We need to talk about the offensive line...

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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

We need to talk about the offensive line... - Langdude - 09-17-2018

I think it was near-unanimous that we thought the 2018 OL would be the strength of the team. So far, it appears that it has been the most under-performing unit. Pass pro has been fine for the most part, but run blocking has not been. There have been missed assignments and, frankly, a lack of push, the sort of dominance we've seen from other "great" Stanford o-lines. I know Stanford opponents have schemed to stop the run, but I can't believe that defenses did not do this last year, too, and somehow Bryce managed to make them look silly.

This reminds me of a few past years when we had tons of talent (2012? 2016?) but under-performed on the OL to start the year. I know the group has to learn to perform as a unit, and I know we were without Jesse Burkett the first two games and lost David Bright and Daniel Marx to graduation (I still think burning Marx's shirt was a really bad decision given our roster at the time), but we've lost a lot from the OL in the past and been fine. What gives?

(I also know Sarell and Hamilton were injured for UCD, but depth was supposed to be a strength, no? Especially against an FCS school?)

I am curious to hear the opinions of those on the board who have talked to coaches or reviewed the game film more than I have.

-m.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - pcgoode - 09-17-2018

Haven't spoken to any coaches about this, but I've spoken to a couple of recent ex-players in the last couple of months on this topic. They have both said the talent and coaching are there, but that it does take this unit time to jell.

I think that the injuries have compounded this problem. I also think that at the start of the season it was reasonable for opponents to assume that if they didn't stack the box, Love and our run game would kill them, so they opted to test Costello and the passing game. We saw what happened with SDSU when they attempted this, and certainly USC did this to a point. My own view was that the run game wasn't bad vs USC, and then of course we didn't have Love for UCD, and the other backs just aren't at Bryce's level right now. I also don't think that we have seen all of the cards (pardon the pun) that Pritchard and Shaw will eventually show when running the ball - I haven't seen much if any jet sweeps, reverses etc.

FWIW, I don't have any numbers to back this up, but by my eye pass protection has been good.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Papa John - 09-17-2018

Not disagreeing with you, but maybe KJ missing all of spring ball has something to do with this? If the called play doesn't attack the weaknesses of the defense that's showing, he can and should change the call, right?

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - OutsiderFan - 09-17-2018

When Stanford can't run the ball against 2 deep safeties I'll be concerned. Has any team had to run against more 8 and 9 man fronts? It's really hard to run the ball against 8 and 9 guys in the box. Stanford takes on this challenge willingly, but it's never going to yield consistent offense, especially with a small RB. The pass protection has been great, and needs to taken advantage of to a much larger degree, IMO.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Hank 91 - 09-17-2018

Here's the comment that jumped out at me during Shaw's postgame presser. When asked about the offensive line, he said, "I'd really like someone to win the left guard spot, but no one has." The implication was clear -- it wasn't because both guys were playing lights out. During the years when we've had dominant lines, all spots were pretty clearly defined. There have been multiple lineups used on the line for the past two seasons, and we've seen three different starting units in the three games this year. (Actually, Week 1 and 2 might've been the same; I'm being lazy.) The good news, though, is that there's still time.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - BrevinsBest - 09-17-2018

All of the offensive line problems can be solved by one play....WILDCAT!

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Hank 91 - 09-17-2018

(09-17-2018, 12:27 PM)BrevinsBest Wrote: All of the offensive line problems can be solved by one play....WILDCAT!

Oh, my god -- I just realized we haven't seen a single wildcat this year! Can't wait to see it this week!

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - BostonCard - 09-17-2018

(09-17-2018, 12:27 PM)Hank 91 Wrote: Here's the comment that jumped out at me during Shaw's postgame presser. When asked about the offensive line, he said, "I'd really like someone to win the left guard spot, but no one has." The implication was clear -- it wasn't because both guys were playing lights out. During the years when we've had dominant lines, all spots were pretty clearly defined. There have been multiple lineups used on the line for the past two seasons, and we've seen three different starting units in the three games this year. (Actually, Week 1 and 2 might've been the same; I'm being lazy.) The good news, though, is that there's still time.

I posted the same in a conversation I had with a few other Stanford folks:

Quote:Injuries on the line have also hurt its effectiveness, and I’m not sure that LG will not be a weak spot all year. You need five good offensive linemen for success. We have four great ones (two or three who will be playing on Sundays) and one question mark.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - OL84 - 09-17-2018

I have not talked to coaches, but I agree that the level play for the OL has been uneven. 71 has been a particular disappointment, including Saturday when we had to use him. Using tackles at guard is not an ideal solution, though we have some athletic tackles to try it. Injuries and moves have certainly hurt as well, as evidenced Saturday. I would also say that SDSU has a saavy and unique D, and SC was smart in the blitz patterns which gave us a little mental trouble as well.

If you are sensitive to play calling criticism, I suggest you stop reading here.

While injuries and mistkakes have played a role, in my view the biggest problem is running against numbers. Shaw/TP/Carberry (all are supposedly involved) insist on running against the strength of the D. It was more egregious in the fist half against SDSU, but we still did it repeatedly against SC and Davis. Davis stuffed quite a few, and that front should not be able to stand up against ours--unless they get to defend the box with extra players we can't block. For the third week in a row we have seen opposing safeties my stops at or behind the line when there is a big hole opened up front. How? Predictable play calls running into the heart of the D.

If you disagree, each play you can count the number of defenders in or near the box in position for run support. Shallow safeties count if they have no receivers to guard or they are close enough to read and get to the line. We must set a record for the frequency with which we run against 8-11 men in the box. That is very hard too do, even if you are better than your opponent. There is not enough space if you if make all your blocks, and it is very hard for the OL to account for the secondary coming up in run support.

I am unsure how often KJ is empowered to change the plat at the line. It appeared changed a few away from the heavy front on Saturday.

The problem is not running power, power toss or dives. The problem is running it in obvious situations and not taking advantage when the D fails to defend the whole field.

The first play that went for long gain on the slant to JJAW should be there day long if the box is stacked or the backers and DBs are cheating toward the box. Bravo. Now do that often to take what the D gives.

We have the plays and we sometimes use them correctly, but it appears that the dynamic of play calling throughout the game breaks down and reverts to very strong tendencies. That is the only way an inferior opponent can continually take away your strenght. They gamble that we will not break our tendency, and too often they are right.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - qwerty49 - 09-17-2018

There was some talk a year or two ago about moving Fanaika to DL when we had depth issues there. Had we done so, we would really be down the depth chart at LG right now. But still, his development has been slow to materialize.

Nick Wilson showed a lot of promise in Ogre, but I guess that hasn't translated into guard play.

I suspect we'll continue to see some shuffling, at least until Hamilton and maybe Sarell are able to come back.

Little was obviously not at 100% against Davis. I hope he can recover soon.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Hank 91 - 09-17-2018

Everything you (OL84) say here makes sense, and I remember noticing a play against Davis that was exactly as you described -- the line opened up a gaping hole, but no one could account for the safety, who rocketed in without fear and made the tackle roughly at or behind the line of scrimmage. The question, of course, is Costello's role in all this. If he weren't recognizing the defense or simply refusing to check out of the run, I'd think we'd see evidence of this, probably deep conversations on the sideline in between possessions or long phone calls with Tavita. These things could obviously be happening without my noticing them, but I'm guessing that's not the case. Anyone else have any insight here?
And here's a related question -- does anyone remember if Costello was changing plays more often during the second half against SDSU when they largely went away from the run? Oh, and one more thing -- when Luck and Hogan had been given full control of the offense, we heard that they called three plays in the huddle. Is it possible that Costello just doesn't have as many options? Maybe he just has a standard go-to passing option, something that might not work in every situation. I don't know.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - OutsiderFan - 09-17-2018

(09-17-2018, 12:39 PM)OL84 Wrote: I have not talked to coaches, but I agree that the level play for the OL has been uneven. 71 has been a particular disappointment, including Saturday when we had to use him. Using tackles at guard is not an ideal solution, though we have some athletic tackles to try it. Injuries and moves have certainly hurt as well, as evidenced Saturday. I would also say that SDSU has a saavy and unique D, and SC was smart in the blitz patterns which gave us a little mental trouble as well.

If you are sensitive to play calling criticism, I suggest you stop reading here.

While injuries and mistkakes have played a role, in my view the biggest problem is running against numbers. Shaw/TP/Carberry (all are supposedly involved) insist on running against the strength of the D. It was more egregious in the fist half against SDSU, but we still did it repeatedly against SC and Davis. Davis stuffed quite a few, and that front should not be able to stand up against ours--unless they get to defend the box with extra players we can't block. For the third week in a row we have seen opposing safeties my stops at or behind the line when there is a big hole opened up front. How? Predictable play calls running into the heart of the D.

If you disagree, each play you can count the number of defenders in or near the box in position for run support. Shallow safeties count if they have no receivers to guard or they are close enough to read and get to the line. We must set a record for the frequency with which we run against 8-11 men in the box. That is very hard too do, even if you are better than your opponent. There is not enough space if you if make all your blocks, and it is very hard for the OL to account for the secondary coming up in run support.

I am unsure how often KJ is empowered to change the plat at the line. It appeared changed a few away from the heavy front on Saturday.

The problem is not running power, power toss or dives. The problem is running it in obvious situations and not taking advantage when the D fails to defend the whole field.

The first play that went for long gain on the slant to JJAW should be there day long if the box is stacked or the backers and DBs are cheating toward the box. Bravo. Now do that often to take what the D gives.

We have the plays and we sometimes use them correctly, but it appears that the dynamic of play calling throughout the game breaks down and reverts to very strong tendencies. That is the only way an inferior opponent can continually take away your strenght. They gamble that we will not break our tendency, and too often they are right.

Someone needs to ask David Shaw why he insists on running into stacked fronts and doesn't make teams pay for single coverage on WRs more consistently. I believe he thinks the OL can ultimately impose its will and that only happens by trying to wear down the defense. But anyone will tell you defensive lines get much more tired by pass rushing. So you could do a lot of passing early, tire out the defense and run on it later in the game. This is exactly what Bill Walsh did.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Goose - 09-17-2018

(09-17-2018, 12:39 PM)OL84 Wrote: We must set a record for the frequency with which we run against 8-11 men in the box. That is very hard too do, even if you are better than your opponent. There is not enough space even if you make all your blocks, and it is very hard for the OL to account for the secondary coming up in run support.

This is for sure true. You may block your assignment properly, but that doesn't help if an unblocked player shows up from the edge or head-on.

Quote:I am unsure how often KJ is empowered to change the plat at the line. It appeared changed a few away from the heavy front on Saturday.

The problem is not running power, power toss or dives. The problem is running it in obvious situations and not taking advantage when the D fails to defend the whole field.

The first play that went for long gain on the slant to JJAW should be there day long if the box is stacked or the backers and DBs are cheating toward the box. Bravo. Now do that often to take what the D gives.

We have the plays and we sometimes use them correctly, but it appears that the dynamic of play calling throughout the game breaks down and reverts to very strong tendencies.

I hope, and basically believe, that the coaches are purposely keeping it simple. We got ahead in the games we have played. Running is important to us. We need to practice it. It is also good if the future opponents think 8 or more in the box is the way to go. This year, we can eat that up. As you point out, we have those plays, and can execute them. Last year, we couldn't, because Chryst couldn't complete the passes. Costello isn't perfectly accurate, but at least he generally gets it close. I think Shaw et al wants to see 8 in the box. Keep doing that and we will beat you. Against Oregon, we may be very run-heavy, because they haven't shown that they can stop it yet. If the can stop it by putting 8 or more in the box, we will throw it. Last year, even Chryst could make that work.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - washingtonismoney - 09-17-2018

(09-17-2018, 12:53 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Someone needs to ask David Shaw why he insists on running into stacked fronts and doesn't make teams pay for single coverage on WRs more consistently. I believe he thinks the OL can ultimately impose its will and that only happens by trying to wear down the defense. But anyone will tell you defensive lines get much more tired by pass rushing. So you could do a lot of passing early, tire out the defense and run on it later in the game. This is exactly what Bill Walsh did.

While insisting on running into stacked fronts accounts for the problems in games 1 and 2, that wasn't what occurred against Davis while the starters were in. The run/pass breakdown on first down was even between runs and passes.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Langdude - 09-17-2018

But one thing still nags at me regarding the "stacked box" argument. I still wonder - last year, with more question surrounding the passing game and Bryce Love on a Bridesman run, I'm guessing that teams stacked the box, too, and yet we were able to solve it (except against WSU, IIRC). What's the difference?

-m.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Renaissance Man - 09-17-2018

San Jose State frequently pushed Oregon's lines around (o and D) on Saturday. If we cant get some push this week I will be concerned.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - washingtonismoney - 09-17-2018

(09-17-2018, 01:09 PM)Langdude Wrote: But one thing still nags at me regarding the "stacked box" argument. I still wonder - last year, with more question surrounding the passing game and Bryce Love on a Bridesman run, I'm guessing that teams stacked the box, too, and yet we were able to solve it (except against WSU, IIRC). What's the difference?

Well, I think it depends on what you mean by "solved." Bill Connelly has some interesting stats here: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2017-stanford-advanced-statistical-profile

Relevantly, Stanford had a rushing success rate of 38.9% in 2017: that is, Stanford running backs gained less than 50% of needed yardage on first down, 70% on second down, and 100% on third and fourth downs just less than 4 in 10 times. That was 101st last year. So stacking the box was indeed quite successful from the perspective of making Stanford's rushing offense inefficient. On the other hand, when Stanford was successful, it was extremely explosive. It was the latter part that makes fans think things were great.

Have things changed this year? Obviously the Stanford rushing offense is still inefficient in the sense of setting up favorable downs and distances. But it's not getting as many explosive runs, at least so far this year. (Only 3 runs at 20 yards or more, or about 1 explosive run every 30 carries. That compares to a 7% explosive run rate in 2017.)

On the other hand, passing is (so far) much more effective. Sacks are slightly down (3.15% of dropbacks end in a sack this year, versus 4.47% in 2017). And yards per attempt are up by a healthy margin -- Costello has 8.3 YPA versus 7.2 for last year's motley crew. The big flaw with the passing game is, again, efficiency: Costello's completion percentage is modestly up (61.4% versus 58.8%), but it's still much lower than you'd like.

Basically, Stanford needs to improve efficiency and get in more favorable down and distances more frequently. I suspect some of that will come naturally: for whatever reason the team had a very poor pass-blocking day against Davis. Given it held up against probably-solid college defenses SC and SDSU I'm guessing it'll hold up in the future. I dunno if that'll be "enough" but it sure as heck will help.

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - JJJ - 09-17-2018

(09-17-2018, 01:09 PM)Langdude Wrote: But one thing still nags at me regarding the "stacked box" argument. I still wonder - last year, with more question surrounding the passing game and Bryce Love on a Bridesman run, I'm guessing that teams stacked the box, too, and yet we were able to solve it (except against WSU, IIRC). What's the difference?

-m.

“Bridesman”—well played. (Tears from laughing emoji) ?

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - BostonCard - 09-17-2018

(09-17-2018, 01:53 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: On the other hand, passing is (so far) much more effective. Sacks are slightly down (3.15% of dropbacks end in a sack this year, versus 4.47% in 2017). And yards per attempt are up by a healthy margin -- Costello has 8.3 YPA versus 7.2 for last year's motley crew. The big flaw with the passing game is, again, efficiency: Costello's completion percentage is modestly up (61.4% versus 58.8%), but it's still much lower than you'd like.

I think this is the absolute key for everything, and although passing is improved versus last year, I'm not sure Costello is ready to shoulder the offensive load. Costello right now ranks 62nd in the country in terms of completion percentage, 42nd in the country in YPA, and 42nd in the country in terms of pass efficiency rating. He had a great game against SDSU (68% completion rate, 10.7 YPA, and PER of 194) but has had subpar games against SC (59% completion rate, 6.8 ypa, PER of 128) and Davis (57% completion rate, 7.1 YPA, PER of 125).

Overall, Costello so far this year is comparable to what Hogan achieved his first full year starting 2013, a year we went to the Rose Bowl, but that team relied on a great defense plus Gaffney pounding out 122 yards per game. Moreover, if Costello is doing this against defenses poised to stop the run, and we are proposing to increase his workload, then we would expect that his production will likely decline as defenses adjust.

I do agree with folks that we probably need to get defenses to back off stacking against the run. However, if we are going to successfully get Costello to shoulder more of the offensive burden, he needs to get his completion percentage up in the 65% range, which Hogan achieved both in 2014 (a "down" year for him) and 2015. And if Costello can't get his accuracy up, then we are looking at a disappointing offensive year (and I suspect it won't be long until folks here clamor for Davis Mills).

BC

RE: We need to talk about the offensive line... - Spiny_Norman - 09-17-2018

Costello was a 60% passer in high school during his junior and senior years. 60% as a junior, 60% as a senior. He was 59% for a partial season as a 1st year college QB. 61% so far this year. I know the coaches are working with him as hard as they can to improve his accuracy and be more consistent. Coach Shaw emphasized during the pre-season interviews that Costello had to be a better passer for the team to succeed. I think the coaches are looking for 65%+. But maybe this is as good as we can expect Costello to be as a passer.