Just 3 things . . . - 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: Just 3 things . . . (/thread-22525.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: Just 3 things . . . (/thread-22525.html)
RE: Just 3 things . . . - yvonne - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 07:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: And there is a contingent of people on this board who think the problem is not that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy enough, but that he strayed from what was working, and that we should go back to being a ball-control, power running team, a proposition that I am sympathetic to.
Put me in that camp.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Goose - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 09:17 PM)yvonne Wrote:I think the problem became they couldn't recruit the linemen or the RBs needed to stay with the power run. Gaffney and (even more) CMac were the backs who moved us away from the big back who can run inside all the time. At that point (2014), we were not the "power run" team any more. For a while, it looked good, because CMac was a once in a generation player, but the problem was there. In 2016, it caught up with us. Our OL wasn't very good. Love was a great back, but he was home run or loss of one. Again, the line wasn't good enough. This evolution has been going on for a while. Shaw has been making some lemonade with lemons, but you can't do that forever. Wit KJ and Scarlett, we were in a "throw into coverage and let JJ go get it mode". This isn't a good plan, but with the personnel we had, that was all you could do. With Mills and Fehoko in 2020 we had a legitimate deep threat, so despite our lack of a running game, we played pretty well. In 2021, even without injuries, we did not have that. While we have excellent receivers we have no real over the top threat. Our OL can't create holes for the run game. It isn't that Shaw hasn't adapted. He has. However, as one option after another falls away there is nothing left to call. Shaw needs to fix the OL. Until that happens, the rest doesn't matter much, offensively speaking.(11-06-2021, 07:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: And there is a contingent of people on this board who think the problem is not that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy enough, but that he strayed from what was working, and that we should go back to being a ball-control, power running team, a proposition that I am sympathetic to.
Put me in that camp.
The defense is another tale of woe, and perhaps a worse one. Our DL is non-existent. We have two legit players on the DL and the rest are "make do". There are too many good to adequate teams out there to survive this condition, no matter how we scheme it.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Phogge - 11-06-2021
McKee coming out? LOL. If he does he better go somewhere that has real QB coaching and he ought to sit for a number of years. He is absolutely not ready. But will he develop with the current Stanford staff? Nope. Transfer? Very few teams have a drop back offense. He may have run in HS but he’s no runner.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Red80 - 11-06-2021
(11-06-2021, 09:17 PM)yvonne Wrote:(11-06-2021, 07:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: And there is a contingent of people on this board who think the problem is not that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy enough, but that he strayed from what was working, and that we should go back to being a ball-control, power running team, a proposition that I am sympathetic to.
Put me in that camp.
I'm probably the strongest advocate for Phone Booth football for Stanford. I clamored for it for years before it actually arrived. I was thrilled when it transpired in 2012 and 2013. Both of the those teams had mostly average players on offense, but the schemes they ran gave them a big tactical and physical advantage over opponents whose defenses were accustomed to facing spread, uptempo offenses that were much less physical than Stanford's. "Intellectual Brutality" was born out of this approach to offense and Stanford made a name for itself on a national level when they employed the Power O system. Up until 2018 (Exceptions in '14 and '16), Wisconsin and Stanford were the two teams that were the most recognized for running this kind of O. Now it's just Wisconsin, and they continue to win.
(11-06-2021, 07:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-06-2021, 03:53 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: Not to quibble, since I think we all agree Shaw fielded one of the worst Stanford football efforts of our lifetimes last night. But, the difference I see with Shaw in terms of predictability and play-calling is that Shaw keeps doing things that don't work, drive-to-drive, quarter-to-quarter, week-to-week, and season-to-season. It's one thing to run up the middle with Gerhart 37 times a game, if it's working. It's an entirely different thing to run the same plays week after week that simply are not working, and then to do it with such amazing predictability. It's just inexplicable.
I don’t know how you can look at the offense 10 years ago and compare it today, and conclude Shaw does the same thing season to season. It’s probably easier to describe the things that are similar to 10 years ago than the things that are different. We still huddle, and we still feature passes to
the tight end. And that’s about it for similarities to 10 years ago.
Let’s start with formation. We used to run most of our plays out of the i-formation with 21 personnel (1 rb, 1 fb, 1 te, and 2 wrs). Now we run most of our plays out of the shotgun with 11 personnel. The fullback rarely features, and we are more likely to run an empty backfield than we are to have 2 running backs. An empty backfield was something we only used to run on third and long, and even then, we liked having a running back in there for protection.
Next, let’s look at the run/pass mix. In 2011, we had 417 passing attempts and 518 rushing attempts (running 55.4% of the time). This year, we have had 282 passing attempts and 250 rushing attempts (running just 47% of the time). The disparity is even more stark when you take sacks into account, as the 27 times our QB’s count as sacks are considered rushes, even though they were dropbacks. If you reclassify the times our Qb’s were sacked, we only ran 41.9% of the time (Luck was only sacked 11 times in 2011, so even if you reclassify the runs in 2011, we still ran it 54.2% of the time).
The disparity is even more significant if you look at first down. While we still run more than we pass on first down (51.7% rushes), back then we ran it a lot more than we passed it on first down (63% rushes). And that was with Andrew Luck, a senior QB.
Moreover, how we run has changed. As I mentioned, our primary formation and personnel has changed. So has the offensive line’s blocking scheme. Whereas before our quintessential play was Power, with a pulling guard and a lead fullback and a zone blocking scheme, now we run duo (or at least, that’s what we were supposed to have been running, but we do it so poorly it’s hard to tell) and count on the running back to read the linebacker and pick his hole. Duo is a man blocking scheme, and we rarely, if ever pull our linemen (probably because they are not nimble enough to do it effectively). I don’t know that we’ve run power this season. Sacrilege!
Furthermore, how we pass has changed. Because we used to run effectively out of the I formation, a lot of our passing was built off play action passing, of which Luck and Hogan were masters. The receivers were not barn burners, but took advantage of the play fake and crisp route running to create separation from the DB. Now we occasionally run some play action, but mostly we are running three wide receiver sets with big tall receivers, where we count on their height to win the ball one on one against the DB’s. In 2011, our top receiving targets were 6’1” Griff Whalen, 6’2” Chris Owusu, and 6’2” Ty Montgomery (along with 6’6” TE Coby Fleener). This year, our top receivers are 6’3” Elijah Higgins, 6’5” John Humphreys, and 6’4” Brycen Tremayne, (along with 6’5” TE Benjamin Yurosek); our receivers now are 2-3 inches taller than 10 years ago, and we rely on that plus the occasional slant, for most of our passing yardage. Other than the fact that the tight end still features heavily in our passing offense, the passing game we use today would have been unrecognizeable 10 years ago.
Shaw may or may not be stubborn. It is probably fair to criticize him for taking too long to adjust from his game plan when it doesn’t work (see Nov 5). But for goodness sakes, people, let’s put to rest the idea that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy in 10 years. Except for our tempo, or lack thereof, we are probably much closer to a run and shoot offense now than we are a power offense of 10 years ago. And there is a contingent of people on this board who think the problem is not that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy enough, but that he strayed from what was working, and that we should go back to being a ball-control, power running team, a proposition that I am sympathetic to. It is of course hard to disentangle cause from effect, but our offensive production has declined as we’ve moved away from being a power running, ball control offense.
Whatever it is, it can’t be any worse than what we witnessed yesterday, can it?
BC
This is really an excellent and cogent analysis of Stanford's offense, before and now. Agree 100%
RE: Just 3 things . . . - old spanish trail - 11-07-2021
Agree also. Excellent exposition, BC.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Austroturf - 11-07-2021
Just one comment on BC's magnum opus.
Yes, we are passing more now than in the early Shaw days, but out of necessity, not by intention or design. I am certain Shaw would have loved to continue the power run game; but too often, he tried, failed and had to start slinging the ball to get us out of a hole. In the Utah game, the first series (trailing 0-7) was run, run, run, punt. In the second series (trailing 0-14), it was run, sack, sack, punt. In the third series (trailing 0-14), it was run, pass (inc.), pass (inc.), punt. And by the time the 4th series started, we were down 0-21, so Shaw had to start mixing things up even more (by inserting Sanders, for example). And, obviously, when your defense cannot stop the opponent and you are already down by three scores, you cannot play power run, high TOP football the way we so successfully did in 2012 and 2013. You have to change, but it doesn't appear to be by design.
My gripe with Shaw is that he continues to believe we can impose our will on the defense by slamming bodies into the line. That used to work (long ago), but has now become almost an absurd caricature of what we used to be. Take Austin Jones in the Utah game. He carried the ball 9 times for 33 yards. Take out the one 19-yard carry, and he had 8 carries for 14 yards. That's not even 2 yards a pop. Peat's numbers were even worse (1 yard net on 4 carries). Smith's numbers look better, but only because of one long 32-yard ramble. Take that out, and he's at 4.5 yards a carry. The difference in this game is that we didn't have a Costello, Mills or McKee to come out slinging and try to jump-start an insipid offense. Couple that with a sieve of a defense, and you have the disaster that unfolded.
In agreement with others on this board, I consider the O-line top priority: if this underperforming unit does not improve drastically, offensive schemes and play-calling will not matter.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Goose - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 02:58 AM)Austroturf Wrote: The difference in this game is that we didn't have a Costello, Mills or McKee to come out slinging and try to jump-start an insipid offense. Couple that with a sieve of a defense, and you have the disaster that unfolded.I agree that not having a QB who could come out slinging was the difference. However, I don't agree that that would "jump start an insipid offense". That slinging would BE the offense. Shaw has desperately attempted to maintain some balance on offense and not completely abandon the run. However, even with that attempt at balance our run game struggles to reach 100 yards even in games we have won.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - OutsiderFan - 11-07-2021
I honestly can't believe anyone thinks using the I formation and running power out of it 55% of the time is a recipe for winning football games in 2021.
Why not just run the wishbone or single wing?
RE: Just 3 things . . . - BostonCard - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 08:44 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I honestly can't believe anyone thinks using the I formation and running power out of it 55% of the time is a recipe for winning football games in 2021.
Why not just run the wishbone or single wing?
Other than the fact that they ran it out of the shotgun, Utah beating us to submission running the ball 46 times out of 68 snaps (68%), mostly between the tackles, seemed like a pretty good validation for a run-first approach. I haven’t done the math recently, but I remember a post by CTCard in which he showed that Stanford is among the most pass-happy teams in the pac-12. Yeah, some of it is out of necessity, but still, if you look at some of the most successful teams in the country: Georgia, Michigan State, Oregon (to name three), all of them run much more than they pass. The I-formation and Power as a play has gone out of fashion, but the concept of power running between the tackles has not.
BC
RE: Just 3 things . . . - GK3 - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 09:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-07-2021, 08:44 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I honestly can't believe anyone thinks using the I formation and running power out of it 55% of the time is a recipe for winning football games in 2021.
Why not just run the wishbone or single wing?
Other than the fact that they ran it out of the shotgun, Utah beating us to submission running the ball 46 times out of 68 snaps (68%), mostly between the tackles, seemed like a pretty good validation for a run-first approach. I haven’t done the math recently, but I remember a post by CTCard in which he showed that Stanford is among the most pass-happy teams in the pac-12. Yeah, some of it is out of necessity, but still, if you look at some of the most successful teams in the country: Georgia, Michigan State, Oregon (to name three), all of them run much more than they pass. The I-formation and Power as a play has gone out of fashion, but the concept of power running between the tackles has not.
BC
It seems to me that our basic issue on offense is that we do not have an offensive line capable of either run blocking at least decently or pass blocking decently. Nothing works on offensive if the offensive line is incompetent. Sometimes out guys look like they are lost out there, unsure what they are supposed to be doing and as a result do nothing.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - OutsiderFan - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 09:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-07-2021, 08:44 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I honestly can't believe anyone thinks using the I formation and running power out of it 55% of the time is a recipe for winning football games in 2021.
Why not just run the wishbone or single wing?
Other than the fact that they ran it out of the shotgun, Utah beating us to submission running the ball 46 times out of 68 snaps (68%), mostly between the tackles, seemed like a pretty good validation for a run-first approach. I haven’t done the math recently, but I remember a post by CTCard in which he showed that Stanford is among the most pass-happy teams in the pac-12. Yeah, some of it is out of necessity, but still, if you look at some of the most successful teams in the country: Georgia, Michigan State, Oregon (to name three), all of them run much more than they pass. The I-formation and Power as a play has gone out of fashion, but the concept of power running between the tackles has not.
BC
Were I to guess, the reason Stanford is so soft on both sides of the LOS has much more to do with (lack of) player development and coaching than it does any individual scheme per se. Every coach apologist says the players are responsible for executing, but the reality is college coaches decide who to have on their roster and are responsible for preparing them to play on the field. So lack of execution is always the coach's responsibility, especially considering only the coach is paid in college football.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Red80 - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 09:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-07-2021, 08:44 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I honestly can't believe anyone thinks using the I formation and running power out of it 55% of the time is a recipe for winning football games in 2021.
Why not just run the wishbone or single wing?
Other than the fact that they ran it out of the shotgun, Utah beating us to submission running the ball 46 times out of 68 snaps (68%), mostly between the tackles, seemed like a pretty good validation for a run-first approach. I haven’t done the math recently, but I remember a post by CTCard
in which he showed that Stanford is among the most pass-happy teams in the pac-12. Yeah, some of it is out of necessity, but still, if you look at some of the most successful teams in the country: Georgia, Michigan State, Oregon (to name three), all of them run much more than they pass. The I-formation and Power as a play has gone out of fashion, but the concept of power running between the tackles has not.
BC
The I Formation and Power were not in fashion in '12, '13, '15, and '17, Stanford's most successful seasons under Shaw. Hardly anyone utilized the I, Power I, and 3 TE sets those years, and that was a big reason for its success. Though the Play, Power, was used and is still used from a variety of
formations in both college and pro football.
Stanford hasn't run Power very much since 2117 because they can't. They don't have the talent in the OL that they once had (Especially at OG), there are no Daniel Marx's or Owen Marecic's at Fullback, and "TE U" no longer exists. I also believe that the loss of Turley is significant here.
I'm not saying that Stanford should run the Power O system right now, because I know they can't. I'm imploring Shaw (I've sent him emails) to BRING BACK Power and recruit and develop the type of players to make it work.
Bottom Line: There is NO offense that would make this team very good right now. Running, throwing, wide-open, conservative, you name it, the personnel, partially due to injuries, is just not very good. Schemes and play-calling run a distant second to the Jimmie's and Joe's. Do I put much of that on Shaw? You bet your A$$ I do!
RE: Just 3 things . . . - 81alum - 11-07-2021
There may be an explanation for the decline of our program that is different from the blame game on the coach, but if this alternative explanation is correct, it may be much more devastating for us, since a coaching change won't fix it.
The overall decline of Stanford football over the last few years is certainly due to a decline in the quality of recruiting--I think we all agree on that. But what if the decline of recruiting is due to the growing awareness over the same time span of the risks of CTE?
We have seen the numbers of young men playing high school football in decline in all regions of the United States except the South. This might also explain how the SEC becomes more and more dominant. College teams outside the south simply have a shallower, less talented pool of high school players to recruit from than they once did.
And what if it is even worse for Stanford, who recruits nationally? What if the fear of CTE runs higher in families that put special value on the quality of college education? Such families may be more aware of the risks. The problem would manifest itself in all those potential Stanford recruits deciding early in high school not to go out for the team. If this is true, then we are losing the recruiting battle not to other programs, but to CTE fears.
I had one AD tell me that he would never let his own kids play in a sport like football. I too am a hypocrite. I love watching the sport, but would never want a child of mine to play it. Maybe the answer is simpler than we would like to admit: there just are fewer and fewer quality players available to be recruited by Stanford, and the dearth of talent affects us more profoundly than schools who recruit from different demographics than we do.
I realize that this is speculative on my part, but it is a hypothesis worth exploring. Our decline coincides pretty well with growing CTE awareness, and I wonder if this is more than just correlation.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Austroturf - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 11:18 AM)81alum Wrote: There may be an explanation for the decline of our program that is different from the blame game on the coach, but if this alternative explanation is correct, it may be much more devastating for us, since a coaching change won't fix it.
The overall decline of Stanford football over the last few years is certainly due to a decline in the quality of recruiting--I think we all agree on that. But what if the decline of recruiting is due to the growing awareness over the same time span of the risks of CTE?
We have seen the numbers of young men playing high school football in decline in all regions of the United States except the South. This might also explain how the SEC becomes more and more dominant. College teams outside the south simply have a shallower, less talented pool of high school players to recruit from than they once did.
And what if it is even worse for Stanford, who recruits nationally? What if the fear of CTE runs higher in families that put special value on the quality of college education? Such families may be more aware of the risks. The problem would manifest itself in all those potential Stanford recruits deciding early in high school not to go out for the team. If this is true, then we are losing the recruiting battle not to other programs, but to CTE fears.
I had one AD tell me that he would never let his own kids play in a sport like football. I too am a hypocrite. I love watching the sport, but would never want a child of mine to play it. Maybe the answer is simpler than we would like to admit: there just are fewer and fewer quality players available to be recruited by Stanford, and the dearth of talent affects us more profoundly than schools who recruit from different demographics than we do.
I realize that this is speculative on my part, but it is a hypothesis worth exploring. Our decline coincides pretty well with growing CTE awareness, and I wonder if this is more than just correlation.
Yes, the point you are raising contains a lot of conjecture, but I think it is correct and certainly part of the problem. Even though there is a big effort to make football safer for the players, the potential for severe and long-lasting injury is still there. Football has deep cultural roots in the south, so it retains its preeminent position among sports in that geography. Not so much in other geographies. The decline of the Pac-12 in football could also be linked to a decline in the number of young men in places like Washington, Oregon, Arizona, California and Colorado choosing to compete in football. Only one team from these states is currently in the AP top 25 (Oregon).
RE: Just 3 things . . . - teejers1 - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 12:01 AM)old spanish trail Wrote: Agree also. Excellent exposition, BC.
But what's the point of it? That Shaw has been an ineffective offensive mind whether he is run first or pass first? Or that the only time Shaw's O is worth a damn is when he has behemoths up front and can run power/phone booth football? Sorry, that's not good enough.
Was Stanford a "power running" team during the Elway years? in 1999-200? No. But they were good, balanced offenses.
The notion that phonebooth football is the only way Stanford can succeed is, imo, a surrender mentality and a cop out. Recruit good OL players; coach 'em up; and run a good schem on O. So far as I can tell, Stanford is (at least) 0-for-the-last-2, and maybe 0-3 (though I think OL recruiting rankings have been decent).
RE: Just 3 things . . . - slide - 11-07-2021
(11-06-2021, 08:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I worry about what happens when McKee is gone, which could be as soon as after this season. That Patu didn’t see action until the last series really makes me wonder if there will be a viable QB in the mix after McKee leaves, because I don’t know what would make a coach see the work product on the field with West behind center and not say, “yeah he’s a true freshman, but he can’t be any worse”.
BC
yes, Houston we have lots of problems and more so if McKee leaves early.
the QB stable next year would be:
West, the nominal starter. he has posted the worst and 2nd worst statistical passing starting QB ratings in Stanford history since such ratings have been kept (pulled from a Matt Squeri post on TOS)
Patu, the backup. Patu almost was a starter in HS. he played behind a QB who went to D-II or D-III -- I cannot recall.
Daniels, the newcomer. he is the starter for his HS team (a very good team), but he roughly splits time with another QB. a big throwing game for Daniels is a dozen or so throws. he appears accurate and has some good pocket presence, and may be a better runner than Patu. neither Patu or Daniels have the HS running statistics that McKee did.
to recap the Shaw QB recruiting & signings file from 2018 onward:
2018: West, McKee
2019: Gap
2020: Gap's younger brother
2021: Patu
2022: Daniels
in '23, we have 1 QB offer out, Dylan Lonergan from GA. the Rivals database lists his interest as "cool." Lonergan recently listed a top 4, including UGA and Alabama, but no mention of Stanford.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Goose - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 02:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Was Stanford a "power running" team during the Elway years? in 1999-200? No. But they were good, balanced offenses.Which Elway, Jack or John? If you meant John, no, they weren't good balanced offenses. They were neither good nor balanced. If you meant Jack, they had one winning season. A guy by the name of Brad Muster had a lot to do with that one winning season. They did tend towards power running, although more like Toby and Andrew Luck did.
I agree that Stanford can do well without playing phone booth football, but we shouldn't conflate that with the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - BostonCard - 11-07-2021
The point of it was to challenge the notion that Shaw doesn’t change his offensive philosophy year to year. That’s demonstrably false, and it is annoying that this lazy trope keeps surfacing.
More broadly, Shaw (and for that matter even someone like Nick Saban) is only going to be as good as the players he recruits and develops. The play calling matters much less than anyone here thinks. Yes, Stanford would have sucked on Friday no matter what Shaw called. But the converse is also true. They might not have hung 50 on us, but does anyone here think that against our defense, Utah couldn’t have dismantled us slinging the ball around?
Shaw needs to up his recruiting and player development game, no matter what offensive philosophy he chooses to pursue. Shaw has shown he can win playing phone booth football, if he has the horses. Without the players, Shaw has shown he can lose trying to run the ball, and trying to pass it. So it seems to me that instead of complaining that Shaw doesn’t run the offensive system that we each individually think he ought to run, that we are better off focusing our useless consternation on the lack of player development. We better all hope that he follows up the good 2022 recruiting class with another solid, balanced effort, instead of his penchant for taking a year off between solid recruiting classes. We better hope that Shaw fixes whatever is wrong that his coaches can’t get the players to tackle, block, or position themselves properly, and can’t get the players to build strength and endurance so that they are not physically manhandled in the trenches.
To the extent that I am bearish about the next couple of years of Stanford football, it’s not because I think that Shaw is stubborn and can’t come up with a game plan that puts his players in a position to win, it’s that he has left his players soft, and fixing that is a multi-year process that starts with recruiting and requires sustained player development, which we lack at the moment.
BC
RE: Just 3 things . . . - winflop - 11-07-2021
You guys can keep arguing about schemes and formations and whether/how they’ve changed. When you’re being physically dominated like that, NOTHING WORKS
Until we get our swagger back in the trenches, it’s gonna be ugly
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Red80 - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 03:09 PM)winflop Wrote: You guys can keep arguing about schemes and formations and whether/how they’ve changed. When you’re being physically dominated like that, NOTHING WORKS
Until we get our swagger back in the trenches, it’s gonna be ugly
Ding!