We need to talk about the offensive line... - 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: We need to talk about the offensive line... (/thread-16438.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: We need to talk about the offensive line... (/thread-16438.html)
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - CTcard - 09-25-2018
(09-25-2018, 09:28 AM)fullmetal Wrote: This is a slight variant on your classic counter play--seal the strong of the line and kick out with pulling blockers.
What I was taught many a moon ago, in Power the FB is responsible for the kick out block on the end and the pulling guard leads the back through the hole. In Counter, the pulling guard does the kick out and the FB leads the back.
[Unless of course I got that backwards because I am old and my memory is shot.]
Since Williams had the primary kick out block on Jelks, that would make this a variant on Power by that definition. While it turned out that Fanaika also had a kick out block, it was really just getting rid of the first guy he found in the hole.
BostonCard Wrote:However, Wilson's block should have been the key, as the Ducks still had numbers at the point of attack, and it really took a misplay by Oregon's #15 to spring Love.
Nominally yes, as the duckies did have one more defender there than we had blocker. The eventual success is split between #15's bad angle, Fanaika managing to get in #15s way after blocking #35, and Love himself being quick and taking the best line through the hole.
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - BostonCard - 09-25-2018
(09-25-2018, 12:24 PM)CTcard Wrote:BostonCard Wrote:However, Wilson's block should have been the key, as the Ducks still had numbers at the point of attack, and it really took a misplay by Oregon's #15 to spring Love.
Nominally yes, as the duckies did have one more defender there than we had blocker. The eventual success is split between #15's bad angle, Fanaika managing to get in #15s way after blocking #35, and Love himself being quick and taking the best line through the hole.
Well, the whole point of pulling a guard is to have numbers at the point of attack and being able to put a blocker on every putative tackler. It means that the likelihood of the play working against a more disciplined opponent is low, unless the play can be redesigned (if flawed) or the execution cleaned up (if it was an execution problem).
BC
Speaking of the offensive line, it may be worth reviewing their PFF grades.
https://stanford.rivals.com/news/stanford-s-pff-grades-in-a-win-of-polar-opposite-halves-at-oregon
| Player | Overalll | Pass Block | Run Block |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wilson | 62 | 62 | 62 |
| Herbig | 62 | 68 | 59 |
| Fanaika | 57 | 70 | 53 |
| Burkett | 55 | 59 | 54 |
| Dalman | 54 | 56 | 53 |
| Hall | 46 | 62 | 52 |
| Little | 45 | 46 | 52 |
Rough day for our all-everything LT, which jibes with what I thought at the time. On the other hand, not a good game for other tackle either, which is not the impression I got at the time, although he was better in pass protection.
BC
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Phogge - 09-25-2018
He’s not close to all everything...yet.
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - fullmetal - 09-26-2018
(09-25-2018, 12:24 PM)CTcard Wrote:(09-25-2018, 09:28 AM)fullmetal Wrote: This is a slight variant on your classic counter play--seal the strong of the line and kick out with pulling blockers.
What I was taught many a moon ago, in Power the FB is responsible for the kick out block on the end and the pulling guard leads the back through the hole. In Counter, the pulling guard does the kick out and the FB leads the back.
[Unless of course I got that backwards because I am old and my memory is shot.]
Since Williams had the primary kick out block on Jelks, that would make this a variant on Power by that definition. While it turned out that Fanaika also had a kick out block, it was really just getting rid of the first guy he found in the hole.
BostonCard Wrote:However, Wilson's block should have been the key, as the Ducks still had numbers at the point of attack, and it really took a misplay by Oregon's #15 to spring Love.
Nominally yes, as the duckies did have one more defender there than we had blocker. The eventual success is split between #15's bad angle, Fanaika managing to get in #15s way after blocking #35, and Love himself being quick and taking the best line through the hole.
Ah, you're right. So, we should be running Power more often...
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - OutsiderFan - 09-26-2018
I didn't think Hall played poorly at all. Little gave up one sack and was pretty good otherwise. The run blocking was a problem as everyone is aware.
After watching some of the game again, I really do wonder why they are running so few power plays (any?), and I sure would love to see a sprint draw or some quick hitting traps. Everything is so damn slow developing and really doesn't take advantage of Love's explosiveness. Give him any daylight and he's gonna get at least 4 yards even if he runs into a tackler because he is such a strong runner. His yards after contact bely his smallish stature.
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - fullmetal - 09-26-2018
Yeah, we need to give Love a chance to get rolling downhill. Anything except get tackled by a backside defender :( He's too fast to deserve that kind of setup for failure...
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - BostonCard - 09-26-2018
(09-26-2018, 04:47 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I didn't think Hall played poorly at all. Little gave up one sack and was pretty good otherwise. The run blocking was a problem as everyone is aware.
After watching some of the game again, I really do wonder why they are running so few power plays (any?), and I sure would love to see a sprint draw or some quick hitting traps. Everything is so damn slow developing and really doesn't take advantage of Love's explosiveness. Give him any daylight and he's gonna get at least 4 yards even if he runs into a tackler because he is such a strong runner. His yards after contact bely his smallish stature.
As I think CTCard alluded to, the scheme over the last four years (McCaffrey and Love) has been designed to give them an option to watch the play develop and chose which hole to hit. Power basically forces the running back to go into the B gap (occasionally the C gap, but usually we've run it between the playside guard and tackle).
This year, I don't think our staff has confidence that the fullback can consistently kickout block the DE.
BC
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - newguy - 09-26-2018
i'm beginning to think we should just start passing more (at least against Notre Dame), beginning on our first offensive play from scrimmage. i just don't see an alternative.
and if our first pass falls incomplete, for God's sake, quit running on 2nd and 10. it's just not working.
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - washingtonismoney - 09-26-2018
Stanford used to do this, but for some reason hasn't this year -- some reverses, jet sweeps, etc. You can use misdirection that doesn't involve passing. Maybe the problem is that a lot of the edge skill players (other than the sadly injured Wedington) aren't wriggly guys. Osiris St. Brown, maybe. Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing some of that.
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Hurlburt88 - 09-26-2018
I think we will see these plays in the second half of the season. I think Shaw likes to set them up a bit.
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - BostonCard - 09-26-2018
(09-26-2018, 03:58 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: Stanford used to do this, but for some reason hasn't this year -- some reverses, jet sweeps, etc. You can use misdirection that doesn't involve passing. Maybe the problem is that a lot of the edge skill players (other than the sadly injured Wedington) aren't wriggly guys. Osiris St. Brown, maybe. Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing some of that.
Also, I am not convinced we've been effective sealing the edge, which you kind of need to run some of these types of plays.
BC
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - pcgoode - 09-27-2018
Some interesting stats vs Oregon for the second half and OT:
Total yards:
Stanford 259 plus Alfieri 80 yard return for TD
Oregon 198
Turnovers:
Stanford: 0
Oregon: 3
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - washingtonismoney - 09-27-2018
(09-26-2018, 05:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Also, I am not convinced we've been effective sealing the edge, which you kind of need to run some of these types of plays.
BC
Perhaps, but the backside edge defender has been consistently crashing down without remorse this year. They need a way to control him -- read-option, reverse, jet sweep, whatever.
(09-27-2018, 10:33 AM)pcgoode Wrote: Some interesting stats vs Oregon for the second half and OT:
Total yards:
Stanford 259 plus Alfieri 80 yard return for TD
Oregon 198
Turnovers:
Stanford: 0
Oregon: 3
Yeah, there's been this meme that Oregon dominated Stanford and the Cardinal basically only won because of Duck hijinks. While that perception has some degree of truth, it's way overstated. Computer rating systems typically punish teams that win in (what they "perceive" to be) fortunate circumstances. But the rating systems held Stanford steady after the Oregon win. That's a tell.
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - qwerty49 - 09-27-2018
[quote="washingtonismoney" pid='231100' dateline='1538083061']
Perhaps, but the backside edge defender has been consistently crashing down without remorse this year. They need a way to control him -- read-option, reverse, jet sweep, whatever.
quote]
That has been a problem forever. The fact that it hasn't been fixed after several seasons indicates to me that there isn't a clear solution. Or perhaps that staff does not consider it a problem.
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - washingtonismoney - 09-27-2018
(09-27-2018, 02:32 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: That has been a problem forever. The fact that it hasn't been fixed after several seasons indicates to me that there isn't a clear solution. Or perhaps that staff does not consider it a problem.
Right, but as always it's a question of degree. I don't recall it occurring with the same frequency as this year (so far). Perhaps uncoincidentally, there have been fewer plays attempting to punish that tendency. Shaw has long had solutions -- the occasional reverse, bootleg, Spider 2 Y Banana -- and they generally work. (For example, Wedington had 3 rushes in 2017 and Rector 5 in 2016, for 15+ yards a pop. Some other rushes are less obvious statistically, but I recall Barry J. Sanders and Ty Montgomery getting these types of plays in the past.)
That's been enough to tamp down the incidence of the weakside defender crashing down with abandon, albeit with some frustrating exceptions.
To be fair, the coaches called a lot of bootlegs against UC-Davis, only for all of those plays to fail. But I still would like to see more attempts here. Even failed attempts can help.
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Goose - 09-27-2018
(09-27-2018, 02:42 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: Right, but as always it's a question of degree. I don't recall it occurring with the same frequency as this year (so far).
There were also quite a few last year. Defenses are learning. The previous years, there was probably some reluctance to "sell out" as much as we are seeing now. Teams have seen game film where that approach has worked against us, so they try it too. What may not have been a problem if it happened sometimes now IS a problem when it happens "all the time."
Quote:...Even failed attempts can help.Probably not much. Opposing defenses know that the toss to Love is our bread and butter. That and similar plays are what we want to do. The current wisdom is to accept the occasional 15 yard jet sweep in order to take away the other stuff. We are not built to run those kind of plays all the time.
In my opinion, we do need to run more quick hitting runs. If the back side crashes, so what? He will be behind the play. I think that is the best way to stop the backside tackles. The question is, can the Guard, Tackle, and Fullback do what needs to be done. This isn't our "preferred" approach, but it will cut down on the backside tackles without totally changing our focus.
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - martyup - 09-28-2018
I just see our running plays being way too slow to develop. By the time Love has the ball and takes a step forward, the entire 11 defenders are moving forward to stop the run. Before he gets to the LOS, our blockers have made their initial contact and are trying to maintain contact with defenders that are shucking blocks and closing gaps. The one play that BL broke for a TD was the exception. He followed a lead block by the FB and hit the hole fast. On the other long run, he broke the outside and made it around the corner. We cannot expect our lineman to hold their blocks that long.
If we could run a trick play where Love takes the handoff and then pitches back to Costello for a pass, there would be no one defending a TE who released from a block and headed upfield. We have to keep defensive secondaries more honest. Love is a magnet and magnets can be used for many purposes.
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Remy28 - 09-29-2018
The offensive line is definitely underperforming to this point but Bryce Love has also gained too much weight which has had an impact on his agility and explosiveness.
To Love's credit, in my opinion, he looked 3-4 pounds lighter and perhaps 1/2 step faster in last week's Oregon game (Sept 22nd) in comparison to how he looked against USC on Sept 8th. He still didn't look as agile and as explosive as he did in 2017. I think Love simply either overshot his target/optimal weight and/or gained the weight too quickly.
If he loses more weight as the season progresses, I predict his [Bryce] performance will improve.
Back in my youth, I was a sprinter and running back in high school with smaller joints. The result was that weight gain (including muscle) had more of a negative impact on my agility and explosiveness than it did for guys with larger joints.
Watching video of Bryce from 2017 in comparison to 2018, I think his gaining weight has improved his ability as a blocker in pass protection but it has had a negative impact on his ability to make big plays in the run game. Unless he corrects this, his draft stock will drop as teams would prefer a Chris Johnson type game-breaker with questionable blocking skills in pass-pro versus a RB with good pass-pro skills but lacks the "big play" ability. No RB is getting picked in the 1st round just because he's good in pass-pro.
Bryce has dropped from RB#1 to RB#6 in this year's draft class based on current evals of an NFL Scout that I've known for 18-19 years.
2017 vs 2018 - This has very little to do with production but it is about quickness, agility, and explosiveness. This is something that has been a passion of mine for years and actually led me to conduct somewhat related independent research in Human/Sports Performance as an undergrad. Now this was over 20 years ago at the Nike-Coach K Human Performance Lab (K-Lab) in Durham but I am still confident in stating that his weight gain has negatively impacted his performance "to this point" in 2018.
2017-Several runs by Bryce
Stanford vs USC-(September 9th)
https://youtu.be/6KXOLw7_4EM?t=1
Stanford vs San Diego St-(September 16th)
https://youtu.be/5gLzJSHhBTs?t=235
Stanford vs Arizona St (September 16th)
https://youtu.be/v4aTQk0YhJA
2018-Several runs by Bryce
Stanford vs USC-(September 8th)
https://youtu.be/m8r6hpzKgTc?t=19
https://youtu.be/m8r6hpzKgTc?t=27
https://youtu.be/m8r6hpzKgTc?t=60
Stanford vs Oregon-(September 22nd)
https://youtu.be/3f58bJ94Uy4?t=106
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - martyup - 09-29-2018
I have been thinking to myself that BL looks a little slower than last season. However, I'm not sure we can attribute it all to weight gain. Perhaps his ankle injury from last season has slowed him a bit.
However, given a hole to run through, he is still the best running back in college football IMO. He just has been given very few good chances for big gains so far this season. All of that will change tonight in South Bend. Tonight he will remind the world why he gained over 2100 yards last season. Tonight he will run through golden domers so fast that the cameras will have a hard time keeping up. Tonight, we get the Love we all expect and deserve. Tonight the Irish will get more Love than they ever imagined. (Note to the Woofing Gods: This is my prediction, not a boast).
RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - qwerty49 - 09-29-2018
I’m glad someone dared to raise this point about Love appearing to have lost half a step this year.
The other half that he’s losing IMHO is due to the extra juking he appears to think he needs. Bryce should be Bryce, he ain’t no McCaffrey.
We really need Bryce and the OL on all cylinders if we are going to win this game.
(09-29-2018, 04:30 AM)Remy28 Wrote: The offensive line is definitely underperforming to this point but Bryce Love has also gained too much weight which has had an impact on his agility and explosiveness.
To Love's credit, in my opinion, he looked 3-4 pounds lighter and perhaps 1/2 step faster in last week's Oregon game (Sept 22nd) in comparison to how he looked against USC on Sept 8th. He still didn't look as agile and as explosive as he did in 2017. I think Love simply either overshot his target/optimal weight and/or gained the weight too quickly.
If he loses more weight as the season progresses, I predict his [Bryce] performance will improve.
Back in my youth, I was a sprinter and running back in high school with smaller joints. The result was that weight gain (including muscle) had more of a negative impact on my agility and explosiveness than it did for guys with larger joints.
Watching video of Bryce from 2017 in comparison to 2018, I think his gaining weight has improved his ability as a blocker in pass protection but it has had a negative impact on his ability to make big plays in the run game. Unless he corrects this, his draft stock will drop as teams would prefer a Chris Johnson type game-breaker with questionable blocking skills in pass-pro versus a RB with good pass-pro skills but lacks the "big play" ability. No RB is getting picked in the 1st round just because he's good in pass-pro.
Bryce has dropped from RB#1 to RB#6 in this year's draft class based on current evals of an NFL Scout that I've known for 18-19 years.
2017 vs 2018 - This has very little to do with production but it is about quickness, agility, and explosiveness. This is something that has been a passion of mine for years and actually led me to conduct somewhat related independent research in Human/Sports Performance as an undergrad. Now this was over 20 years ago at the Nike-Coach K Human Performance Lab (K-Lab) in Durham but I am still confident in stating that his weight gain has negatively impacted his performance "to this point" in 2018.
2017-Several runs by Bryce
Stanford vs USC-(September 9th)
https://youtu.be/6KXOLw7_4EM?t=1
Stanford vs San Diego St-(September 16th)
https://youtu.be/5gLzJSHhBTs?t=235
Stanford vs Arizona St (September 16th)
https://youtu.be/v4aTQk0YhJA
2018-Several runs by Bryce
Stanford vs USC-(September 8th)
https://youtu.be/m8r6hpzKgTc?t=19
https://youtu.be/m8r6hpzKgTc?t=27
https://youtu.be/m8r6hpzKgTc?t=60
Stanford vs Oregon-(September 22nd)
https://youtu.be/3f58bJ94Uy4?t=106