Play Calling And The Farm Report - 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: Play Calling And The Farm Report (/thread-16643.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: Play Calling And The Farm Report (/thread-16643.html)
Play Calling And The Farm Report - Red State1 - 10-23-2018
Funny as hell, the level of anger and repetitiousness of the criticisms by so many over there. I think the pathology is spearheaded by someone who used to post here, one with many of these -. The outrage over Shaw and his offense has reached a point where a number of TFR posters have become disgusted with the vitriol--# Walk Away.
I"m glad there's a board with much more reasoned criticism and debate.
Beat Wazzu!
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - Hulk01 - 10-23-2018
(10-23-2018, 07:12 AM)Red State1 Wrote: Funny as hell, the level of anger and repetitiousness of the criticisms by so many over there. I think the pathology is spearheaded by someone who used to post here, one with many of these -. The outrage over Shaw and his offense has reached a point where a number of TFR posters have become disgusted with the vitriol--# Walk Away.
I"m glad there's a board with much more reasoned criticism and debate.
Beat Wazzu!
The Farm Report reminds me of a church: Many attend but few understand.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - ChicagoCard - 10-23-2018
(10-23-2018, 07:12 AM)Red State1 Wrote: Funny as hell, the level of anger... disgusted with the vitriol--# Walk Away.
I"m glad there's a board with much more reasoned criticism and debate.
I walked away after a few months. I didn't like seeing a scholarship player talked about as though a malinger. Bob and Hulk and two or three others are great posters over there, then there are the rest.
P.s. I didn't just give away any classified info did I?
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - JPR36 - 10-23-2018
(10-23-2018, 11:40 AM)ChicagoCard Wrote:(10-23-2018, 07:12 AM)Red State1 Wrote: Funny as hell, the level of anger... disgusted with the vitriol--# Walk Away.
I"m glad there's a board with much more reasoned criticism and debate.
I walked away after a few months. I didn't like seeing a scholarship player talked about as though a malinger. Bob and Hulk and two or three others are great posters over there, then there are the rest.
P.s. I didn't just give away any classified info did I?
There is a small cadre of Stanford fans who never tire of bad mouthing Shaw for his "predictable, unimaginative, overly conservative, (pick your favorite pejorative adjective here)" offense.
When we lose a couple of games they really kick into high gear.
It gets a little old, IMHO.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - Hulk01 - 10-23-2018
If you've never played college football and seen an offense from a defender's perspective--particularly from a safety's perspective--I'm skeptical that you understand what a football play even looks like to a defense, and what makes a good play call in any given case..
To a defender, the unpredictability in any offensive play inheres in the options within every play itself, regardless of the play. And the likelihood that a team will either run or pass in a certain situation is information of no value at all. That's because you cannot afford to defend the likelier play at the expense of being out of position for the less likely one. So this idea that we run 67% on the time on first down, and that tendency makes us easier to defend, for example, is absurd.
"Sorry coach, I didn't think it was likely they'd pass there." There's a reason you never hear that on a sideline.
Again, the deception in a play inheres in each play. Sure, it looks like Love is going to try to break that play inside the tight end, for example But commit to that, Love reads your move, and he breaks the play back inside and runs right past your falling figure.
Coming at you, a run in football looks like a surge of brobdingnagian men obscuring your view of the smaller man with the ball behind them. Where's he going to go? Lots of possibilities. And if the brobdingnagian guys do their job and the smaller guy does, too, your chances of stopping the play before it's at least reasonably successful--a four or five yard gain--are lousy.
It's a game of execution, force, and speed and not, like basketball, a game of deception, cleverness, and creativity. If the other team has more force and speed, they'll probably beat you. If on top of that they execute better, they will overwhelm you. Cleverness and creativity have nothing to do with it. And only a fan who has never played would insist otherwise.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - OutsiderFan - 10-23-2018
"Sorry coach, I didn't think it was likely they'd pass there." There's a reason you never hear that on a sideline.
Probably because the players don't call the defense and are expected to do what the coaches tell them to do. The DC is the one who determines what defense is going to be run. Sometimes, it stays in a neutral position. But sometimes the DC will have an idea what the offense is going to do, and call a defense that deploys personnel in a way that gables that play will be run, leaving it vulnerable to the offense doing what isn't being expected.
I also doubt you hear too many players telling their coaches they should have known better than to call the plays they did when they don't work out so well for the players on the field. Players play. Coaches coach.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - Hulk01 - 10-23-2018
Sure, DCs gamble on occasion. But again, knowing that a team is likely to run on 65% of their first downs is interesting but effectively useless, unless you in such a poor position that you have to gamble. It's off no more value than knowing they run only half the time./
[url=https://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#][/url]
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - OutsiderFan - 10-23-2018
As it relates to what Stanford does on offense, ALL I want is for defenses to play straight up, without 8 and 9 man fronts to start games, or otherwise crashing extra defenders to the line at the snap of the ball.
If you get a lead, pound the run in second half. Go to heavy sets and tight formations when you know the defense is worn down, when 8 and 9 man fronts won't matter because they will be run through anyway.
Until you have a lead, attack and be unpredictable. Make defenses pay for overcommitting to stopping the run.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - BrevinsBest - 10-23-2018
Let me make sure I'm correct on this one. The last 4 possessions of the game, Stanford ran 16 plays for a total of 30 yards. This is an atrocious yards per play average. Many of these play calls were runs out of obvious running formations.
This is awful play calling and I have no idea how one can think otherwise.
I've never felt so awful after a Stanford victory.
I'm one of those fans.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - 76lsjumb - 10-23-2018
(10-23-2018, 02:46 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I also doubt you hear too many players telling their coaches they should have known better than to call the plays they did when they don't work out so well for the players on the field. Players play. Coaches coach.
Fans gripe.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - JPR36 - 10-23-2018
(10-23-2018, 04:04 PM)BrevinsBest Wrote: Let me make sure I'm correct on this one. The last 4 possessions of the game, Stanford ran 16 plays for a total of 30 yards. This is an atrocious yards per play average. Many of these play calls were runs out of obvious running formations.
This is awful play calling and I have no idea how one can think otherwise.
I've never felt so awful after a Stanford victory.
I'm one of those fans.
It was Shaw sitting on a lead. You may not agree with that philosophy and it's not very exciting football, but as others have pointed out when he does that we usually win the game.
Sorry you felt so bad, but that's the way Shaw coaches. Constantly grousing about it isn't going to change anything.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - Hulk01 - 10-24-2018
That isn't awful play calling when you are 14 points ahead of a team that has managed to score against you only once in three quarters, and you are facing a team that is going to gamble if and when you attempt a pass.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - CTcard - 10-24-2018
(10-24-2018, 05:49 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: That isn't awful play calling when you are 14 points ahead of a team that has managed to score against you only once in three quarters, and you are facing a team that is going to gamble if and when you attempt a pass.
Generically, I agree with you but ...
- ASU had scored twice in three quarters.
- ASU had had two or three other significant drives into our territory (59 yds to the 34, 44 yds to the 31, 35 yds to the 40).
- Stanford clearly has trouble running the ball this year.
- Costello had been generally accurate on the day - though he did force one terribly.
- Stanford continued the strategy for two drives after it became a one score game.
So, while not awful, I think it started too early. And once it became a one score game I think it would have been better to play a little more toward keeping possession and a little less toward running the clock and avoiding turnovers.
But of course along with the counterfactual that many are imagining (we pass for one more first down with 2:20 left and run out the clock), I am also mindful of another counterfactual - that we throw an incomplete pass on third and 8, ASU saves a TO, after their sack or long completion call it then to save 25-30 seconds, giving them as many as 3/4 more tries from our 20 to score the final TD.
And that incomplete pass could have been almost any time in the fourth quarter with potentially the same effect on the clock.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - JPR36 - 10-24-2018
(10-24-2018, 06:37 AM)CTcard Wrote:(10-24-2018, 05:49 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: That isn't awful play calling when you are 14 points ahead of a team that has managed to score against you only once in three quarters, and you are facing a team that is going to gamble if and when you attempt a pass.
Generically, I agree with you but ...
- ASU had scored twice in three quarters.
- ASU had had two or three other significant drives into our territory (59 yds to the 34, 44 yds to the 31, 35 yds to the 40).
- Stanford clearly has trouble running the ball this year.
- Costello had been generally accurate on the day - though he did force one terribly.
- Stanford continued the strategy for two drives after it became a one score game.
So, while not awful, I think it started too early. And once it became a one score game I think it would have been better to play a little more toward keeping possession and a little less toward running the clock and avoiding turnovers.
But of course along with the counterfactual that many are imagining (we pass for one more first down with 2:20 left and run out the clock), I am also mindful of another counterfactual - that we throw an incomplete pass on third and 8, ASU saves a TO, after their sack or long completion call it then to save 25-30 seconds, giving them as many as 3/4 more tries from our 20 to score the final TD.
And that incomplete pass could have been almost any time in the fourth quarter with potentially the same effect on the clock.
I'm always glad when we win, but games aren't much fun to watch when Shaw isn't trying to do anything offensively besides kill the clock and the defense is holding on to a slim lead with their fingernails.
Mostly they are just nerve-wracking.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - Snorlax94 - 10-25-2018
(10-24-2018, 12:16 PM)JPR36 Wrote:I don't mind the clock killing -- well, it is frustrating and anxiety-inducing -- but I do think Stanford's overall record, and its ability to close out games -- earns a lot of trust.(10-24-2018, 06:37 AM)CTcard Wrote:(10-24-2018, 05:49 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: That isn't awful play calling when you are 14 points ahead of a team that has managed to score against you only once in three quarters, and you are facing a team that is going to gamble if and when you attempt a pass.
Generically, I agree with you but ...
- ASU had scored twice in three quarters.
- ASU had had two or three other significant drives into our territory (59 yds to the 34, 44 yds to the 31, 35 yds to the 40).
- Stanford clearly has trouble running the ball this year.
- Costello had been generally accurate on the day - though he did force one terribly.
- Stanford continued the strategy for two drives after it became a one score game.
So, while not awful, I think it started too early. And once it became a one score game I think it would have been better to play a little more toward keeping possession and a little less toward running the clock and avoiding turnovers.
But of course along with the counterfactual that many are imagining (we pass for one more first down with 2:20 left and run out the clock), I am also mindful of another counterfactual - that we throw an incomplete pass on third and 8, ASU saves a TO, after their sack or long completion call it then to save 25-30 seconds, giving them as many as 3/4 more tries from our 20 to score the final TD.
And that incomplete pass could have been almost any time in the fourth quarter with potentially the same effect on the clock.
I'm always glad when we win, but games aren't much fun to watch when Shaw isn't trying to do anything offensively besides kill the clock and the defense is holding on to a slim lead with their fingernails.
Mostly they are just nerve-wracking.
I don't mind running the ball to kill the clock. Makes sense. Shaw and his staff have crunched the numbers, and they have their conclusion, and it is contrary to a lot of popular thinking, but during this era, Stanford has been one of the winningest programs in the nation.
And generally, I defend sticking with the run, and specializing in a smaller number of plays. As Hulk mentioned, there's a lot of variety even within the same play (for example, there are a lot of reads of where a player can cut, or even how a player might block). And many of the great coaches, including Bill Walsh, emphasized it's how well you execute your core, basic plays. Other coaches might have different base plays, but your base plays are your base plays.
But my concern is this -- teams seem to get into a groove and a rhythm stopping particular Stanford run plays they prepare for. The current Bryce Love pitch play has a particular set up, a particular rhythm, a particular location, a particular player, and, perhaps most significantly, a particular timing -- it is a slow-developing play that has been disrupted by interior run blitzing.
I can see an argument that Stanford shouldn't pass -- passes stop the clock, and they're full of risk and uncertainty (blindside rushers, unseen/misdiagnosed coverage, tipped balls).
I can even see the argument against many run plays people argue for (pitch sweeps arguably could be tipped/disrupted by a gambling defense, and wide/fast pitches can be fumbled, and even zone reads can lead to turnovers when a QB isn't decisive and makes a sloppy choice whether to keep or handoff).
But my question is this -- Coach Shaw defends the play call by saying the correct choice was to run, but does that necessarily mean the correct choice was to run the same run play, to the same place, with the same timing, to the same gap, with the same player, over and over?
It seems like defenses can get into a nice rhythm over and over successfully stopping these run plays. And I do think the conservatism has cost Stanford some games, especially against some clever, well-regarded coaches.
So my question is -- even if Stanford runs, and it runs a very safe run play, can't they mix some things up? I would imagine Stanford could benefit if it ran another different type of run play -- even a Fullback dive (assuming our fullbacks can be trusted to hold onto the rock). The benefit of a fullback dive is that it develops much, much more quickly, it can be to the site opposite of Bryce Love, and it hits a different hole. But I think the greatest benefit is the change-up in timing. I just think there's a LOT to be said about defenses getting into a rhythm and defenses being able to anticipate. The change-up could put defenders off-balance, which could make them question things more on future plays, and it could help linemen blocking players that are less sure what's going to happen. And the surprise could net good yards.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=fHTNfs4tvzk&t=48s
Maybe the change-up run play is not a fullback dive, but I can't help wondering if there are some other run plays that could be run that could put defenses off-balance, make them guess more, and deny them a sense of rhythm. Or even the same dang play with some line-of-scrimmage formation shifts before snapping the ball, to not let defenses settle in. Or even if it meant burning more time in the huddle, then rushing to the line and starting their play almost in a 'hurry-up' mode on a quick snap count to deny defenses from locking in their plans. I can't help thinking a little bit of a change-up is possible, and could be beneficial.
But as a whole, I'm very happy with Coach Shaw because I'm very happy with the unprecedented results, and I'm very happy that the results are being achieved doing things by and large the right way, with relatively little drama. But, I think every coach can improve elements of their game, and I do wonder if this area can be improved a bit, even if the general philosophy of running out the clock with conservative run plays may be sound.
RE: Play Calling And The Farm Report - CTcard - 10-25-2018
(10-25-2018, 03:00 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: And generally, I defend sticking with the run, and specializing in a smaller number of plays.
I might defend that too, but it's mostly not what Stanford does.
Stanford runs more plays than most teams, and typically from far more different formations.
This year, outside of the ASU game, Stanford has not stuck with the run, but they have cut down on the number of different formations and plays.
Oregon under Chip Kelly was a primo example of the advantages of sticking with the run and specializing in a small number of plays.
Quote:The current Bryce Love pitch play has a particular set up, a particular rhythm, a particular location, a particular player, and, perhaps most significantly, a particular timing -- it is a slow-developing play that has been disrupted by interior run blitzing.
It looks to me as if the pitch play is exclusive to Love. I don't think I have seen it with any of the other backs. At any rate, it was not part of the fourth quarter kill-the-clock efforts vs ASU.
Like everything else in the run game, the Love-pitch has not been effective. I am not sure it has been worse than other run plays.
Quote:But my question is this -- Coach Shaw defends the play call by saying the correct choice was to run, but does that necessarily mean the correct choice was to run the same run play, to the same place, with the same timing, to the same gap, with the same player, over and over?
I am not quite sure if you are referring to the fourth quarter kill or Stanford's run game overall.
During that fourth quarter Stanford ran a several different run plays, mostly inside but at least two were intended to be stretch plays. They ran out of two back and one back sets, under center and out of the shotgun, and looked about 2/3 zone blocking vs gap plays, mostly to the right but some to the left. A couple that might have been read the defense run/pass - but likely there wasn't really an option for Costello.
So, at least during that drive, all of Stanford's run plays were ineffective, but they were not all the same play.
And not really on topic of anything here, the tripping penalty on Scarlett that started the all-run fourth quarter was bogus. He tried to cut block the outside rusher, half-missed, and the defender got somewhat tangled up in his legs. It's not the worst call I have ever seen, and perhaps could be appreciated as payback for the iffy PI call on the St. Brown play, but still pretty weak.