The CardBoard
Worth giving Patu a shot? - 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: Worth giving Patu a shot? (/thread-23541.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - lex24 - 10-30-2022

(10-30-2022, 07:33 AM)winflop Wrote:  McKee is NOT the problem. The swiss cheese OL is the biggest problem, combined with a lack of a running game and a lack of speed in the receiving corps which largely elminates a deep threat.

I'll also throw plenty of shade at the RPSlow plays which simply isn't working, if it ever did. Without a legit running game, and with a porous OL, defenses don't need to send extra rushers to get to the QB so the LBs can slack off. That's what UCLA did all night long, and yet ShawVita still kept calling RPSlow plays even into the fourth quarter.

The biggest problem is the scheme.  And I rarely take that position. I don’t know that much about the ins and outs of the slow garbage. But it seems to me at a minimum you need a running back that’s a home run threat. Because you’re trying hold the linebackers and slow the down linemen. Without a  legitimate home run  running threat that’s not gonna happen. Then you need a QB that can make quick decisions. Receivers that have YAC ability. And a mobile QB. 0-4 doesn’t cut it.

I also think it is an “anti-physical“ offense. Based more on holding the rush through deception then actually being able to freaking block the guy in front of you. Plus he can’t run at all. And he has very little escapability. Thus it’s gotta come out of his hand quick or forget it.

Add to the fact that this was absolutely the wrong year to play an up-tempo offense given the defensive shortcomings and I find the whole thing beyond perplexing. Were it me I would’ve gone to a pro style offense with McKee behind center a fair amount and in a regular shotgun.  Use double  TE’s a full back. use  play action try to run the freaking ball and otherwise have him in five and seven step drops looking to get the ball downfield. I’d slow the game down. Take as much air out of the ball as possible. And my practices would be about getting my offense and defensive lines to play more physically.

They still would not have been good. They don’t have the personnel. That’s also Shaws fault of course. But I don’t think they would’ve been anemic. Which is the best description that I can say that’s not R rated about this offense.

The article on Harbaugh was illuminating. To get where they are today he went back to what he has preached. Physical old time Big Ten physical football. Stanford thrived when they played that style under both Harbs and Shaw. They’ve got away from it and here’s what we got.

I remember when Stanford had an identity. I mean Oregon and others were talking about adjusting to meet Stanford’s physical play. It was music to my ears. That’s long gone.

Shaw felt he needed to change the offense. He did. But he went the wrong way. He needed to go back to 2012-13. Not just schematically, but philosophically. Preach physical play. Reinvent the tunnel workers union. Create a mentality that you will physically beat the guy in front of you. I don’t know if it would’ve been any more effective. But at least to me it would’ve been a logical move. This to me isn’t.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - winflop - 10-30-2022

Great post. I agree the scheme is the biggest problem, doubly so after the injury to EJ and even more after Filkins went down . Even with a healthy OL & EJ/Filkins it’s still a BAD scheme for this roster

Not sure I would have gone back to the height of Intellectual Brutality but last year’s scheme would have been a good idea to build on with a veteran roster that already knew it

All the more reason to fire Shaw and let the next HC decide if they want to keep ANY assistants

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - gailtate - 10-30-2022

I doubt that very many are still wedded to the fantasy that this coach is capable of The Great Turnaround (as likely as a visit this week by Charlie Brown's Great Pumpkin). Thus, we can now see and understand the connection between Shaw's years-long faltering and the current state of the program. Still, I'm curious as to if any compelling arguments for his retention are still out there. Anyone? Anyone?

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Red80 - 10-30-2022

(10-30-2022, 08:05 AM)lex24 Wrote:  
(10-30-2022, 07:33 AM)winflop Wrote:  McKee is NOT the problem. The swiss cheese OL is the biggest problem, combined with a lack of a running game and a lack of speed in the receiving corps which largely elminates a deep threat.

I'll also throw plenty of shade at the RPSlow plays which simply isn't working, if it ever did. Without a legit running game, and with a porous OL, defenses don't need to send extra rushers to get to the QB so the LBs can slack off. That's what UCLA did all night long, and yet ShawVita still kept calling RPSlow plays even into the fourth quarter.

+ 1,000,000
This is my echo. The ironic thing is that a big segment of Stanford fans complained about the offenses of 2012 and 2013. They wanted Shaw to open up the offense, to get more points, yards, WOW plays. Winning the Pac 12 Championship wasn't good enough. Unbelievable! 

Shaw did listen to his critics (Rabbit Ears after the Michigan State fiasco?) and tried to change the offense in 2014. Disaster, as I knew it would be. The offense looked a lot like most of the schools in P12, just without the right personnel to make it go. Stanford did return to heavy formation power running for the final three games of 2014 and routed their opponents, including a highly motivated UCLA team that was playing for a berth in the P12 Title Game. Too little, too late. 

Stanford hasn't played "Stanford Football" since 2017. Offensively, they look like everyone else, which is an absolute joke considering the type of talent they have, or don't have. My hope was the Shaw would make a concerted effort to realign with the contrarian Smash Mouth brand of football that had made his teams successful and a dreaded opponent to play. He's lost me now. I see no evidence that Stanford will ever return to "Big Boy" football, and with it any chance to compete at a high level. 

P.S. Troy Walters and Troy Taylor are not "The Answer" either. 

The biggest problem is the scheme.  And I rarely take that position. I don’t know that much about the ins and outs of the slow garbage. But it seems to me at a minimum you need a running back that’s a home run threat. Because you’re trying hold the linebackers and slow the down linemen. Without a  legitimate home run  running threat that’s not gonna happen. Then you need a QB that can make quick decisions. Receivers that have YAC ability. And a mobile QB.  0-4 doesn’t cut it.

I also think it is an “anti-physical“ offense. Based more on  holding the rush through deception then actually being able to freaking block the guy in front of you. Plus he can’t run at all. And he has very little escapability. Thus it’s gotta come out of his hand quick or forget it.

Add to the fact that this was absolutely the wrong year to play an up-tempo offense given the defensive shortcomings and I find the whole thing beyond perplexing. Were it me I would’ve gone to a pro style offense with McKee behind center a fair amount and in a regular shotgun.  Use double  TE’s a full back. use  play action try to run the freaking ball and otherwise have him in five and seven step drops looking to get the ball downfield. I’d slow the game down. Take as much air out of the ball as possible.  And my practices would be about getting my offense and defensive lines to play more physically.

They still would not have been good. They don’t have the personnel. That’s also Shaws fault of course. But I don’t think they would’ve been anemic. Which is the best description that I can say that’s not R rated about this offense.

The article on Harbaugh was illuminating. To get where they are today he went back to what he has preached. Physical old time Big Ten physical football. Stanford thrived when they played that style under both Harbs and Shaw. They’ve got away from it and here’s what we got.

I remember when Stanford had an identity. I mean Oregon and others were talking about adjusting to meet Stanford’s physical play. It was music to my ears. That’s long gone.

Shaw felt he needed to change the offense. He did. But he went the wrong way.  He needed to go back to 2012-13. Not just schematically, but philosophically. Preach physical play. Reinvent the tunnel workers union. Create a mentality that you will physically beat the guy in front of you.  I don’t know if it would’ve been any more effective. But at least to me it would’ve been a logical move.  This to me isn’t.


RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Austroturf - 10-30-2022

(10-30-2022, 07:47 AM)Phogge Wrote:  If I was a guy with a pro future like Bailey I’d transfer to Michigan or Ohio State in a heartbeat. Play in front of 108,000 screaming Pom Pom waving fans where football is king. Not in front of 9,000 silent folks out for a good tailgate.

Yes, when I watched the opening of the Penn State/Ohio State game yesterday, the contrast to Stanford's cavernous stadium could not have been more striking: wall-to-wall people screaming pathologically for their team.  A veritable sea of fan-motion from end to end of Beaver stadium.  Even in the best of times, we never had scenes like that in Stanford stadium.  Not saying we should, either.  But if you are a player and football is #1 in your life, probably best to go where it is #1 in the lives of coaches, fans and university administrators, as well.  You'll be coached by the best, play against the best and get the highest appreciation.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - qwerty49 - 10-30-2022


I also think it is an “anti-physical“ offense. Based more on  holding the rush through deception then actually being able to freaking block the guy in front of you. Plus he can’t run at all. And he has very little escapability. Thus it’s gotta come out of his hand quick or forget it.

[/quote]

I suspect Shawvita tried to play the cards they were dealt.  One on hand the Slo-mesh acknowledges the fact that the OL is NOT physical and would have to accomplish its task by delay and some deception.  OTOH they forgot (or maybe are just now finding out) that McKee is really not suited for this system due to all the factors you and others have already cited.  

Does Wake still use this system?  I think they were ranked #10 last week.  What kind of QB do they have?

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Snorlax94 - 10-30-2022

On the one hand, trying Patu is crazy talk. McKee is a great quarterback and nfl teams know this and when he drafts he is going to do well. The receivers are dropping balls, the linemen aren’t picking up blitzes, and the running backs are injured. If you swap in a new quarterback, with less experience and less chemistry with the receivers, you are just going to get more dropped balls, and there will be less recognition of defenses for the right protection scheme or run audible.

On the other hand, I could be in favor of a “Patu package.” Opposing teams know we have injured rbs, a frozen statue quarterback, and an oline not getting the job done, so DCs get to plan all week for ways to pin their ears back and hunt the qb. It is ridiculous how much opposing pass rushes are feasting on us.

If there were a “Patu Package”, defenses couldn’t go all out assuming they can aggressively pass rush with impunity. They’ll have to prepare to hold more in coverage for the scenario — “what if the scrambling qb is in”. The Patu Package could gel with the big receivers and disrupt the defense’s rhythm and aggressiveness. If he’s ready.

I believe Shaw is trying to do this with the wildcat packages but the wildcat is too predictable. The running qb needs to represent a believable pass threat to keep defenses honest.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Row80Critic - 10-30-2022

(10-30-2022, 01:14 PM)gailtate Wrote:  I doubt that very many are still wedded to the fantasy that this coach is capable of The Great Turnaround (as likely as a visit this week by Charlie Brown's Great Pumpkin). Thus, we can now see and understand the connection between Shaw's years-long faltering and the current state of the program. Still, I'm curious as to if any compelling arguments for his retention are still out there. Anyone? Anyone?

I got noth'n.   The results speak for themselves and say more than any of us ever could.   

Who wakes up in the middle of the night and says "Eureka -- I've got it!  I'll have a totally immobile QB stand in the backfield with the RB-du-jour for 2 to 4 seconds after the snap, to survey the field as the OL breaks down, then when there's no time/protection left to pass and no QB ability to run, I'll let the RB take the ball and fight like hell to see if he can get back to the line of scrimmage.  This is really going to dig us out of the hole."  Sheesh.