Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - 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: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" (/thread-16895.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: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" (/thread-16895.html)
RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - BostonCard - 11-27-2018
I posted earlier, but I will re-up. I'm on record as saying that I didn't think Pritchard should have been elevated to be our offensive coordinator, but that is not an assessment of his competence or experience as an OC. From everything I've heard, Pritchard was considered a rising star ("future head coach material" is the assessment from people who would be in a position to judge). However, I think it would be in everyone's best interest if we had some cross-pollination, bringing in an OC with new ideas and a different perspective, and giving Tavita an opportunity to be exposed to different environments that he could learn from and incorporate into his own offensive style. The best offensive minds (and I am hopeful that Pritchard could become one) can incorporate the best concepts from different systems to develop their own offensive style. The more he is exposed to, the better chance he has to play to his offense's strengths and scheme around weaknesses.
BC
RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - Goose - 11-27-2018
(11-27-2018, 08:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The best offensive minds (and I am hopeful that Pritchard could become one) can incorporate the best concepts from different systems to develop their own offensive style. The more he is exposed to, the better chance he has to play to his offense's strengths and scheme around weaknesses.Absolutely agree. While it is possible to become a great coach without having stops at several different places along the way, it is uncommon. The mere fact it is uncommon will always be a problem for Tavita if he ever HAS to go somewhere else. I am sorry, I can't resist it. There is an opening at USC as I understand it. Wouldn't that be interesting! (Joking, but imagine the uproar if the architect of the greatest upset ever went back there to coach).
BC
OC: Mike Sanford is available/OL Issues - OL84 - 11-28-2018
Sanford for OC:
Shaw will never do it, but Mike Sanford would be a great choice for OC. He just got fired as HC at Western KY, but he was QB coach here, OC at Boise and OC at ND before going to WKY. Stanford and Shaw history, and a track record of success as an OC. Frankly, he should have been OC ahead of Bloomgren in my book.
OL Issues--Calls:
On the OL issue, we had some serious underperformance, which had a lot to do with the nagging injuries experienced by most on the OL. Jury is out on Carberry. But (tuned out if you're sick of hearing this) a major component of the OL issues was dreadful play calling. Before you laugh at questioning our coach, go back and watch how often we ran against numbers this year. Look at that metric alone, and you will be stunned. Yes, Love made it work many times last year, but there is no reason to make it harder on yourself than you need to. As a Walsh protege, Shaw should know that the pro-style West Coast approach is not inconsistent with hard-nosed running.
UCLA Game/OL/Scheme:
At the UCLA game, where I sat in UCLA seats at 50, it was painfully clear how committed the safeties were to stopping the run. But even more clear was how frequently we ran straight into the superior numbers in obvious down and distance situations. Another minor metric to consider is the number of times safeties make plays at the LOS on between the tackle runs. If they are defending the whole filed this should never happen, but the OL can get a body on everyone and the play is still stuffed if we predictably run against numbers in obvious situations.
RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - Hurlburt88 - 11-28-2018
I do wish on 1 of the 6 running plays with which we ended the UCLA game we had called something to a TE or back sneaking out and catching the safeties drawn up.
RE: OC: Mike Sanford is available/OL Issues - CTcard - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 02:47 PM)OL84 Wrote: At the UCLA game, where I sat in UCLA seats at 50, it was painfully clear how committed the safeties were to stopping the run. But even more clear was how frequently we ran straight into the superior numbers in obvious down and distance situations. Another minor metric to consider is the number of times safeties make plays at the LOS on between the tackle runs.
Well, this one is at least checkable without too much effort.
Vs UCLA. Starting safeties Adarius Pickett and Quentin Lake. Backups Blaylock and Guidry.
Pickett made 1/2 such a tackle (with Blaylock)
Lake made 0 such tackles.
Blaylock made 1/2 such a tackle (with Pickett)
Guidry made 0 such tackles.
So, the safeties made a tackle on a run between the tackle at the LOS once.
[The play was a first and 10 from our own 37, in the second quarter. We then made a first down on the next play, but did not score on that drive.]
RE: OC: Mike Sanford is available/OL Issues - OL84 - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 03:51 PM)CTcard Wrote:(11-28-2018, 02:47 PM)OL84 Wrote: At the UCLA game, where I sat in UCLA seats at 50, it was painfully clear how committed the safeties were to stopping the run. But even more clear was how frequently we ran straight into the superior numbers in obvious down and distance situations. Another minor metric to consider is the number of times safeties make plays at the LOS on between the tackle runs.
Well, this one is at least checkable without too much effort.
Vs UCLA. Starting safeties Adarius Pickett and Quentin Lake. Backups Blaylock and Guidry.
Pickett made 1/2 such a tackle (with Blaylock)
Lake made 0 such tackles.
Blaylock made 1/2 such a tackle (with Pickett)
Guidry made 0 such tackles.
So, the safeties made a tackle on a run between the tackle at the LOS once.
[The play was a first and 10 from our own 37, in the second quarter. We then made a first down on the next play, but did not score on that drive.]
CT, I take it you take issue with the observation in general. I won't go looking up the numbers, but you believe that we generally avoid running against numbers?
RE: OC: Mike Sanford is available/OL Issues - CowboyIndian - 11-28-2018
(11-28-2018, 05:08 PM)OL84 Wrote: I won't go looking up the numbers, but you believe that we generally avoid running against numbers?
What part does the QB play in seeing that at the line and changing the play? Does KJ have no leeway in that regard? Otherwise, why call 3 plays in the huddle...or don't we do that anymore?
RE: OC: Mike Sanford is available/OL Issues - BostonCard - 11-28-2018
K
(11-28-2018, 05:08 PM)OL84 Wrote:(11-28-2018, 03:51 PM)CTcard Wrote:(11-28-2018, 02:47 PM)OL84 Wrote: At the UCLA game, where I sat in UCLA seats at 50, it was painfully clear how committed the safeties were to stopping the run. But even more clear was how frequently we ran straight into the superior numbers in obvious down and distance situations. Another minor metric to consider is the number of times safeties make plays at the LOS on between the tackle runs.
Well, this one is at least checkable without too much effort.
Vs UCLA. Starting safeties Adarius Pickett and Quentin Lake. Backups Blaylock and Guidry.
Pickett made 1/2 such a tackle (with Blaylock)
Lake made 0 such tackles.
Blaylock made 1/2 such a tackle (with Pickett)
Guidry made 0 such tackles.
So, the safeties made a tackle on a run between the tackle at the LOS once.
[The play was a first and 10 from our own 37, in the second quarter. We then made a first down on the next play, but did not score on that drive.]
CT, I take it you take issue with the observation in general. I won't go looking up the numbers, but you believe that we generally avoid running against numbers?
I believe he took issue specifically with this (mis)statement.
Quote:Another minor metric to consider is the number of times safeties make plays at the LOS on between the tackle runs.
If the safeties were making plays at the LOS on between the tackle runs, they’d have more than one tackle, combined.
BC
RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - Phogge - 11-28-2018
Why give up motion? Don’t get it. A hallmark of Harballs and early Shaw. Clark Shaugnessey ran a ton more motion than Shaw.
lex24 - lex24 - 11-28-2018
I do agree they should use more motion. As for running against stacked boxes vs UCLA I can only wonder what game he was watching. They scored 49 flipping points. Hey, you score 49 I don’t care if you do it running the Statue of Liberty every flipping play. But the fact is they threw the ball early and often. First 9 plays were passes. 10th was a run. Love got 13. I’m sure against a stacked box. Next 4 plays- passes. Then Love goes for 8 and 12. More stacked boxes no doubt.
But we have the narrative. It’s wrong. But, like Shaw, it’s stubborn. Maybe if they throw 70 passes and score 60 points it will change. But I’m relatively certain that there would still be bitching about running into that stacked box on second three in the third quarter.
(11-28-2018, 08:33 PM)Phogge Wrote: Why give up motion? Don’t get it. A hallmark of Harballs and early Shaw. Clark Shaugnessey ran a ton more motion than Shaw.
RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - Hulk01 - 11-29-2018
Only eight D1 teams passed more frequently than Stanford this season.
This season, #13 Washington State (70% pass) and #15 West Virginia (54%) are the only team that passed more than they ran. 13 of the top 2o teams ran on at least 55% of their plays. Stanford ran on 44% of its plays.
RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - slide - 11-29-2018
(11-29-2018, 06:44 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: Only eight D1 teams passed more frequently than Stanford this season.
This season, #13 Washington State (70% pass) and #15 West Virginia (54%) are the only team that passed more than they ran. 13 of the top 2o teams ran on at least 55% of their plays. Stanford ran on 44% of its plays.
given our rushing futility this year (123rd in the nation in rushing offense; 98th in the nation in ypc), the numbers argue we ran too often and were too slow to adjust to scheme/injury/opponent box stack reality.
RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - Hulk01 - 11-29-2018
121 teams in the country ran more frequently than we did, and we still ran too often?
Re stacked boxes:
in 2016, Christian McCaffrey averaged more yards per carry against eight or more man boxes than he averaged averaged against smaller boxes. You can run against a defense that brings its safeties up and its linebackers nearer the line of scrimmage.
In fact, in 2012 we finally stopped Oregon, holding them to just 14 points, by moving our ILBS, Skov and Tarpley, two yards father back from the line of scrimmage.
As the safety on a team that lost its biggest game of the year when it stuffed the box against a team and watched the fullback go 47 yards for the winning touchdown, I may have a different view of the merit and demerits of running against a heavy box. A heavy box is fine until it isn't, and then it's "what were we thinking?"
And this year, we averaged 4.4 yards per carry in our last four games. That's not stellar, but it's good enough to run as relatively infrequently as we did.
RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - slide - 11-29-2018
(11-29-2018, 08:20 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: 121 teams in the country ran more frequently than we did, and we still ran too often?we average 3.8 ypc and 8.6 ypa so yes I think I'd weight toward more passing attempts.
you can look at the stats but based on memory, the more balance between run/pass we have the worse our offense has been. USB and USC stick out for some reason. weren't we close to 50/50 as you are advocating? what did we produce may be an average of 300 yards for those two games.
RE: OC: Mike Sanford is available/OL Issues - CTcard - 11-29-2018
(11-28-2018, 05:08 PM)OL84 Wrote: CT, I take it you take issue with the observation in general. I won't go looking up the numbers, but you believe that we generally avoid running against numbers?
My initial line of thinking was that for matters such as this, arguments of kind don't mean as much as arguments of degree.
Stanford ran 67 plays vs UCLA. Almost certainly some of them were runs into a stacked box. I would assume that happens to every team in every game ... almost. The issue is how often, and how much does that hurt the offense overall.
I don't have enough tape to go count every single play to check which were runs into a stacked box. However, your metric of safeties making plays at the LOS is easy to check - so I counted. By my own memory, I expected to see something like 4 of these. I was surprised to see only 1, and that seemed noteworthy.
More broadly, Stanford is rarely running the ball on standard downs at this point, so it seems a reach to think that running into stacked boxes is the most important cause of offensive trouble. Others have taken up that theme in this thread.
RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - stupac2 - 11-29-2018
Hulk, one thing to keep in mind with those "top 25 run/pass stats" is that they can be dramatically affected by playing with a lead. I haven't watched much Clemson this year, but for all I know they pass a lot to get a big lead and then just sit on it by running in the second half. What we really want to know is run/pass percentage on standard down with the game within two scores. That tells you what teams really want to do. You can find stats like that for the pros, but I'm not aware of any for college.
RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - Hulk01 - 11-29-2018
Stupac, your point is apt. Clemson prefers to pass in first halves and run in the second halves.
Here are the run percentages for Stanford and four other representative "better" teams:
First quarter run play percentage
Washington 56
Ohio State 53
Oklahoma 53
Stanford 49
Clemson 43
Second quarter percentage
Washington 59
Oklahoma 51
Clemson 48
Ohio State 42
Stanford 34
Third
Washington 57
Clemson 57
Oklahoma 55
Ohio State 50
Stanford 45
Fourth
Oklahoma 75
Washington 70
Clemson 66
Ohio State 58
Stanford 56
Yes, Clemson comes out throwing and then steadily moves to the run,
Oklahoma has a slight run preference. Ohio Statr a slight pass preference.
Washington runs.
Stanford passes.
A reason Stanford may not pass often: Costelli starts games slowly.
More on that next.
RE: OC: Mike Sanford is available/OL Issues - OL84 - 11-29-2018
(11-29-2018, 09:15 AM)CTcard Wrote:(11-28-2018, 05:08 PM)OL84 Wrote: CT, I take it you take issue with the observation in general. I won't go looking up the numbers, but you believe that we generally avoid running against numbers?
My initial line of thinking was that for matters such as this, arguments of kind don't mean as much as arguments of degree.
Stanford ran 67 plays vs UCLA. Almost certainly some of them were runs into a stacked box. I would assume that happens to every team in every game ... almost. The issue is how often, and how much does that hurt the offense overall.
I don't have enough tape to go count every single play to check which were runs into a stacked box. However, your metric of safeties making plays at the LOS is easy to check - so I counted. By my own memory, I expected to see something like 4 of these. I was surprised to see only 1, and that seemed noteworthy.
More broadly, Stanford is rarely running the ball on standard downs at this point, so it seems a reach to think that running into stacked boxes is the most important cause of offensive trouble. Others have taken up that theme in this thread.
CT, thanks for the response. To be clear, the UCLA game was not the best example of running against numbers. The topic was the whole year, not just UCLA. But the safeties were a factor in key running plays and were effectively run blitzing at times. In fact, given the frequency of passing including the 9(?) straight passes to start the game, the UCLA game might be the least problematic game of the year as far as running against numbers.
I know some find my thesis tiresome, but it takes a qualitative judgment so it's difficult to put into numbers. PFF tries to but I don't always agree with their judgment. The reality of the D cannot be adequately assessed by the number of down line or line backers, because teams have mostly become rather accustomed to our packages and used their DB's in tighter alignments so that they can effectively play the run. This may or may not show up numerically.
Is Costello to blame? Earlier in the year I wondered, but it's apparent now that he is not coached to change the play in most cases of running against numbers.
I will also say that many defenses we faced have become more subtle in hiding their run blitzes. SC tried to be subtle and blitz out of their base, and that happened be Love's only 100 yard game this season. We still have not figured how to block SDSU's scheme, but we effectively countered in the second half by attaching the man coverage on the outside.
I will not be crunching the numbers, and the OL clearly missed a lot more blocks than they should have. But it is clear to me that for Coach Shaw commitment to the run means running against numbers on a regular basis. It's closer to Bo Schembechler than Bill Walsh. It's worked remarkably well for longer than I would have expected, and I hope we maintain our physical identity. But I also hope we continue to spread the field with the passing game and empower the QB attack the more weakly defended areas of the field on run and pass plays.
lex24 - lex24 - 11-29-2018
I do agree, oline that what Shaw wants to do (and what was remarkably successful) is more akin to a Bo Schembechler than a Bill Walsh offense. After all, it’s a continuation of Harbaugh’s scheme.
I was the one that came out hardest on your post. Historically under a Shaw. Stanford certainly has run against numbers. Successfully. Particularly if you factor in synergy. I do not think they have done that this year very much. Heck you have to try to run at times. Right?
(11-29-2018, 03:08 PM)OL84 Wrote:(11-29-2018, 09:15 AM)CTcard Wrote:(11-28-2018, 05:08 PM)OL84 Wrote: CT, I take it you take issue with the observation in general. I won't go looking up the numbers, but you believe that we generally avoid running against numbers?
My initial line of thinking was that for matters such as this, arguments of kind don't mean as much as arguments of degree.
Stanford ran 67 plays vs UCLA. Almost certainly some of them were runs into a stacked box. I would assume that happens to every team in every game ... almost. The issue is how often, and how much does that hurt the offense overall.
I don't have enough tape to go count every single play to check which were runs into a stacked box. However, your metric of safeties making plays at the LOS is easy to check - so I counted. By my own memory, I expected to see something like 4 of these. I was surprised to see only 1, and that seemed noteworthy.
More broadly, Stanford is rarely running the ball on standard downs at this point, so it seems a reach to think that running into stacked boxes is the most important cause of offensive trouble. Others have taken up that theme in this thread.
CT, thanks for the response. To be clear, the UCLA game was not the best example of running against numbers. The topic was the whole year, not just UCLA. But the safeties were a factor in key running plays and were effectively run blitzing at times. In fact, given the frequency of passing including the 9(?) straight passes to start the game, the UCLA game might be the least problematic game of the year as far as running against numbers.
I know some find my thesis tiresome, but it takes a qualitative judgment so it's difficult to put into numbers. PFF tries to but I don't always agree with their judgment. The reality of the D cannot be adequately assessed by the number of down line or line backers, because teams have mostly become rather accustomed to our packages and used their DB's in tighter alignments so that they can effectively play the run. This may or may not show up numerically.
Is Costello to blame? Earlier in the year I wondered, but it's apparent now that he is not coached to change the play in most cases of running against numbers.
I will also say that many defenses we faced have become more subtle in hiding their run blitzes. SC tried to be subtle and blitz out of their base, and that happened be Love's only 100 yard game this season. We still have not figured how to block SDSU's scheme, but we effectively countered in the second half by attaching the man coverage on the outside.
I will not be crunching the numbers, and the OL clearly missed a lot more blocks than they should have. But it is clear to me that for Coach Shaw commitment to the run means running against numbers on a regular basis. It's closer to Bo Schembechler than Bill Walsh. It's worked remarkably well for longer than I would have expected, and I hope we maintain our physical identity. But I also hope we continue to spread the field with the passing game and empower the QB attack the more weakly defended areas of the field on run and pass plays.
RE: Shaw: "I learned a lot this year" - StanfordMatt - 11-29-2018
My unscientific observation is that when we have had success running this season, it's largely been out of spread formations. I think focusing on how many defenders are in the box can miss the point. When we bring in our jumbo sets, the defense has no choice but to load the box because they are no receivers split out wide to defend. While we've had success with this approach in the past, it hasn't worked this year. I don't have any issues with our run-pass balance this season. My main issue has been with the balance between runs out of spread sets versus jumbo sets.