new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - 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: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux (/thread-19714.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: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux (/thread-19714.html)
Pages:
1
2
new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - troyc - 05-15-2020
New TreeCast is up!
+ with some believing Stanford's offense is in the middle of an identity crisis, how critical will "Intellectual Brutality" be for the Cardinal next season?
+ 3 Things you need to hear from David Shaw's appearance on this week's Pac-12 football coaches media webinar
+ if college football can't play 12 games this season, the Pac-12 may have a viable alternative solution on the table...
Subscribe, download, listen, rate, review, react, and enjoy!
Troy C
The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Intellectual Brutality Crisis? (May 14, 2020)
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - OutsiderFan - 05-15-2020
Before listening, I want to submit "Intellectual Brutality" can mean a lot more than playing with 7 OL and running Power as the staple of an offense.
lex24 - lex24 - 05-15-2020
(05-15-2020, 12:15 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Before listening, I want to submit "Intellectual Brutality" can mean a lot more than playing with 7 OL and running Power as the staple of an offense.And I will submit that it always did. Multiple formations. Multiple player combinations etc. Yet, nothing was quite so beautiful as watching a drive late third early fourth where they’d just run Power over and over. To the point where allegedly an SC player said- if you run Power again I’m leaving. And (I was on the sidelines for this one) power is run about 10 straight times versus an Arizona squad whose hilarious coach (Mike Stoops) had indicated through the media that Stanford isn’t that physical. As they ran it down their throats, the sideline screamed - “Is that physical enough” It got louder every play. Until they eventually scored. (Both these were during the Harbaugh years. He was, after all, the guy that brought Big 10 football to Stanford).
Power football made Stanford more relevant than it has ever been during our lifetimes. The tunnel workers union. The mindset that we don’t care if you know what we’re going to run we’re still gonna do it we’re going to ram it right down your throat. Well that worked. It helped of course they had a physical and terrific defense to go with it. But part of that credit goes to the complementary style they were playing at the time.
One can bitch and moan over whether it was used too much or whether they didn’t do enough motion or this or that or the other thing. Or what they did on 4th and 1. Or had they only done two or three plays differently in various games they would’ve won national championships. Those are wonderful arguments. Because they can’t be defeated. Second-guessing always works. There has never been a play run by a second-guesser that wasn’t successful. Ever. I know all mine have worked.
But you really can’t argue about the success of the general philosophy employed, because it’s unassailable. It’s the most they’ve ever won. By a long shot. And of course, as they have been unable the last few years to play in that style they have suffered. Tremendously. Which they will continue to do if they can’t play power football moving forward.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 05-15-2020
(05-15-2020, 01:49 PM)lex24 Wrote: But you really can’t argue about the success of the general philosophy employed, because it’s unassailable. It’s the most they’ve ever won. By a long shot. And of course, as they have been unable the last few years to play in that style they have suffered. Tremendously. Which they will continue to do if they can’t play power football moving forward.
One can't argue with the results. However, the rule changes over the past few years have really favored the passing game. Stanford also hasn't been able to recruit running backs that could pound it up the gut, mostly because high schools don't do that anymore either. CMAC was great, but he couldn't do that. BL was great, but he couldn't do that either. Shaw always said how good they were as inside runners. It was wishful thinking. They could run inside occasionally, but not at will. Football has evolved, for better or worse. Like it or not, Stanford must also.
RE: lex24 - Red80 - 05-15-2020
(05-15-2020, 01:49 PM)lex24 Wrote:(05-15-2020, 12:15 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Before listening, I want to submit "Intellectual Brutality" can mean a lot more than playing with 7 OL and running Power as the staple of an offense.And I will submit that it always did. Multiple formations. Multiple player combinations etc. Yet, nothing was quite so beautiful as watching a drive late third early fourth where they’d just run Power over and over. To the point where allegedly an SC player said- if you run Power again I’m leaving. And (I was on the sidelines for this one) power is run about 10 straight times versus an Arizona squad whose hilarious coach (Mike Stoops) had indicated through the media that Stanford isn’t that physical. As they ran it down their throats, the sideline screamed - “Is that physical enough” It got louder every play. Until they eventually scored. (Both these were during the Harbaugh years. He was, after all, the guy that brought Big 10 football to Stanford).
Power football made Stanford more relevant than it has ever been during our lifetimes. The tunnel workers union. The mindset that we don’t care if you know what we’re going to run we’re still gonna do it we’re going to ram it right down your throat. Well that worked. It helped of course they had a physical and terrific defense to go with it. But part of that credit goes to the complementary style they were playing at the time.
One can bitch and moan over whether it was used too much or whether they didn’t do enough motion or this or that or the other thing. Or what they did on 4th and 1. Or had they only done two or three plays differently in various games they would’ve won national championships. Those are wonderful arguments. Because they can’t be defeated. Second-guessing always works. There has never been a play run by a second-guesser that
wasn’t successful. Ever. I know all mine have worked.
But you really can’t argue about the success of the general philosophy employed, because it’s unassailable. It’s the most they’ve ever won. By a long shot. And of course, as they have been unable the last few years to play in that style they have suffered. Tremendously. Which they will continue to do if they can’t play power football moving forward.
100% Correct.
RE: lex24 - Farm93 - 05-15-2020
(05-15-2020, 04:29 PM)Goose Wrote: Football has evolved, for better or worse. Like it or not, Stanford must also.I wish it was that easy. The game has evolved in a way that has reduced the complexity of the game (bad for Stanford) and has increased the importance of elite speed at every talent position (very bad for Stanford).
There a loads of economic, cultural, political and demographic reasons in that reality. If the game has evolved so that players pre-snap look to the sideline and look at a bunch of flash cards to tell them what to do at the snap, then the game's evolution is rapidly moving away from Stanford's core strengths.
Put it this way - You don't need to be an "intellectual" if your system has you learn that an image of Taylor Swift means stop & go, but a pic of Katy Perry means a post route. And actually some schools reduced the complexity even more since some of the pictures last year included pictures of cereal brands and cartoon characters.
RE: lex24 - fullmetal - 05-15-2020
(05-15-2020, 04:29 PM)Goose Wrote: Stanford also hasn't been able to recruit running backs that could pound it up the gut, mostly because high schools don't do that anymore either. CMAC was great, but he couldn't do that. BL was great, but he couldn't do that either. Shaw always said how good they were as inside runners. It was wishful thinking. They could run inside occasionally, but not at will.
"Pound it up the gut" is more a function of how fast a RB can get to the hole and how good your OL is at creating that hole. I assure you that it's not as much a matter of running through contact as avoiding contact. (How are you defining 'inside runs' btw? Only A-gap runs? Between the tackles?)
Stanford can run the ball successfully if they have a healthy OL with proper S&C. Period. There is no reason why Austin Jones won't look like the next Stepfan Taylor if the OL is healthy and blows defenders off the ball each snap. The rules haven't changed to disadvantage the run game, and the run game will always be the preferred offensive paradigm if a team can execute their blocking.
lex24 - lex24 - 05-16-2020
(05-15-2020, 04:29 PM)Goose Wrote:(05-15-2020, 01:49 PM)lex24 Wrote: But you really can’t argue about the success of the general philosophy employed, because it’s unassailable. It’s the most they’ve ever won. By a long shot. And of course, as they have been unable the last few years to play in that style they have suffered. Tremendously. Which they will continue to do if they can’t play power football moving forward.
One can't argue with the results. However, the rule changes over the past few years have really favored the passing game. Stanford also hasn't been able to recruit running backs that could pound it up the gut, mostly because high schools don't do that anymore either. CMAC was great, but he couldn't do that. BL was great, but he couldn't do that either. Shaw always said how good they were as inside runners. It was wishful thinking. They could run inside occasionally, but not at will. Football has evolved, for better or worse. Like it or not, Stanford must also.
CMac couldn’t “pound it up the gut”? I guess we watched different games. He ran inside a ton. He does in the NFL as well. You don’t run for 1,400 yards in the NF L unless you are a great inside runner. Most the running game is inside. Defenses are too fast to run wide a lot. Love was most effective inside also. He fan for over 2000 yards in ‘17 for goodness sakes. Most inside.
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - BobK - 05-16-2020
Amazing lack of memory by some. So agree with you Lex
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - troyc - 05-16-2020
(05-15-2020, 12:15 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Before listening, I want to submit "Intellectual Brutality" can mean a lot more than playing with 7 OL and running Power as the staple of an offense.
Posting on a podcast thread before (or without) listening to said podcast can be a risky thing, so I look forward to seeing your thoughts after you hear the show!
Troy C
RE: lex24 - Goose - 05-16-2020
(05-15-2020, 08:54 PM)fullmetal Wrote:Avoiding contact is great. CMAC and BL made a living that way, making people miss. However, if you are a run first team, there are going to be times that the hole isn't there and the defense is. You need a back that can still make a positive play out of it. I am defining "up the gut" as between the tackles. Stanford has also a set of "stretch" plays that optionally run outside the tackle that I don't think qualifies as "up the get".(05-15-2020, 04:29 PM)Goose Wrote: Stanford also hasn't been able to recruit running backs that could pound it up the gut, mostly because high schools don't do that anymore either. CMAC was great, but he couldn't do that. BL was great, but he couldn't do that either. Shaw always said how good they were as inside runners. It was wishful thinking. They could run inside occasionally, but not at will.
"Pound it up the gut" is more a function of how fast a RB can get to the hole and how good your OL is at creating that hole. I assure you that it's not as much a matter of running through contact as avoiding contact. (How are you defining 'inside runs' btw? Only A-gap runs? Between the tackles?)
Quote:Stanford can run the ball successfully if they have a healthy OL with proper S&C. Period. There is no reason why Austin Jones won't look like the next Stepfan Taylor if the OL is healthy and blows defenders off the ball each snap.Probably true. It is a tautology. If the OL makes a hole every time any running back will make yards. However, even "back in the day", that didn't happen. There are always plays where the hole isn't there or it closes rapidly. Stephan Taylor would still make 3 yards on those plays most times. He was 5'11" and 215. He could and did move the pile. Tyler Gaffney was 6'1" and 226. He could move the pile. Austin Jones is 5'10" and 190. He probably won't move the pile. Recall Bryce Love at 5'10" and 200 trying to score /get a first down on 3rd and 1. No hole, he stands there looking for a crease and down he goes. End of story. One can say "Well, that was the OL's fault and their should have been a hole." Maybe, but the defense gets a vote. "Intellectual brutality" needs to include the man with the ball.
Quote:The rules haven't changed to disadvantage the run game, and the run game will always be the preferred offensive paradigm if a team can execute their blocking.Sure the rules have changed to the advantage of the passing game. Most recently, there have been several rule changes to protect the QB. These rules inherently slow down the pass rush because if you hit either low or high it is a penalty and if you collide with the QB after the ball is thrown it is a penalty.
To be clear, I am not recommending abandoning the running game. You have to be balanced or you give the defense an advantage. If you are fortunate enough to have a guy who can move the pile, you use him to do just that. However, if you don't have that you better have a plan to use what you do have to keep the defense off balance. You need to take advantage of the skills your RBs do have. If that is catching swing passes and occasionally running "up the gut", you do that. On third and 1 you better have a way to keep the defense off balance if you can't reliably overpower them.
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - Goose - 05-16-2020
(05-16-2020, 08:58 AM)lex24 Wrote: CMac couldn’t “pound it up the gut”? I guess we watched different games. He ran inside a ton. He does in the NFL as well. You don’t run for 1,400 yards in the NF L unless you are a great inside runner. Most the running game is inside. Defenses are too fast to run wide a lot. Love was most effective inside also. He fan for over 2000 yards in ‘17 for goodness sakes. Most inside.
(05-16-2020, 09:17 AM)BobK Wrote: Amazing lack of memory by some. So agree with you Lex
Please read what I wrote. I said that CMac couldn't "pound it up the gut". I did not say he did not run inside. What is at issue here is how it was accomplished. You may recall that there were many long discussions about how good CMac was/is at reading the blocking. He is a very patient runner, as was repeatedly emphasized by many people, including Bryce Love. Stanford actually changed how they blocked to take advantage of this strength. The previous approach feature a fixed point of attach with man blocking. The runner was attacking a particular point of attack and that was it. With CMac, he would read the blocking and run where the defense wasn't. Totally different approach. Many of his runs "up the middle" didn't go through the "nominal", intended hole. If somebody stunted, he would run through the hole they vacated. He is a great cut back runner as well. CMac didn't make his yards on Yards After Contact (YAC). He did it by making guys miss. This isn't to say he was weak or anything like that. However, making people miss was his strength, not dragging UCLA cornerbacks for 20 yards a la Toby Gerhardt. So I stand by the statement that he couldn't "pound it up the gut". Both BL and CMac had the attribute that if they got through the line clean, they were a threat to go all the way. However, if they didn't get through clean, it usually didn't go so well. Neither CMac nor BL made their living breaking tackles. They did it by avoiding tacklers and making people miss. The could also run away from lots of defenders using pure speed.
Love was a great back who could also run the ball very effectively inside. However, he was a "home run" hitter. We talked incessantly on this board about the pattern. Short gain after short gain followed by a 50 yard run. The problem was that we had trouble sustaining drives, because a) we ended up in too may third and longs , and b) we couldn't reliably convert third and short. The way BL ran was in no way similar to Stephan Taylor, Toby Gerhardt or even Tyler Gaffney. I don't think you are really arguing that are you? If it is third and 1, who would you rather have carry the ball, BL or Toby?
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - Phogge - 05-17-2020
Farm, I would be lost trying to run plays by looking at pictures of Katy Perry and Taylor Swift. I have no idea who they are. Now if the pictures are of Sophia Loren and Rita Hayworth I would be in business.
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - SamuelMcF - 05-17-2020
(05-16-2020, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: If it is third and 1, who would you rather have carry the ball, BL or Toby?
Remound Wright
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - Goose - 05-17-2020
(05-17-2020, 09:14 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:While not in the list I proposed, I would have to agree. Short yardage (vulture) was for sure his thing. It wasn't that he was a really big guy. He just knew how to jump over the pile or find a place he could fall forward.(05-16-2020, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: If it is third and 1, who would you rather have carry the ball, BL or Toby?
Remound Wright
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - BobK - 05-17-2020
3rd and one and here comes the Vulture.
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - OutsiderFan - 05-17-2020
OK, I listened...
When I read "intellectual brutality" it conjures someone destroying something with their mind. It doesn't mean being physically dominated. Don't get me wrong, I really do love the slogan, but for me it means outsmarting people, always being 1-2 steps ahead. It's thinking someone is going to zig, but instead zag. Stanford football does not tend to do things I would call innovative or that cause the opponent fits because they aren't expected or otherwise catch people off guard.
Here's an example of intellectual brutality on offense:
Starting a game with the OL coming to the LOS in traditional formation, and then switching to unbalanced line, with the QB in a trips right formation. Having the RB take a snap our of shotgun (wildcat) and an eligible TE in the LT position, with the LT lined up next to the RT. Then run a reverse action to the QB, with two of the WRs running streaks and the TE running a corner route, and have the RB keep the ball after faking handoff to the QB. That to me is intellectual brutality. Give the defense one thing to think about as the OL shift into an unbalanced set. Then having the QB flanked wide makes the defense think about something else. Then run the QB like he's gonna get the ball to throw, and fool it again with an off Tackle run with 4 OL leading the way.
I'm not saying this is conventional football, but I don't want to see intellectual brutality be conventional football.
Here's an example of intellectual brutality on defense.
Show a single high Safety and a double A gap blitz pre-snap. Send one ILB at the snap and drop one out while bringing a Safety blitz into the gap vacated by the dropping ILB. This confuses OL and gives the QB something to react to that he wasn't expecting.
If you can run the ball when the other team knows you are going to do it, there is no better offense in football. That said, there is a lot to gain by keeping opponents off balance and guessing. You can make up for lack of speed and quickness by making your opponent have to think more. On offense you can slow defenses by making them think before they act. And on defense you can make offenses hesitant and screw up their timing by confusing blocking schemes.
I just don't see enough from Stanford these days that makes me think they are the smarter team. I'd really like to see Stanford outsmart its opponents a lot more frequently than it appears to me they do. That would be intellectual brutality for me.
lex24 - lex24 - 05-17-2020
(05-16-2020, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote:(05-16-2020, 08:58 AM)lex24 Wrote: CMac couldn’t “pound it up the gut”? I guess we watched different games. He ran inside a ton. He does in the NFL as well. You don’t run for 1,400 yards in the NF L unless you are a great inside runner. Most the running game is inside. Defenses are too fast to run wide a lot. Love was most effective inside also. He fan for over 2000 yards in ‘17 for goodness sakes. Most inside.
(05-16-2020, 09:17 AM)BobK Wrote: Amazing lack of memory by some. So agree with you Lex
Please read what I wrote. I said that CMac couldn't "pound it up the gut". I did not say he did not run inside. What is at issue here is how it was accomplished. You may recall that there were many long discussions about how good CMac was/is at reading the blocking. He is a very patient runner, as was repeatedly emphasized by many people, including Bryce Love. Stanford actually changed how they blocked to take advantage of this strength. The previous approach feature a fixed point of attach with man blocking. The runner was attacking a particular point of attack and that was it. With CMac, he would read the blocking and run where the defense wasn't. Totally different approach. Many of his runs "up the middle" didn't go through the "nominal", intended hole. If somebody stunted, he would run through the hole they vacated. He is a great cut back runner as well. CMac didn't make his yards on Yards After Contact (YAC). He did it by making guys miss. This isn't to say he was weak or anything like that. However, making people miss was his strength, not dragging UCLA cornerbacks for 20 yards a la Toby Gerhardt. So I stand by the statement that he couldn't "pound it up the gut". Both BL and CMac had the attribute that if they got through the line clean, they were a threat to go all the way. However, if they didn't get through clean, it usually didn't go so well. Neither CMac nor BL made their living breaking tackles. They did it by avoiding tacklers and making people miss. The could also run away from lots of defenders using pure speed.
Love was a great back who could also run the ball very effectively inside. However, he was a "home run" hitter. We talked incessantly on this board about the pattern. Short gain after short gain followed by a 50 yard run. The problem was that we had trouble sustaining drives, because a) we ended up in too may third and longs , and b) we couldn't reliably convert third and short. The way BL ran was in no way similar to Stephan Taylor, Toby Gerhardt or even Tyler Gaffney. I don't think you are really arguing that are you? If it is third and 1, who would you rather have carry the ball, BL or Toby?
“Shaw always said how good they were as inside runners. It was wishful thinking.”
I did read what you said. I disagree. I still do. Yes, Love and McCaffrey are different style backs than Gerhardt and Gaffney. Both, however, were (and in McCaffrey’s case are) excellent inside runners.
RE: new TreeCast: David Shaw speaks, "Intellectual Brutality" in flux - BostonCard - 05-17-2020
(05-17-2020, 09:14 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(05-16-2020, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: If it is third and 1, who would you rather have carry the ball, BL or Toby?
Remound Wright
On third down and 1 - 3 yards to go:
Wright had 28 touches, 19 first downs, and 5 touchdowns (in 2015); his success rate was 68%, his touchdown rate was 18%
Bryce Love had 14 touches, 2 first downs, and 1 touchdown (in 2017) (he had 4 first downs in 7 attempts in 2018); his success rate was 14%, his touchdown rate was 7%
Toby had 31 touches, 21 first downs, and 2 touchdowns (in 2009); his success rate was 68%, his touchdown rate was 6%
However, on third down and 1-3 yards to go:
In 2015 CMac had 16 touches, and got a first down 12 times (no touchdowns); his success rate was better than anyone at 75%
In 2016 (without WRight) CMac had 23 touches, got a first down 19 times, and had 1 TD. His success rate was 83%!
So to answer the OP's question. On third and short, I want Christian McCaffrey in the backfield.
BC
lex24 - lex24 - 05-17-2020
(05-17-2020, 12:31 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: OK, I listened...
When I read "intellectual brutality" it conjures someone destroying something with their mind. It doesn't mean being physically dominated. Don't get me wrong, I really do love the slogan, but for me it means outsmarting people, always being 1-2 steps ahead. It's thinking someone is going to zig, but instead zag. Stanford football does not tend to do things I would call innovative or that cause the opponent fits because they aren't expected or otherwise catch people off guard.
Here's an example of intellectual brutality on offense:
Starting a game with the OL coming to the LOS in traditional formation, and then switching to unbalanced line, with the QB in a trips right formation. Having the RB take a snap our of shotgun (wildcat) and an eligible TE in the LT position, with the LT lined up next to the RT. Then run a reverse action to the QB, with two of the WRs running streaks and the TE running a corner route, and have the RB keep the ball after faking handoff to the QB. That to me is intellectual brutality. Give the defense one thing to think about as the OL shift into an unbalanced set. Then having the QB flanked wide makes the defense think about something else. Then run the QB like he's gonna get the ball to throw, and fool it again with an off Tackle run with 4 OL leading the way.
I'm not saying this is conventional football, but I don't want to see intellectual brutality be conventional football.
Here's an example of intellectual brutality on defense.
Show a single high Safety and a double A gap blitz pre-snap. Send one ILB at the snap and drop one out while bringing a Safety blitz into the gap vacated by the dropping ILB. This confuses OL and gives the QB something to react to that he wasn't expecting.
If you can run the ball when the other team knows you are going to do it, there is no better offense in football. That said, there is a lot to gain by keeping opponents off balance and guessing. You can make up for lack of speed and quickness by making your opponent have to think more. On offense you can slow defenses by making them think before they act. And on defense you can make offenses hesitant and screw up their timing by confusing blocking schemes.
I just don't see enough from Stanford these days that makes me think they are the smarter team. I'd really like to see Stanford outsmart its opponents a lot more frequently than it appears to me they do. That would be intellectual brutality for me.
It’s wonderful to outsmart teams. You’ll win a few games that way. But it’s actually better to out physical team. Always. Bill Walsh was the smartest offensive football mind of his generation. In two years during his stint at Stanford against USC, Walsh managed seven points. Why? Did he get stupid all of a sudden? Was John Robinson smarter than Walsh? Did he have Stanford’s offense down cold? No. USC was able to physically dominate Stanford and they could do very little offensively. So you can outsmart all you want. I’ll take physical. That is what put Stanford on the map. If they can’t get back to it they’re not gonna win. Simple as that