly forgotten in this discussion - but not on the TreeCast although not enough time was spent on it - is that Intellectual Brutality was not only about offense but also about defense. Party in the backfield has become party in our second level.
RE: lex24 - SamuelMcF - 05-17-2020
(05-17-2020, 04:48 PM)winflop Wrote: Also seemingly forgotten in this discussion - but not on the TreeCast although not enough time was spent on it - is that Intellectual Brutality was not only about offense but also about defense. Party in the backfield has become party in our second level.
This a thousand times. The elephant in the room, and I will continue to bang this drum.
No pass rush. Opposing QBs scrambling like Kyler Murray against us. LBs soft against the run (though Miezan and JMF would've had something to say about that had they stayed healthy IMO). Missed tackles everywhere. Safeties taking angles that left them clawing at air, just straight-up getting roasted in coverage, or getting bulldozed by Laviska Shenault at the LOS on 4th and 1 to seal our defeat against Colorado.
Intellectually brutal indeed.
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - Spiny_Norman - 05-17-2020
Is it coincidence or is it cause and effect that the DL play has trended down since Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season?
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - Goose - 05-17-2020
On the subject of sweeps, take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0FhEMydgAs. Look starting at 0:24. This is pure CMac running inside. Right? Or, if that is too unconventional, look at 1:04.
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - BostonCard - 05-17-2020
To answer your questions, all of the plays were running plays. I didn’t look at passing plays. And, no, it is not broken down by type of play (between the tackles, versus outside the tackles). My recollection, shared by others here, is that most of the plays were between the tackles, but I could be wrong.
BC
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - winflop - 05-18-2020
(05-17-2020, 07:57 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Is it coincidence or is it cause and effect that the DL play has trended down since Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season?
Not a coincidence IMnsHO but DL play isn't the only problem. As pointed out by others, ILB and S have also gone downhill the last 2-3 seasons
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - Goose - 05-18-2020
(05-17-2020, 09:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote: To answer your questions, all of the plays were running plays. I didn’t look at passing plays. And, no, it is not broken down by type of play (between the tackles, versus outside the tackles). My recollection, shared by others here, is that most of the plays were between the tackles, but I could be wrong.In order to fully understand the situation in 2016, I subjected myself to watching many (not all) of our 2016 games again. First of all, Stanford DID run lots of sweep action plays in 2016. CMac often didn't run very wide before he decided to turn up the field, but often he did run outside the tackle box. One really does get a sense of how good a back he is. He sort of trots along the LOS, then decisively cuts through a gap in the pursuit and is into the secondary. There are also at least two short yardage plays on which he broke a tackle in the backfield. He is absolutely a once-in-a-lifetime talent.
BC
However, what he is not is a power runner. His NFL career shows this Carolina ranked third from the bottom on third and 3 or less this year, converting on 50% of their attempts. Counting this may not be fair, because the statistics used previously are all college, but it is a data point. Every year is different and every OL is different, so it is tricky to compare stats over time. That said, I would have to admit that there is a good rationale to preferring CMac to Toby on third and three or less. I am not in that camp however. CMac can't make a hole where there is none. I think a short-yardage back needs to be able to do that. Toby could.
One can clearly see in today's football a trend away from "playing in a phone booth". CMac certainly embodied that trend. I don't think there is any way back. It doesn't mean we will become/are a "finesse" offense. We need to control the clock and be efficient using a more "multiple" offense than we did under JH. We aren't going to have (most probably) a CMac who can live with less than stellar OL play. We still need the TWU. So "Intellectual Brutality" has to manifest itself in slightly different forms, but must not disappear.
lex24 - lex24 - 05-18-2020
(05-18-2020, 08:52 PM)Goose Wrote:(05-17-2020, 09:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote: To answer your questions, all of the plays were running plays. I didn’t look at passing plays. And, no, it is not broken down by type of play (between the tackles, versus outside the tackles). My recollection, shared by others here, is that most of the plays were between the tackles, but I could be wrong.In order to fully understand the situation in 2016, I subjected myself to watching many (not all) of our 2016 games again. First of all, Stanford DID run lots of sweep action plays in 2016. CMac often didn't run very wide before he decided to turn up the field, but often he did run outside the tackle box. One really does get a sense of how good a back he is. He sort of trots along the LOS, then decisively cuts through a gap in the pursuit and is into the secondary. There are also at least two short yardage plays on which he broke a tackle in the backfield. He is absolutely a once-in-a-lifetime talent.
BC
However, what he is not is a power runner. His NFL career shows this Carolina ranked third from the bottom on third and 3 or less this year, converting on 50% of their attempts. Counting this may not be fair, because the statistics used previously are all college, but it is a data point. Every year is different and every OL is different, so it is tricky to compare stats over time. That said, I would have to admit that there is a good rationale to preferring CMac to Toby on third and three or less. I am not in that camp however. CMac can't make a hole where there is none. I think a short-yardage back needs to be able to do that. Toby could.
One can clearly see in today's football a trend away from "playing in a phone booth". CMac certainly embodied that trend. I don't think there is any way back. It doesn't mean we will become/are a "finesse" offense. We need to control the clock and be efficient using a more "multiple" offense than we did under JH. We aren't going to have (most probably) a CMac who can live with less than stellar OL play. We still need the TWU. So "Intellectual Brutality" has to manifest itself in slightly different forms, but must not disappear.
I don’t think anyone said CMac is a “power runner”. They (I) did say he’s an excellent inside runner. Which he is. Thus, it was not, as you stated “ wishful thinking” for Shaw to call him a great inside runner. It was accurate. He ran for just under 1,400 yards in the NFL last year. With teams keying on him all year. Especially as the season wore on and it was obvious that the QB couldn’t play.
But enough of that. Moving forward I think we tend to over analyze things quite honestly. To me it’s quite simple. If they can get back to having a above average to dominate offensive line they’ll be able to run the football and have at least an efficient offense. If they don’t get that line play, they won’t run the ball and they will struggle.
Passing games are more important these days no question about it. And the rules help passing games. But the bottom line is this: to win consistently you have to effectively run the ball on offense and you have to be able to stop the run defensively. Stanford did neither the last couple years. When they were successful they did both. Therein lies the difference.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 05-19-2020
(05-18-2020, 10:36 PM)lex24 Wrote: But enough of that. Moving forward I think we tend to over analyze things quite honestly. To me it’s quite simple. If they can get back to having a above average to dominate offensive line they’ll be able to run the football and have at least an efficient offense. If they don’t get that line play, they won’t run the ball and they will struggle.I can totally agree with every bit of this. We need to be able to run the ball on offense and stop the run on defense. You are correct that this simple dictum is the heart of the matter. The rest is detail. The great thing about "Intellectual Brutality" is that Stanford dictates what will happen, whatever we chose that to be, not the opponent. To do that, we need a dominant OL and a defense that can get stops.
Passing games are more important these days no question about it. And the rules help passing games. But the bottom line is this: to win consistently you have to effectively run the ball on offense and you have to be able to stop the run defensively. Stanford did neither the last couple years. When they were successful they did both. Therein lies the difference.
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - fullmetal - 05-19-2020
Linebacking hasn't sustained excellence since Blake Martinez, and one wonders how bad the LB corps would have been if not for BMart's presence. Peter Hansen finally left Stanford, so we'll get a chance to see if Eric Sanders can be a better LB coach.
Stanford hasn't recruited enough DL since Solly Thomas -- he was the star of the DL and didn't have a great supporting cast. Randy Hart's presence is missed both as a player development coach and as a recruiter. Jury's still out on Diron Reynolds, waiting for him to show us a great stable of DL.
"Moving the pile" is not an inherent skill for RBs, and "pounding up the gut" (which was implied as equivalent to running inside) is not a successful RB tactic, and that is an eminently defensible hill I will take. This begins and ends with OL capability. It's probably easier to keep 5* OL recruits healthy and strong rather than attempt to recruit hyped RB recruits who are successful at running into piles.
None of this matters if we don't have a season though.