The CTCard theory of offense - Printable Version

The CTCard theory of offense - 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: The CTCard theory of offense (/thread-14330.html)

Pages: 1 2

The CTCard theory of offense - washingtonismoney - 09-18-2017

Back in 2015, right after the Northwestern debacle, if I recall correctly, many people were caterwauling about the lack of offensive creativity etc. CTCard -- again if I recall correctly -- basically said, no: in fact the problem with the 2014-15 offense (to that point) was that it was too pass-oriented. And, in fact, the problem with the offense was boring and prosaic: it needed more runs.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to revive that idea. The playcalling split -- 84 runs, 85 passes -- is pretty even. In fact, it's probably pretty lopsided towards passes given college football's stupidity re: counting sacks as run plays. Especially given Chryst's documented deficiencies at the position, maybe all we need is Love? (And Speights and Scarlett...)

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - Viking_Guy - 09-18-2017

WiM--

I was thinking the same thing, especially following the success of essentially what was a "Student Body Left" play we ran (in the 3rd)?Â The entire line rolled left (maybe a TE left to seal?) and Love simply picked a hole and pushed forward.Â Bam, 7 yards.Â And I kept thinking - um, the same thing?Â Maybe with a different back?

I remember it because they showed a replay, and 5 o-lineman were sliding to their left, eyes downfield, looking for targets.Â Struck me as an interesting variant of the planned rollout - have the entire O-line roll out.

VG

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - BostonCard - 09-18-2017

IÂ agree wholeheartedly, especially against San Diego State.

On the Rice game, it didn't matter what we did, and throwing a fair bit might have made sense to give Chryst and the backups some experienced.

Against USC, we started off relatively run heavy (and were successful).Â We then seemed to go a bit away from it for most of the middle series.Â On the last couple series, we appropriately passed more given that we were trying to play catch-up.Â But I think a case can be made that from the fourth through the sixth series, we should have been running more.

Against San Diego State, the fact that Love had 13 carries kind of speaks for itself.

Yeah, the team needs more Love.

BC

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - Goose - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 04:04 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Back in 2015, right after the Northwestern debacle, if I recall correctly, many people were caterwauling about the lack of offensive creativity etc. CTCard -- again if I recall correctly -- basically said, no: in fact the problem with the 2014-15 offense (to that point) was that it was too pass-oriented. And, in fact, the problem with the offense was boring and prosaic: it needed more runs.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to revive that idea. The playcalling split -- 84 runs, 85 passes -- is pretty even. In fact, it's probably pretty lopsided towards passes given college football's stupidity re: counting sacks as run plays. Especially given Chryst's documented deficiencies at the position, maybe all we need is Love? (And Speights and Scarlett...)

And an OL. But we don't have that, so we have to improvise by passing more, at least that is what I think is happening. That is falling back towards the "bad old days" of pass and pray. Some people may not remember those days. I do. It was interesting, exciting, and we usually lost. However, with a run-heavy offense, we MUST win the battle in the trenches, or it won't work. We don't need to win every battle, but we need to win most of the time. That is what this team was built to do. Problem is, it isn't doing it. Against U$C, we needed to score on every possession, because they basically were. We couldn'tÂ make first downs reliably. We got behind, and needed to throw. We had some success, but not enough.

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - washingtonismoney - 09-18-2017

One fact I forgot to include in the original post: Stanford's currently averaging 7.51 yards per carry and 7.11 yards per pass. And I presume once you probably account for sacks the difference is, shall we say, wide.

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - BostonCard - 09-18-2017

The offense that played against USC would have been good enough to beat San Diego State, and while we wouldn't feel great about beating SDSU 24-20 or so, the mood would be a lot different than it is today.Â The problem, I suspect, is that we started off determined to make some room for Love by passing first... only problem is that it was ineffective.Â Our first three disastrous series:

Chrsyt to Irwin for 4 yards
Chryst sacked for -8 yards
Chryst incomplete
Punt

Love for no gain
Chryst incomplete
Chryst incompltee
Punt

Love for 3 yards
Chryst to Harrington for 4 yards
Chryst incompete
Punt

So, in 9 plays across three drives, we gave the ball twice to Love.Â We attempted to pass on second and 6 and third and 3.Â Hindsight is 20/20, but I think even Shaw will look at that and think "We should have given the ball to Love more"

By the way, on the fourth drive...
Love for 1 yard
Chryst to Irwnin for 11 yards
Love for 51 yards and a TD

BC

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - Goose - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 04:24 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:One fact I forgot to include in the original post: Stanford's currently averaging 7.51 yards per carry and 7.11 yards per pass. And I presume once you probably account for sacks the difference is, shall we say, wide.

Yes, but as you probably know from discussions on other threads, we aren't moving the chains and holding the ball. It is 50 yard TD runs that keep the average up. Good to have, but not adequate.

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - Spiny_Norman - 09-18-2017

Two other mysteries. I cannot recall Stanford running a single play action fake vs. SDSU. Their QB did so and used it very effectively to freeze the LBs and (often) Reid who was coming up for run support.Â This helped their WRs and TEs get open.

Also Stanford did not throw to any RBs coming out of the backfield. Stanford does not seem to have a screen pass in its (very extensive) playbook. But SDSU sure knew how to counter Stanford's pursuit with screens. Their RBs caught 7 passes on Saturday.

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - washingtonismoney - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 04:42 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Also Stanford did not throw to any RBs coming out of the backfield. Stanford does not seem to have a screen pass in its (very extensive) playbook. But SDSU sure knew how to counter Stanford's pursuit with screens. Their RBs caught 7 passes on Saturday.

Stanford does have screens -- Ryan Burns threw one to Conor Wedington, in his first bizarre cameo -- but it's probably fair to wonder why those screens didn't seem to catch SDSU's aggressive offense out with a counter play.

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - dabigv13 - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 04:26 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The offense that played against U$C would have been good enough to beat San Diego State, and while we wouldn't feel great about beating SDSU 24-20 or so, the mood would be a lot different than it is today.Â The problem, I suspect, is that we started off determined to make some room for Love by passing first... only problem is that it was ineffective.Â Our first three disastrous series:

Chrsyt to Irwin for 4 yards
Chryst sacked for -8 yards
Chryst incomplete
Punt

Love for no gain
Chryst incomplete
Chryst incompltee
Punt

Love for 3 yards
Chryst to Harrington for 4 yards
Chryst incompete
Punt

So, in 9 plays across three drives, we gave the ball twice to Love.Â We attempted to pass on second and 6 and third and 3.Â Hindsight is 20/20, but I think even Shaw will look at that and think "We should have given the ball to Love more"

By the way, on the fourth drive...
Love for 1 yard
Chryst to Irwnin for 11 yards
Love for 51 yards and a TD

BC

Do these sequences really prove your point though? The two times we ran it on 1st down, we got an average of 1.5 yards.

Now, all those Chryst incompletions look terrible, but if we're at 2nd and long, it's tougher to pick a run play there. SDSU however was routinely getting 4+ on first down.

So yeah, running the ball more may be better than the alternative because we suck so bad at passing the ball, but I don't really think the run/pass split is the difference between our offense being terrible, and it being good. Maybe the difference between terrible and bad.

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - BostonCard - 09-18-2017

I think that's a fair critique, but I generally take a broader view of playcalling.Â In those three series we ran the ball twice and attempted to pass 7 times, and wound up with a cumulative 3 yards and 0 first downs.Â It's one thing to wind up with such lopsided playcalling because one form of offense is clicking and the other is not; it's another thing to do so and see it not work.

I can't claim to know what Shaw was thinking here.Â My best guess is that they felt that SDSU would be gearing up to defend Love and the run, and that by passing first we would catch them off guard and give Chryst a chance to settle in.Â I would say that of the three series, only the second one makes any sense when you have a star running back who you would like to get the ball to.

BC

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - needle - 09-18-2017

If you watch the Rocky Long press conference (and why would you), he blames himself/coaching for a poor defensive playcall that he said allowed one of the long Love runs.

He described his team as outplaying Stanford for the whole game, minus a very few plays.

Can't say I disagree.

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - washingtonismoney - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 06:50 PM)needle link Wrote:If you watch the Rocky Long press conference (and why would you), he blames himself/coaching for a poor defensive playcall that he said allowed one of the long Love runs.

He described his team as outplaying Stanford for the whole game, minus a very few plays.

Can't say I disagree.

Meh on their outplaying Stanford for the whole game. They were gifted a touchdown with one turnover and had a field goal prevented with another.

Not using this to justify Stanford's poor performance, but the game was more about Stanford screwing up than SDSU being good. Should've beaten SDSU pretty easily.

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - CTcard - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 04:04 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Back in 2015, right after the Northwestern debacle, if I recall correctly, many people were caterwauling about the lack of offensive creativity etc. CTCard -- again if I recall correctly -- basically said, no: in fact the problem with the 2014-15 offense (to that point) was that it was too pass-oriented. And, in fact, the problem with the offense was boring and prosaic: it needed more runs.

Wow.
Somebody read my posts.

That was my premise for 2014-15, though at least for 2014 I also wanted them to quit running towards the sidelines when we could never make the edge. I think there was pretty good evidence that that team (or those teams, since it crossed over two seasons) was much more efficient on offense when it ran at least ~65% of the time. It seemed at the time that Shaw really didn't have patience for the run game and wanted a team that threw the ball around more like 50% of the time (which is more than even Luck's senior year - 45% passds).

I am not sure yet about the current team, or what Shaw wants to do now.
Vs Rice we just seemed to use the game as a practice, and were trying stuff.
Vs $C we were behind the whole time, and trying to catch up.
Vs SDSU at the start, Shaw seemed to be trying to catch SDSU keying on the run at the very beginning. After that, I am not sure.

I can't really comment on the SDSU game since I haven't seen it (other than noting the official stats for Love don't match the play by play. The official stats appear to have missed one rush for 3 yards - or the play by play attributed the some one else's run to Love).
I do note that in the first half, running with Love wasn't effective when he wasn't breaking a 50+ yarder for a TD. His other runs were for 0, 3, 1, 1, 0,3 yds.
However, in the second half he was never really stopped, his carries going for 9, 6, 47, 4, 53, 4, 5 yds.

I think the best strategy going forward is likely to come down to what can the OL do, if anything. At least with the run game I have some confidence that Love can make something if a hole is there, less so with the QB-receiver connection even with some time.

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - phxfan - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 04:42 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Two other mysteries. I cannot recall Stanford running a single play action fake vs. SDSU. Their QB did so and used it very effectively to freeze the LBs and (often) Reid who was coming up for run support.Â This helped their WRs and TEs get open.

Also Stanford did not throw to any RBs coming out of the backfield. Stanford does not seem to have a screen pass in its (very extensive) playbook. But SDSU sure knew how to counter Stanford's pursuit with screens. Their RBs caught 7 passes on Saturday.

Stanford has been without the traditional screen pass, along with the traditional qb sneak, for going on 6-7 years now.

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - BostonCard - 09-18-2017

(09-18-2017, 08:56 PM)phxfan link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=17437.msg201438#msg201438 date=1505778135]
Two other mysteries. I cannot recall Stanford running a single play action fake vs. SDSU. Their QB did so and used it very effectively to freeze the LBs and (often) Reid who was coming up for run support.Â This helped their WRs and TEs get open.

Also Stanford did not throw to any RBs coming out of the backfield. Stanford does not seem to have a screen pass in its (very extensive) playbook. But SDSU sure knew how to counter Stanford's pursuit with screens. Their RBs caught 7 passes on Saturday.

Stanford has been without the traditional screen pass, along with the traditional qb sneak, for going on 6-7 years now.
[/quote]

Um... we ran a screen to Love against SDSU.

BC

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - stupac2 - 09-19-2017

(09-18-2017, 10:09 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=phxfan link=topic=17437.msg201469#msg201469 date=1505793407]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=17437.msg201438#msg201438 date=1505778135]
Two other mysteries. I cannot recall Stanford running a single play action fake vs. SDSU. Their QB did so and used it very effectively to freeze the LBs and (often) Reid who was coming up for run support.Â This helped their WRs and TEs get open.

Also Stanford did not throw to any RBs coming out of the backfield. Stanford does not seem to have a screen pass in its (very extensive) playbook. But SDSU sure knew how to counter Stanford's pursuit with screens. Their RBs caught 7 passes on Saturday.

Stanford has been without the traditional screen pass, along with the traditional qb sneak, for going on 6-7 years now.
[/quote]

Um... we ran a screen to Love against SDSU.

BC
[/quote]

But since it wasn't 6-7 years ago, it wasn't a traditional screen!

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - OutsiderFan - 09-19-2017

Mason Rudolph of Oklahoma State passed for 457 yards in the first half against Pitt on Saturday. Keller Chryst passed for 87 yards in two haves against San Diego State.

While I realize Stanford plays a different style than Oklahoma State, FFS, the rules are all geared to enable the passing game.Â Yet for Stanford, it seems like they treat it like it's some complicated puzzle that can't be figured out.Â While it may be true that Stanford should run more, even if that happens, the passing game is anachronistic and devoid of imagination for the most part and/or QBs aren't being developed.

I can only imagine what Amon-Ra St. Brown is thinking. "I can go to Stanford and be wasted, playing in an offense that doesn't allow WRs or QBs to put up any numbers, or I can go to USC and play with my 5 star high school QB in a QB and WR friendly system."

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - phxfan - 09-19-2017

(09-18-2017, 10:09 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=phxfan link=topic=17437.msg201469#msg201469 date=1505793407]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=17437.msg201438#msg201438 date=1505778135]
Two other mysteries. I cannot recall Stanford running a single play action fake vs. SDSU. Their QB did so and used it very effectively to freeze the LBs and (often) Reid who was coming up for run support.Â This helped their WRs and TEs get open.

Also Stanford did not throw to any RBs coming out of the backfield. Stanford does not seem to have a screen pass in its (very extensive) playbook. But SDSU sure knew how to counter Stanford's pursuit with screens. Their RBs caught 7 passes on Saturday.

Stanford has been without the traditional screen pass, along with the traditional qb sneak, for going on 6-7 years now.
[/quote]

to be honest I don't remember that play but given that it was Burns that threw it I'm thinking more of a busted play, check down, than a designed and well executed tailback screen.Â The Maurice Jones-Drew and UCLA coming from 21 points down in 6 minutes on the road against Stanford.Â When was the last time before the Burns dump off did you see the play run?

Re: The CTCard theory of offense - csfoster - 09-19-2017

(09-18-2017, 06:59 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=needle link=topic=17437.msg201454#msg201454 date=1505785842]
If you watch the Rocky Long press conference (and why would you), he blames himself/coaching for a poor defensive playcall that he said allowed one of the long Love runs.

He described his team as outplaying Stanford for the whole game, minus a very few plays.

Can't say I disagree.