Pro style 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: Pro style offense (/thread-19687.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: Pro style offense (/thread-19687.html)
Pro style offense - BrevinsBest - 05-12-2020
It's been said that David Shaw's offense is perfect for quarterbacks because it's a pro-style offense and prepares them for life in the NFL. Is it safe to say that, with the changes to how NFL offenses are designed, this is no longer the case? I'm just wondering if it's time to toss out the 500 page playbook.
RE: Pro style offense - JohnR34231 - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 09:30 AM)BrevinsBest Wrote: It's been said that David Shaw's offense is perfect for quarterbacks because it's a pro-style offense and prepares them for life in the NFL. Is it safe to say that, with the changes to how NFL offenses are designed, this is no longer the case? I'm just wondering if it's time to toss out the 500 page playbook.
Possibly, but people have been talking about how Shaw's offensive philosophy needs to change for a number of years now and it hasn't. So I wouldn't hold my breath.
It might take a couple more 4-8 seasons (perish the thought).
RE: Pro style offense - Papa John - 05-12-2020
I'm going to stick out my neck here and offer my support for David Shaw. Last year was painful, even by 1980-85 standards--when I attended Stanford and our best season was 6-5--but I attribute the anemic offense and 4-8 record of 2019 to the injuries of our starting QBs, O-line and others and the insufficient depth to make up for said injuries. I am much more concerned about our ability to recruit quality and depth at all positions than I am regarding DS's offensive philosophy, whatever that term even means.
My two cents.
RE: Pro style offense - BobK - 05-12-2020
I’m completely with you Papa John.
Tackling and a pass rush would have helped a lot last season. Passing for 500 yards and losing was hard to take
RE: Pro style offense - BostonCard - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 09:40 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(05-12-2020, 09:30 AM)BrevinsBest Wrote: It's been said that David Shaw's offense is perfect for quarterbacks because it's a pro-style offense and prepares them for life in the NFL. Is it safe to say that, with the changes to how NFL offenses are designed, this is no longer the case? I'm just wondering if it's time to toss out the 500 page playbook.
Possibly, but people have been talking about how Shaw's offensive philosophy needs to change for a number of years now and it hasn't. So I wouldn't hold my breath.
It might take a couple more 4-8 seasons (perish the thought).
I don't get why people hold onto this view of Shaw even though all evidence has pointed to the contrary. Because he's said it more elegantly than I could, I will just link this post by SamuelMcF:
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=19655&pid=280499#pid280499
Quote:Interestingly, I believe we tried to simplify the offense somewhat this year, and added changes. Many more swing passes, screens, and RPO looks. Throwing on first down...a LOT. Pritchard's influence is seeping in. I believe many people just see 4-8 and think we didn't change anything.
CTCard has also made this point numerous times in the past.
We ran a very different offense in 2020 than we did in 2011. Arguably, the problem is that we've strayed too far from our roots, which were effective, and now run too much of a "me too" offensive philosophy that doesn't fit our strengths (as intimated by the OP)
BC
RE: Pro style offense - SamuelMcF - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 10:38 AM)BostonCard Wrote: We ran a very different offense in 2020 than we did in 2011. Arguably, the problem is that we've strayed too far from our roots, which were effective, and now run too much of a "me too" offensive philosophy that doesn't fit our strengths (as intimated by the OP)
That's what happens when you have a new OC, new OL coach and run game coordinator. It's also now two guys instead of just Bloomgren.
Bloomgren ran a power man-blocking scheme out of the I formation. These are the "roots" you're talking about.
Pritchberry runs a duo zone-blocking scheme out of the shotgun with more spread/RPO looks. We did keep some play action out of a more "power" look from time to time, but the base scheme is a complete 180 from what we used to run under Bloom. I have no idea how people can look at our offense and claim it's the same. It's not. It feels to me like many believe "bad offense" = "the same offense." Nope. That said...
It was very clear Shaw took over playcalling on 3rd downs and in the RZ, and it looked much more like previous years' stuff and absolutely sucked. Our 3rd down conversion rate and RZ touchdown rate were both abysmal. As an example, specifically in the RZ, we ran out of 4TE sets with walk-on Kyle McCombs as the 4th TE at least 5 times, and (I'm not exaggerating) netted NEGATIVE yardage on those plays. There was a sequence in a game (I forget which) where we did it three times in a row for a net gain of zero. Mind-boggling that we not only tried, but CONTINUED TO TRY to run behind a walk-on TE getting obliterated by an opposing DE/OLB. [These stuck out in my mind because I would notice a TE wearing #85 in the game and go "wait, who is that?"]
On third down and long-ish, our playcall was basically always one of three things: a give-up RB draw (sad), a screen pass, or "Four Verticals" from Madden with maybe an in route somewhere near the marker. No creativity, and so easy for defenses to plan against.
So really IMO the problem is not that we've strayed too far from "our roots," it's that Shaw is holding us back from actually moving on when the rest of the offensive braintrust and personnel already have. Pritchard and Carberry play half the chess game, then Shaw replaces all their pieces with pawns and finishes the game with them because it used to work when the pawns could move like queens.
HOWEVER, ALL THIS SAID, I want to echo BobK. The elephant in the room is that our defense has completely fallen off a cliff. That's the bigger issue that needs fixing right now. And in a hurry.
RE: Pro style offense - OutsiderFan - 05-12-2020
To answer the question in the OP...
Not much can be drawn from 2019 because the OL and QB injuries were a significant anomaly. You have to look back to 2018 and to the '19 and '20 recruiting classes to assess the current Shaw offense.
Recruiting more mobile QBs, all-purpose RBs, and WRs, combined with fewer TEs and FBs, suggests no more "let's win in a phone booth" offense. Whether whatever the offensive style is will continue to be relevant in the NFL can't really be answered since we haven't seen it, but the evidence suggests the answer is yes, with a caveat.
In 2018 we saw KJ Costello winging the ball around, but Bryce Love was still involved and not given very many opportunities as a receiver, and Costello is not a real running threat.
It would be great to see Stanford adopt the Niners zone running offense and run play-action off it, but based on the QBs that have been recruited (and Mills is a decent runner too), it seems we're more likely to see zone read options and RPOs out of shotgun, like pretty much everyone else does now. This would suggest Stanford's offense will have evolved to whatever Pro Style is these days, but Stanford will no longer have some unique claim to run a Pro Style offense like 5-10 years ago. The caveat to all this is rather than being able to leverage offering a highly valuable playing style few others offered, Stanford is just keeping up with the Joneses rather than becoming a dinosaur.
RE: Pro style offense - BostonCard - 05-12-2020
A few thoughts.
First, I agree with you that the fall-off in the defensive output has been at least as significant as the decline in offense, and probably more so. Last year, we averaged 1.82 points per drive (100th in FBS), while our defense gave up 2.62 points per drive (95th in FBS). Here's our tragectory over the Shaw years:
| Year | Offensive PPD | Defensive PPD |
| 2011 | 3.58 (2) | 1.76 (38) |
| 2012 | 2.08 (72) | 1.38 (13) |
| 2013 | 2.61 (30) | 1.57 (17) |
| 2014 | 2.31 (49) | 1.41 (8) |
| 2015 | 3.56 (2) | 1.93 (43) |
| 2016 | 2.23 (60) | 1.57 (14) |
| 2017 | 2.78 (18) | 2.10 (58) |
| 2018 | 2.41 (38) | 1.98 (49) |
| 2019 | 1.82 (100) | 2.62 (95) |
The third down/red zone offense is clearly deficient. However, our stats were poor on all downs.
Passing, we were 124/181 (68%) for 1359 yards (7.5 YPA) with 4 TD and 2 INT, PER was 137 on first downs; 98/152 (64.5%) for 971 yards (6.4 YPA) with 9 TD and 2 INT; PER was 135 on second down.
Rushing we got 672 yards on 168 carries (4 YPC) on first down, and 410 yards on 110 carries (3.73 YPC) on second down.
These are... not very good stats.
BC
RE: Pro style offense - SamuelMcF - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 12:00 PM)BostonCard Wrote: A few thoughts.
First, I agree with you that the fall-off in the defensive output has been at least as significant as the decline in offense, and probably more so. Last year, we averaged 1.82 points per drive (100th in FBS), while our defense gave up 2.62 points per drive (95th in FBS). Here's our tragectory over the Shaw years:
[...]
The third down/red zone offense is clearly deficient. However, our stats were poor on all downs.
Passing, we were 124/181 (68%) for 1359 yards (7.5 YPA) with 4 TD and 2 INT, PER was 137 on first downs; 98/152 (64.5%) for 971 yards (6.4 YPA) with 9 TD and 2 INT; PER was 135 on second down.
Rushing we got 672 yards on 168 carries (4 YPC) on first down, and 410 yards on 110 carries (3.73 YPC) on second down.
These are... not very good stats.
BC
Eye-opening but at the same time unsurprising, given we all watched what happened. Overall your point is well-taken that it wasn't one particular problem. However I'm sure multiple offensive philosophies in a tug-of-war couldn't have helped things.
Overall it feels to me like the offense's struggles can be much more attributed to injuries than the defense's. Having 3 true frosh on the OL will limit you no matter what. Mills showed some flashes of brilliance with opposing big men barreling down on him, and I think those moments on film will look great to NFL scouts. Some of his best throws were on busted protections where Walter Rouse or Barrett Miller got absolutely punked by much more seasoned DL. On the whole I thought the frosh OL performed admirably, and weren't nearly as bad as one would reasonably expect 3* true freshmen to be (but of course, compared to your average 21-year-old P5 starting OL they were still not good...how could they be?).
The defense just felt like a different story:
- Tackling was bad pretty much universally. Toohill a bright spot, and Pryts pleasantly surprised me though that was in part due to my low expectations.
- Pass rush was completely nonexistent, even with a mostly-intact front of DL and OLBs (everyone but Jordan Fox was healthy). This was probably the biggest issue, and it was even worse than last year where it was already an issue!
- To expand on the above, late in the season I saw instances of twists/stunts where multiple DL/OLBs ran into each other. Garbers in particular ate us alive on those pass rush failures in Big Game.
- Against the run I thought our DL and particularly Toohill anchored surprisingly well, but that didn't matter when the second level was an undersized Pryts - who honestly wasn't even that bad given his physical limitations - and an absolutely atrocious Robinson (he had 5 of the 10 worst-graded games by a Stanford defender versus the run, though a silver lining here is that four of them were in the first half of the season, signaling improvement over time as he logged more starts at his new position). Yes, the injuries to Miezan and Mangum-Farrar hurt really badly here.
- I could go on an entire separate rant about just the safety room in particular. Williamson was ok (a pleasant surprise given Akina's dismal recent history with converted corners), McGill showed some flashes even with his limitations as an undersized 5'9" true frosh, and that was it. I knew the position would be a weakness this year but holy crap...
RE: Pro style offense - slide - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 12:57 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: ...- I could go on an entire separate rant about just the safety room in particular. Williamson was ok (a pleasant surprise given Akina's dismal recent history with converted corners), McGill showed some flashes even with his limitations as an undersized 5'9" true frosh, and that was it. I knew the position would be a weakness this year but holy crap...
really hard to do much schematically when your last line of defense isn't a good one. I hope when(if) we play in the fall that Anderson/Akina will have Adebo in the slot and bring another CB to play wide. Adebo has the ability to lock down the other team's 3rd down receiver and also be a threat as blitzer from the slot. he has much more size and speed than McGill.
lex24 - lex24 - 05-12-2020
A Shaw argument. GAWD this will be fun. I mean it. I’m a simple guy. To me it’s real easy. They have to be able to run the football. And to do that they have to have an offensive line that can allow them to run the football. When they do run the football they have a successful offense. When they don’t they don’t. And furthermore they need to control the football. Because they are not gonna have the fire power to consistently outscore other teams. Nor are they going to have much defensive depth. So keep your defense off the field as long as possible. Complementary football. Power football. It is what has worked for them in their successful years both under Harbaugh and Shaw. And by the way before that Denny Green. Walsh was an aberration – if you are lucky you get somebody like that once every several generations. And frankly they were nowhere near as successful under Walsh as they have been under Shaw. And if Green had stayed after ‘91, I think he would’ve been much more successful moving forward then Walsh Ii. Denny Green was the first to bring power football to Stanford. It’s works for them at this juncture.
RE: lex24 - oldalum - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 07:37 PM)lex24 Wrote: A Shaw argument. GAWD that feels good.....It's obvious to anyone who is not the biggest idiot in history that Shaw was not up to the challenge last season. He had 3 years with the rising senior class, yet he left us totally unprepared for it. He allowed our stockpile of linemen and safeties to dwindle, and what we had was not well-maintained. He squandered weeks of spring practice without even holding a full scrimmage. He rejected the excellent in-game advice from the more knowledgeable experts on his staff, let alone the experts on the Cardboard, and in the red zone relied on hunches and intuition that failed spectacularly. He never acknowledged making any errors, and consistently minimized the obvious problems facing the team. He remained unrealistically optimistic even as the season was crashing down all around him. He never wore a helmet even though everyone else around him was. . . . Oh, wait, I think the standard refrains have cut such deep grooves in my mind that I can't get out of them. Help! I think I need to attend a deprogramming camp ;)
lex24 - lex24 - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 07:07 PM)slide Wrote:(05-12-2020, 12:57 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: ...- I could go on an entire separate rant about just the safety room in particular. Williamson was ok (a pleasant surprise given Akina's dismal recent history with converted corners), McGill showed some flashes even with his limitations as an undersized 5'9" true frosh, and that was it. I knew the position would be a weakness this year but holy crap...
really hard to do much schematically when your last line of defense isn't a good one. I hope when(if) we play in the fall that Anderson/Akina will have Adebo in the slot and bring another CB to play wide. Adebo has the ability to lock down the other team's 3rd down receiver and also be a threat as blitzer from the slot. he has much more size and speed than McGill.
You can have Deion and Willie Brown at the corners, Lott and Lynch at safety; but if you can’t get to the QB, it doesn’t matter. They’ve gone from “party in the backfield” to allowing the quarterback to shelter in place. (Sorry I couldn’t resist.). And of course the other key is to stop the run. Which they have been unable to do. If I am forced to choose between an average to below average defensive backfield coupled with an above average front seven; or a below average front seven coupled with an above average backfield, I’ll take the above average front seven every day of the week.
RE: Pro style offense - Phogge - 05-13-2020
All the above doesn’t seem all that important anymore. Trumped by not being able to see our grandchild for a long time, be with buddies at our seven or eight HS class lunches, trips every year, participate in my cousin’s Arizona calf roundup, etc. Perhaps I will regain interest in Shawcology in 2022 but I’m not betting on it. A lot more things to do at home but still a bit of fun to read Cardboard analytics. Beats the hell out of reading political rants and defeatism on TOS.
RE: lex24 - slide - 05-13-2020
(05-12-2020, 08:26 PM)lex24 Wrote: You can have Deion and Willie Brown at the corners, Lott and Lynch at safety; but if you can’t get to the QB, it doesn’t matter. They’ve gone from “party in the backfield” to allowing the quarterback to shelter in place. (Sorry I couldn’t resist.). And of course the other key is to stop the run. Which they have been unable to do. If I am forced to choose between an average to below average defensive backfield coupled with an above average front seven; or a below average front seven coupled with an above average backfield, I’ll take the above average front seven every day of the week.
lex, in general, I agree with you on this one. however, our coaches prefer a bend, don't break style (not sure if this is Shaw or Anderson or both thing; I suspect former given historic risk-averse approach). with that, you need a really good tackling secondary before more party in the backfield is unleashed. I'd prefer Shafer's defensive approach (blitz-happy in year one (?) of Harbs) to get pressure early on QB, but alas...
RE: Pro style offense - BostonCard - 05-13-2020
Well, at least we can make up for slow safeties who can't tackle by having small defensive linemen who can't get to the QB.
BC
RE: Pro style offense - SamuelMcF - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 11:54 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Well, at least we can make up for slow safeties who can't tackle by having small defensive linemen who can't get to the QB.
BC
Lance Anderson, correctly identifying the glaring weakness of our DL in pass rush, tried a couple interesting 1 DL-3 OLB sets on obvious passing downs later in the season in an effort to generate a quicker rush. I couldn't tell you if they worked better or worse than our usual 2 and 2...too small a sample size. But it was an interesting wrinkle and one we haven't really seen before.
RE: Pro style offense - fullmetal - 05-14-2020
Duo blocking schemes would tend to render the fullback position obsolete, no? We lose numbers at the point of attack in order to gain a tempo/reaction advantage if the RB makes the correct read (and if the defense doesn't stuff all the gaps). While the pros are blocking in duo more, I also heard that duo is easier to teach than the traditional pin-pull, zone, or other such blocking schemes. Seems like a big change whose implementation was rocked by concurrent injuries.
Agreed that the defense is the biggest point of concern, but we knew that already. Front seven can't generate pass rush, and LB/S take bad angles to the ball carrier.