System-wide failure - 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: System-wide failure (/thread-16567.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: System-wide failure (/thread-16567.html)
RE: System-wide failure - Goose - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 07:46 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I'm thinking we are probably converging on agreement, if we replace "uncovered" with "open".
I agree. We are getting to agreement. I would have to admit that Kaden Smith was actually open on four of the six. The last pass was a tough throw. KJ had to drop it in the middle of a bunch of Utes. That said, we did have separation, so I guess calling that open is legit. Where I am going with all this is trying to evaluate the possibility of relying on a pass first and pass most of the time approach. Right now, I just don't think we have the personnel to really do that. Maybe we are in better place than I first thought about getting open, but I am not convinced we are that much better. We still have to throw into coverage, which is certainly not optimal. The again, if we can't manage any kind of a running game, what are our options?
People here slam Shaw for persisting in running, or, more accurately, trying to run the ball. That is what the "plan" has been for years, and what this team is built to do. I can sure understand the philosophy that we have to keep trying "until w get it right". But we can lose a lot of games before that happens, if ever. OTOH, we haven't recruited to run the air raid, or anything even remotely like it. so, quo vadis?
RE: System-wide failure - CTcard - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 09:40 PM)Goose Wrote: ... Where I am going with all this is trying to evaluate the possibility of relying on a pass first and pass most of the time approach. Right now, I just don't think we have the personnel to really do that. ...
People here slam Shaw for persisting in running, or, more accurately, trying to run the ball. That is what the "plan" has been for years, and what this team is built to do. I can sure understand the philosophy that we have to keep trying "until w get it right". But we can lose a lot of games before that happens, if ever. OTOH, we haven't recruited to run the air raid, or anything even remotely like it. so, quo vadis?
I am not sure that the issue is exactly that we don't have the personnel to have a pass all-the time offense, but we don't have a passing system to do that. Our deep seam routes, back shoulder outs, and box out short yardage throws are designed to complement a strong run game with deep strikes and red zone/third down conversions. The combination isn't consistent and safe enough to support a pass 65% of the time game plan as we saw vs. Utah. It's not something that you can just install one week when you've spent the past ten years building more or less the opposite concept offense.
With Love back and healthy, I think we have to run a reasonable amount (>45% ?) if only to keep up the effectiveness of the pass game.
RE: System-wide failure - OutsiderFan - 10-09-2018
(10-08-2018, 11:20 PM)CTcard Wrote: I am not sure that the issue is exactly that we don't have the personnel to have a pass all-the time offense, but we don't have a passing system to do that.
This is my beef. The passing system just isn't very diverse. It's mostly the same routes to the same people, doesn't include the RBs enough, WRs are rarely thrown to in the middle of the field, and the pocket isn't moved enough to change the launch point of the QB. Costello has way too many passes batted down for being 6-5.
When is the last time Stanford ended up passing out of a play you thought looked like a run? When was the last time Stanford ran the ball when you thought it was looking like a pass? The talent is there, obviously. It just isn't being maximized, IMO.
Cal fans are whining about their offense stinking, but they don't have the personnel Stanford does, so they are complaining about recruiting. Stanford is getting similar production to Cal on offense, with far more talent. This is a real issue.
RE: System-wide failure - CTcard - 10-09-2018
(10-09-2018, 06:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(10-08-2018, 11:20 PM)CTcard Wrote: I am not sure that the issue is exactly that we don't have the personnel to have a pass all-the time offense, but we don't have a passing system to do that.
This is my beef. The passing system just isn't very diverse.
I think that our current pass game design is perfectly good for a team with a strong running game.
My concern is that the coaches appeared to have no idea that we would in fact be a team with no run game. Self-assessment is key.
RE: System-wide failure - BostonCard - 10-09-2018
(10-09-2018, 10:40 AM)CTcard Wrote:(10-09-2018, 06:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(10-08-2018, 11:20 PM)CTcard Wrote: I am not sure that the issue is exactly that we don't have the personnel to have a pass all-the time offense, but we don't have a passing system to do that.
This is my beef. The passing system just isn't very diverse.
I think that our current pass game design is perfectly good for a team with a strong running game.
My concern is that the coaches appeared to have no idea that we would in fact be a team with no run game. Self-assessment is key.
I don't think anyone anticipated that we would struggle in the run game. On paper, we returned the best running back in the country and four fifths of an offensive line that enabled him to be the top running back in the country last year. We aren't just struggling, our running game has cratered. We went from 5.9 ypc (second in the conference) and 202 yards per game (third in the conference) to 3.1 ypc (last) and 86 yards per game (second to last).
I think any reasonable observer would not just be surprised at the changes; they would be shocked. So I don't hold the staff responsible for not anticipating it. What is concerning, however, is that six games into the season nobody seems to have any insights into why, let alone developed a plan to fix it (that I can see, and of course, I don't know what the coaches are thinking or doing).
So here is where I disagree with OutsiderFan. While I agree that our passing offense is not optimally suited for the kind of offense we are running, it seems to me that it would be much better to try to fix the running game, which is clearly not working, than "fix" the passing game, which works well (if sub-optimally). That's not to say that we shouldn't tinker around the edges (for example, the first pass to Smith was a short pass just past the line of scrimmage, well in front of the defender, that went for six or seven yards; we could do with more of that). Wholesale changes to the offensive philosophy, however, would be a mistake (witness Kelly's luck changing the Bruins offense, and he had an entire offseason to do so). A merely adequate running game (4.5 yards per cary and 170 yards per game, which is about what the median teams, Utah and ASU average) would leave us with a much more powerful offense and would put us in a position to win most of the rest of our games. So, I would focus my energy on getting some marginal improvement in the run game, which would make our passing game more effective.
BC
RE: System-wide failure - Goose - 10-09-2018
(10-09-2018, 11:51 AM)BostonCard Wrote: So here is where I disagree with OutsiderFan. While I agree that our passing offense is not optimally suited for the kind of offense we are running, it seems to me that it would be much better to try to fix the running game, which is clearly not working, than "fix" the passing game, which works well (if sub-optimally). That's not to say that we shouldn't tinker around the edges (for example, the first pass to Smith was a short pass just past the line of scrimmage, well in front of the defender, that went for six or seven yards; we could do with more of that). Wholesale changes to the offensive philosophy, however, would be a mistake (witness Kelly's luck changing the Bruins offense, and he had an entire offseason to do so). A merely adequate running game (4.5 yards per cary and 170 yards per game, which is about what the median teams, Utah and ASU average) would leave us with a much more powerful offense and would put us in a position to win most of the rest of our games. So, I would focus my energy on getting some marginal improvement in the run game, which would make our passing game more effective.
BC
Totally agree. The play-action, semi-roll-out short pass shows the coaches know how to "tinker around the edges" effectively. Last year, in his first two games, they moved the pocket with KJ. Not on many downs, but on some. We can do that too, and I think it will help.
However, "fixing" the run game is our best hope, I think. We aren't going to become WSU in the last 6 or so games of the season, for the reasons BC has stated. I also believe, in addition, that we don't have the receivers to do it. They were recruited to run the offense we have been running. The idea of striving for a more efficient rushing offense, even with the understanding that it hasn't happened so far, is, I believe, our only real choice.
Nobody likes where we are. What we need to do is get to a "better place". That is possible only if we don't attempt to go a bridge too far and put ourselves in an even worse position. However, I think the coaches should consider dialing back the expectations on each running play from a possible home run to "let's make sure we at least get three yards". Getting a bunch of runs stuffed puts too much pressure on the passing game. On another thread, somebody likened Scarlett to Remound Wright. If Scarlett could reproduce the 4.5 YPC average Wright had in 2014 in a running back by committee year, I think we could live quite handily with that. Perhaps wishful thinking. I know we all hope that Love will return, get lots of touches, and be healthy, but until we get a line that can make holes with zone blocking and slowly developing runs, I suspect Love is going to have trouble getting free reliably. Hopefully, we will get the opportunity to find out.
RE: System-wide failure - CTcard - 10-09-2018
(10-09-2018, 11:51 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-09-2018, 10:40 AM)CTcard Wrote: My concern is that the coaches appeared to have no idea that we would in fact be a team with no run game. Self-assessment is key.
I don't think anyone anticipated that we would struggle in the run game. On paper, we returned the best running back in the country and four fifths of an offensive line that enabled him to be the top running back in the country last year. We aren't just struggling, our running game has cratered. We went from 5.9 ypc (second in the conference) and 202 yards per game (third in the conference) to 3.1 ypc (last) and 86 yards per game (second to last).
I think any reasonable observer would not just be surprised at the changes; they would be shocked. So I don't hold the staff responsible for not anticipating it. What is concerning, however, is that six games into the season nobody seems to have any insights into why, let alone developed a plan to fix it (that I can see, and of course, I don't know what the coaches are thinking or doing).
Again, this should be a difference between a fan and a coach.
The coaches see guys and groups perform every day in practice. They know who's healthy, who's not, who has had their development held back for whatever reason, who is working well together and not; and just broadly ought to be able to observe the level of performance.
So they should, and must, see what are likely hurdles approaching. If important areas are not performing, they have to either fix it or develop a plan B.
I mean if the coaches aren't responsible for this, who is?
This seems to be the second major time that the coaching staff apparently completely misread the strengths and weaknesses of their offense. In 2014 they thought they didn't have a run game and thought Hogan could be a high volume passer. So they tried to institute a pass-first, pass-heavy, pass-to-control-the-ball offense. It was awful, and notably mistake filled. Meanwhile, they never noticed that while the early season run game wasn't great it was better than the pass game. More importantly they never really figured out what they had sitting on the bench in McCaffrey until the next season (and a little at the end of the 2014 season).
This season it didn't take long to figure out the run game isn't working (how could you not), and they have certainly adjusted by throwing the ball most of the time. However, they didn't anticipate this when it was time to install a scheme, so they don't really have great options.
Quote:So here is where I disagree with OutsiderFan. While I agree that our passing offense is not optimally suited for the kind of offense we are running, it seems to me that it would be much better to try to fix the running game, which is clearly not working, than "fix" the passing game, which works well (if sub-optimally).
I don't think there is any question at all that the "best" thing to do would be to fix the run game. However, it is not clear to me that it is going to be fixed - certainly there hasn't been much movement in that direction so far. I hold out faint hope that a healthy Love and an OL with improving health and increasing reps together will show improvement. At mid-conference level performance there is enough in the pass game that the offense could still end up quite good.
RE: System-wide failure - Snorlax94 - 10-09-2018
One reason why I am in favor of being more patient with the running game and trying more to tweak it is based on the benefits of having an identity and sticking to it.
A danger of lacking an identity is that it hurts your recruiting and the program in the longer term. Will all those offensive linemen, pro-style QBs and RBs want to come if we don't run a run-first, pro-style system? I also love the results of this style of play, even if it is, as some complain, "boring" (I don't). But a smashsmouth style means fewer plays run, which means fewer injuries, making it a great fit like a relatively thinner program like Stanford's (and its admissions requirements). A smashmouth style relies on getting offensive linemen, which is a great fit for Stanford's admissions requirements (did you know the highest Wonderlic scores (I know, a flawed measure) go to Tackles, Centers, QBs, Guards and Tight Ends?). And while attacks like the Air Raid or gadget-heavy offenses can be fun to watch, can you think of any that was able to deliver results in a P5 conference as consistently as Stanford's?
Look at how "stubborn" Chip Kelly is willing to stick with his system, even when the personnel doesn't fit *at the moment*. But kids could be watching at home thinking the right talent would get an opportunity there because the program sticks to its identity.
I definitely agree Stanford needs to get its stuff together. The run game must improve. The blocking must improve. A lot of tactical changes should be made (strength? drills? schematic? game plans?) within the season. And if those results don't come in, which hasn't happened yet, but if that happened, then you could talk personnel changes in the off-season.
But I think there are a lot of possible tweaks that can and should be made. And I'd give the coaches a chance to figure it out. They have many times in the past, so I'm hopeful they will figure it out again this time. Anyway, a well-timed bye week for now.
RE: System-wide failure - BostonCard - 10-09-2018
(10-09-2018, 01:36 PM)CTcard Wrote: This seems to be the second major time that the coaching staff apparently completely misread the strengths and weaknesses of their offense. In 2014 they thought they didn't have a run game and thought Hogan could be a high volume passer. So they tried to institute a pass-first, pass-heavy, pass-to-control-the-ball offense. It was awful, and notably mistake filled. Meanwhile, they never noticed that while the early season run game wasn't great it was better than the pass game. More importantly they never really figured out what they had sitting on the bench in McCaffrey until the next season (and a little at the end of the 2014 season).
I think there is a risk of over-interpreting the lessons of 2014. I agree with you that moving to a pass first offense was problematic, and that we would have been more successful with a more balanced offense. That being said, the offense averaged a bit over 4.3 yards per cary (the number is depressed due to sacks), which is our worst running average between 2009 and 2017 (obviously, this year is much worse; 2009 happens to be the first year that cfbstats has data for), and was about average for a Pac-12 team that year. Nor did something magic happen in the last three games, even though the offense played a lot better overall. Against Cal, UCLA, and Maryland, we averaged 4.34, 4.49, and 4.58 yards per carry. The big difference, of course, is we ran a lot more (47, 45, and 45 rushes, including sacks), but we weren't a ton more effective doing so. McCaffrey pulled that average up, but he started seeing more carries against Utah (8, a season high to that point), a game where we only scored 17 points in a loss.
The other thing about McCaffrey is that our coaches emphasize pass blocking in running backs, and, especially in 2014, where we needed max protection to compensate for a poor pass-blocking OL, while McCaffrey's skill, especially as a freshman, was catching passes out of the backfield.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have given McCaffrey more touches, earlier, but it is easy to become enamored with an un-disproveable counterfactual.
BC
RE: System-wide failure - CTcard - 10-09-2018
(10-09-2018, 03:02 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think there is a risk of over-interpreting the lessons of 2014. I agree with you that moving to a pass first offense was problematic, and that we would have been more successful with a more balanced offense. That being said, the offense averaged a bit over 4.3 yards per cary (the number is depressed due to sacks), which is our worst running average between 2009 and 2017 (obviously, this year is much worse; 2009 happens to be the first year that cfbstats has data for), and was about average for a Pac-12 team that year. Nor did something magic happen in the last three games, even though the offense played a lot better overall. Against Cal, UCLA, and Maryland, we averaged 4.34, 4.49, and 4.58 yards per carry. The big difference, of course, is we ran a lot more (47, 45, and 45 rushes, including sacks), but we weren't a ton more effective doing so. McCaffrey pulled that average up, but he started seeing more carries against Utah (8, a season high to that point), a game where we only scored 17 points in a loss.
The other thing about McCaffrey is that our coaches emphasize pass blocking in running backs, and, especially in 2014, where we needed max protection to compensate for a poor pass-blocking OL, while McCaffrey's skill, especially as a freshman, was catching passes out of the backfield.
You missed the key element of what happened at the end of 2014.
The issue all season long was that the run game wasn't all that much worse than other years, but the coaches abandoned it. The pass game was good enough to succeed against bad teams (big numbers vs OSU, WSU) but not against good teams with a particular issues of "mistakes" like holding, interceptions, sacks, etc.
Over the final three games Stanford ran the ball a ton more - and not just with McCaffrey. Wright remained our main back and had 48 carries in the three games, including his two highest workload games of the year. [McCaffrey had 19 carries in those three games, never as many as Wright]. The key was that they ran a ton more and the per carry numbers maintained. That allowed the pass game to flourish. The pass numbers became WAY better: 10.7, 12.3, and 9.7 yds per attempt with 1 sack and 1 INT over three games, PER=186.
But that was 2014, its not the situation today. Our run game is not working at all at the moment. The pass game hasn't collapsed upon ramping up the number of plays, but there have been issues of "mistakes", interceptions and sacks, that have killed us. While we need to keep running enough to support the pass game, clearly the best mixture right now involves a lot more passing than it did in 2014.
RE: System-wide failure - BostonCard - 10-09-2018
(10-09-2018, 08:23 PM)CTcard Wrote: You missed the key element of what happened at the end of 2014.
The issue all season long was that the run game wasn't all that much worse than other years, but the coaches abandoned it. The pass game was good enough to succeed against bad teams (big numbers vs OSU, WSU) but not against good teams with a particular issues of "mistakes" like holding, interceptions, sacks, etc.
Over the final three games Stanford ran the ball a ton more - and not just with McCaffrey. Wright remained our main back and had 48 carries in the three games, including his two highest workload games of the year. [McCaffrey had 19 carries in those three games, never as many as Wright]. The key was that they ran a ton more and the per carry numbers maintained. That allowed the pass game to flourish. The pass numbers became WAY better: 10.7, 12.3, and 9.7 yds per attempt with 1 sack and 1 INT over three games, PER=186.
But that was 2014, its not the situation today. Our run game is not working at all at the moment. The pass game hasn't collapsed upon ramping up the number of plays, but there have been issues of "mistakes", interceptions and sacks, that have killed us. While we need to keep running enough to support the pass game, clearly the best mixture right now involves a lot more passing than it did in 2014.
First off, I completely agree with you that the situation is this year is different, and I agree that the optimum run pass mix right now favors passing more frequently.
With regards to 2014, I finally decided to look at the data. I am a bit reluctant to buy into the narrative that the team inexplicably passed more than it ran, because you have all sorts of confounding factors happening at the same time, including different amounts of running/passing, increasing use of McCaffrey, Hogan's father's illness, etc, and teasing these things apart with only 13 games to do so with is fraught.
For example, it would be tempting to think that the coaches finally realized that the team was built to run after the Utah game. And, in fact, we ran it a bit more than 2/3 of the time in those last three games (because I'm lazy, I am not reclassifying sacks). And/but we also ran it more than we passed for the first 4 games, against Davis, USC, Army, and UW. But then there is a middle portion of the season, where we seem to abandon the run (Notre Dame, UW, and ASU) and we lost two out of three games. We seem to rediscover the run in a three game stretch that included OSU, Oregon, and Utah (we beat the Oregons but lost to Utah), running about 55% of the time. So, yes, we ran a lot more than we passed in the final three games of the season, but there were stretches where we ran reasonable amount. I think you and I may have been colored unduly by that horrible stretch and especially by that ASU game, where we ran only 36% of the time.
There is a trend towards higher pass efficiency rating the more we run (p = 0.06 if you run a simple regression), though it is heavily influenced by the two the two ends (the UCLA game where we ran 70% of the time and Hogan had a PER of 222, and the ASU game where we ran 36% of the time and Hogan had his second lowest PER (94). Between those two bookends, there is no correlation between PER and percent of plays that are runs (and, in fact, between 50 and 60%, the correlation appears negative). In addition, determining causality is hard, since we were more likely to get a lead when Hogan was passing well, and thus run the ball to kill the clock, whereas when Hogan was throwing poorly, we were more likely to fall behind and have to throw more. You could use cfbstats' situational stats to get around that, but I don't have the time.
I think a lot of things played a role, but I don't think the season lends itself to as well-defined a narrative as I had believed.
BC
RE: System-wide failure - Beeg_Dawg - 10-10-2018
(10-09-2018, 02:52 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: One reason why I am in favor of being more patient with the running game and trying more to tweak it is based on the benefits of having an identity and sticking to it.
A danger of lacking an identity is that it hurts your recruiting and the program in the longer term. Will all those offensive linemen, pro-style QBs and RBs want to come if we don't run a run-first, pro-style system? I also love the results of this style of play, even if it is, as some complain, "boring" (I don't). But a smashsmouth style means fewer plays run, which means fewer injuries, making it a great fit like a relatively thinner program like Stanford's (and its admissions requirements). A smashmouth style relies on getting offensive linemen, which is a great fit for Stanford's admissions requirements (did you know the highest Wonderlic scores (I know, a flawed measure) go to Tackles, Centers, QBs, Guards and Tight Ends?). And while attacks like the Air Raid or gadget-heavy offenses can be fun to watch, can you think of any that was able to deliver results in a P5 conference as consistently as Stanford's?
Look at how "stubborn" Chip Kelly is willing to stick with his system, even when the personnel doesn't fit *at the moment*. But kids could be watching at home thinking the right talent would get an opportunity there because the program sticks to its identity.
I definitely agree Stanford needs to get its stuff together. The run game must improve. The blocking must improve. A lot of tactical changes should be made (strength? drills? schematic? game plans?) within the season. And if those results don't come in, which hasn't happened yet, but if that happened, then you could talk personnel changes in the off-season.
But I think there are a lot of possible tweaks that can and should be made. And I'd give the coaches a chance to figure it out. They have many times in the past, so I'm hopeful they will figure it out again this time. Anyway, a well-timed bye week for now.
Comparing Chip Kelly to David Shaw? Really? Kelly is in year one, Shaw is most senior coach in the P12? Kelly is running his offense because it his offense. He is showing recruits how they will fit at UCLA. Add to that Mora was a recruiting failure, Chip doesnt have much to work with.
Was hoping Mora would survive at UCLA on 8 win seasons. Really sorry to see him get the axe.
RE: System-wide failure - BostonCard - 10-10-2018
I too was disappointed that Mora was axed, as I am sure Shaw is. But I’m not sure how accurate the idea that mora was not a good recruiter is. UCLA was consistently at or near the top of the recruiting rankings during Moras tenure, which maybe says more about him as a coach than if he were not a good recruiter.
BC
RE: System-wide failure - CTcard - 10-11-2018
(10-10-2018, 11:09 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I too was disappointed that Mora was axed, as I am sure Shaw is. But I’m not sure how accurate the idea that mora was not a good recruiter is. UCLA was consistently at or near the top of the recruiting rankings during Moras tenure,
Mora's UCLA classes by 247sports (# nationally, # Pac 12)
2012: #18, #4
2013: #7, #1
2014: #18, #3
2015: #12, #2
2016: #13, #2
2017: #20, #4
Chip Kelly's class
2018: #19, #4
Quote:... which maybe says more about him as a coach than if he were not a good recruiter.
I don't think you learn more about a coach by ignoring one of the most important jobs they do.
Though you may learn about relative strengths and weaknesses by … well looking at their strengths and weaknesses.