The CardBoard
Can someone get this article to Shaw? - 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: Can someone get this article to Shaw? (/thread-16621.html)


Can someone get this article to Shaw? - stupac2 - 10-19-2018

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/todd-gurley-is-in-the-right-system-at-the-right-time/

It's about the NFL, but the central point that running out of 11 personnel is advantageous is one that we don't seem to ever learn. This morning I actually went looking for charting data that included personnel because I have a hunch that we see far more success when we're in 11 than otherwise, but we're in it far less than we should be. Unfortunately I couldn't find it, and don't have the time or means to chart it out myself.

RE: Can someone get this article to Shaw? - BostonCard - 10-19-2018

We run a lot out of 12 personnel, but one of the tight ends is really a slot receiver so it is functionally a lot like 11 personnel.  I think it is worth noting that we have generally had more success with 1 running back, 2 tight ends (one of whom is a "receiving tight end" like Parkinson or Smith) than with other personnel groups, including when we have a fullback in the mix.

BC

RE: Can someone get this article to Shaw? - washingtonismoney - 10-19-2018

Well, so there are some nuances here. Stanford runs a lot in shotgun with three receivers, one in-line TE, and one RB. That doesn't work well, because the QB isn't really a running threat. (Chip Kelly himself admitted this: 

Quote:Kelly once said that the shotgun inside zone “is not a great play if the quarterback hands off to the running back and everyone in the stadium knows who has the ball.” He was right, and his NFL offense is now proof.

https://www.theringer.com/2016/9/9/16036650/chip-kelly-san-francisco-49ers-offense-f332f053870e) 

The Rams, on the other hand, run out of 11 personnel (generally) from an under-center formation. What's more, as far as I can tell, they virtually always have motion from the wideout accompanying the play. Sometimes that morphs into a jet sweep, sometimes a play-action. That has the spreading effect the 538 article describes. 

By contrast, Stanford -- even in shotgun -- doesn't really stress the defense and cause it to stretch out. Defenders play downhill. At first I thought this problem would be solved simply by gashing the defense enough over the top. I'm still confused as to why it's not working -- it does occasionally, obviously -- and I bet Shaw is too. 

Anyway, we may be shifting more towards an 11 formation by default. Shaw has been recruiting wideouts like crazy these past few years. Tight end recruiting, on the other hand, has been more subdued.

RE: Can someone get this article to Shaw? - CTcard - 10-19-2018

(10-19-2018, 02:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  I think it is worth noting that we have generally had more success with 1 running back, 2 tight ends (one of whom is a "receiving tight end" like Parkinson or Smith) than with other personnel groups, including when we have a fullback in the mix.

How sure are you of that?

RE: Can someone get this article to Shaw? - bbm233 - 10-19-2018

Husak was adamant on the radio that we have to stop pulling guards: defenses have figured out that they can just shoot the gap vacated by the pulling guard and blow up the play before it gets started. We faced a similar dilemma a couple of years ago when defenses (esp. WSU), figured out that they could blitz off the edge and catch our back from behind before he could get to the hole. The counter to that is the toss where the back goes up the middle - the QB's job after the toss is to get in the way of that backside blitzer.  Shaw needs to develop a counter to the gap shooting we are seeing - or he needs to stop calling those plays, as Husak was calling for.

RE: Can someone get this article to Shaw? - BostonCard - 10-19-2018

(10-19-2018, 02:48 PM)CTcard Wrote:  
(10-19-2018, 02:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  I think it is worth noting that we have generally had more success with 1 running back, 2 tight ends (one of whom is a "receiving tight end" like Parkinson or Smith) than with other personnel groups, including when we have a fullback in the mix.

How sure are you of that?

It's not a statistical breakdown, but this analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ILmr9p-bpc

You can see that in the three big plays by Stanford against Oregon that Browne breaks down, Stanford passed from a formation one back, two tight ends, and two wideouts.  One of the tight ends (Parkinson) really played as a slot receiver; the other (Smith) also went on a pass route.

BC