The CardBoard
One stat that really, really concerns me - 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: One stat that really, really concerns me (/thread-7744.html)

Pages: 1 2

One stat that really, really concerns me - Mick - 09-08-2014

I know we ran up big offensive stats.  I know USC had a good defense.  But Stanford hasn't scored 10 or fewer points in a football game since 11/3/07, Idiotface's last year as a coach.  Four games that year they scored less than 10 points.



Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - jayasena - 09-08-2014

I didn't get to watch the Davis game but it seems like we had trouble finding the end zone after Hogan & Co. called it a day (except on a short 14-yard drive following a fumble recovery) although several of the 2nd half drives made it inside the Davis 30. If one were the worrying kind, one could conclude that we have two sets of data points to suggest that whatever we are doing isn't working  when the field gets shorter and the opponent isn't entirely over-matched.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - fullmetal - 09-09-2014

If I'm remembering right, we were shut out for the entire second half.  When was the last time that happened to Stanford? :(

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - stupac2 - 09-09-2014

(09-09-2014, 02:12 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:If I'm remembering right, we were shut out for the entire second half.  When was the last time that happened to Stanford? :(

At the very least it happened at Oregon in 2010. Same thing there, the wheels sort of just fell off.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - Spiny_Norman - 09-09-2014

(09-08-2014, 09:21 PM)Mick link Wrote:I know we ran up big offensive stats.  I know U$€ had a good defense.  But Stanford hasn't scored 10 or fewer points in a football game since 11/3/07, Idiotface's last year as a coach.  Four games that year they scored less than 10 points.

Mick, you are talking about the Washington game in Harbaugh's first season.  I was at that game.  Pretty desultory experience.  The enthusiasm from the USC upset a month prior had faded.  Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in three games that season.  This was a significant improvement over the 2006 season when Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in 9 of the 12 games.

Stanford does have offensive problems, but nowhere near the level experienced in 2006 and to some extent in 2007.

Here is a stat that should concern the coaches (credit to Kyle Bonagura) - Over first two games, Stanford has converted 2 of 12 third downs when inside opponent’s 40. 8 for 11 on third down on rest of the field.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - yvonne - 09-09-2014

I keep going back to one thing: the lack of a bull runner. You need that on third and short. Sure, you can run guys wide on longer downs, but on third and short, you either run a sneak or have a guy between the tackles. We've either got to give it to the fullbacks or get Montgomery in the run game on plays where we don't run a sneak. The other guys just aren't big enough.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - Papa John - 09-09-2014

I think that Yvonne points out a real concern. Not a single RB has scored a touchdown yet this season. That fact really has me concerned.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - JohnR34231 - 09-09-2014

(09-09-2014, 09:37 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:I keep going back to one thing: the lack of a bull runner. You need that on third and short. Sure, you can run guys wide on longer downs, but on third and short, you either run a sneak or have a guy between the tackles. We've either got to give it to the fullbacks or get Montgomery in the run game on plays where we don't run a sneak. The other guys just aren't big enough.

I guess they still don't like the idea of giving Joey Alfieri a shot there. He sure tore up the Portland leagues last year before he got hurt. Looked very Toby Gerhartish to me.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - jacketree - 09-09-2014

[Image: Bull-run-hit-guy_1441027c.jpg]
I don't see how putting bull runners on the field is going to help.

Kidding aside, running backs don't have to be brobdingnagian if the O-Line can create space, and you don't have to run or sneak on third and short.  There are lots of ways to move the ball down field and punch it in without Larry Csonka. They have to be in there among the 300 pages of plays, don't they?

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - fullmetal - 09-09-2014

(09-09-2014, 09:37 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:I keep going back to one thing: the lack of a bull runner. You need that on third and short. Sure, you can run guys wide on longer downs, but on third and short, you either run a sneak or have a guy between the tackles. We've either got to give it to the fullbacks or get Montgomery in the run game on plays where we don't run a sneak. The other guys just aren't big enough.

That's not even it.  Toby couldn't have done it without a hole to run through.  I really think it's on the OL to blow open holes here.  It's not like Toby was seriously tackled or bottled up often at the line of scrimmage and then somehow got to the second level--he was often untouched at the LOS and was fast enough to get to the second level and run through tackles from smaller defenders.

OL execution and strength/leverage.  Where's the TWU?

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - CornFed - 09-09-2014

(09-09-2014, 09:31 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=10596.msg97534#msg97534 date=1410236484]
I know we ran up big offensive stats.  I know U$€ had a good defense.  But Stanford hasn't scored 10 or fewer points in a football game since 11/3/07, Idiotface's last year as a coach.  Four games that year they scored less than 10 points.

Mick, you are talking about the Washington game in Harbaugh's first season.  I was at that game.  Pretty desultory experience.  The enthusiasm from the U$€ upset a month prior had faded.  Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in three games that season.  This was a significant improvement over the 2006 season when Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in 9 of the 12 games.

Stanford does have offensive problems, but nowhere near the level experienced in 2006 and to some extent in 2007.

Here is a stat that should concern the coaches (credit to Kyle Bonagura) - Over first two games, Stanford has converted 2 of 12 third downs when inside opponent’s 40. 8 for 11 on third down on rest of the field.
[/quote]
That must be entirely due to execution errors.  I have it on good authority that it is not related to play calling.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - Spiny_Norman - 09-09-2014

(09-09-2014, 02:17 PM)CornFed link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=10596.msg97580#msg97580 date=1410280297]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=10596.msg97534#msg97534 date=1410236484]
I know we ran up big offensive stats.  I know U$€ had a good defense.  But Stanford hasn't scored 10 or fewer points in a football game since 11/3/07, Idiotface's last year as a coach.  Four games that year they scored less than 10 points.

Mick, you are talking about the Washington game in Harbaugh's first season.  I was at that game.  Pretty desultory experience.  The enthusiasm from the U$€ upset a month prior had faded.  Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in three games that season.  This was a significant improvement over the 2006 season when Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in 9 of the 12 games.

Stanford does have offensive problems, but nowhere near the level experienced in 2006 and to some extent in 2007.

Here is a stat that should concern the coaches (credit to Kyle Bonagura) - Over first two games, Stanford has converted 2 of 12 third downs when inside opponent’s 40. 8 for 11 on third down on rest of the field.
[/quote]
That must be entirely due to execution errors.  I have it on good authority that it is not related to play calling.
[/quote]

CornFed - is that a serious or facetious comment?  Some CardBoarders have strong feelings about the play calling.  Perhaps you are one of them or perhaps you are teasing them.  It is hard to tell whether or not you are speaking tongue in cheek. 

I had no problem (for the most part) with the play calling.  The results of course are another matter.  Still, do folks think it is significant that Pep Hamilton was the OC when Hogan's Red Zone success rate was 100% (in 2012) vs. the mediocre levels (or worse) since Hamilton left?  Or is this correlation without causation?

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - Rally - 09-09-2014

(09-09-2014, 03:00 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=10596.msg97651#msg97651 date=1410297457]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=10596.msg97580#msg97580 date=1410280297]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=10596.msg97534#msg97534 date=1410236484]
I know we ran up big offensive stats.  I know U$€ had a good defense.  But Stanford hasn't scored 10 or fewer points in a football game since 11/3/07, Idiotface's last year as a coach.  Four games that year they scored less than 10 points.

Mick, you are talking about the Washington game in Harbaugh's first season.  I was at that game.  Pretty desultory experience.  The enthusiasm from the U$€ upset a month prior had faded.  Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in three games that season.  This was a significant improvement over the 2006 season when Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in 9 of the 12 games.

Stanford does have offensive problems, but nowhere near the level experienced in 2006 and to some extent in 2007.

Here is a stat that should concern the coaches (credit to Kyle Bonagura) - Over first two games, Stanford has converted 2 of 12 third downs when inside opponent’s 40. 8 for 11 on third down on rest of the field.
[/quote]
That must be entirely due to execution errors.  I have it on good authority that it is not related to play calling.
[/quote]

CornFed - is that a serious or facetious comment?  Some CardBoarders have strong feelings about the play calling.  Perhaps you are one of them or perhaps you are teasing them.  It is hard to tell whether or not you are speaking tongue in cheek. 

I had no problem (for the most part) with the play calling.  The results of course are another matter.  Still, do folks think it is significant that Pep Hamilton was the OC when Hogan's Red Zone success rate was 100% (in 2012) vs. the mediocre levels (or worse) since Hamilton left?  Or is this correlation without causation?
[/quote]

See redzone correlation several posts earlier.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - Viking_Guy - 09-09-2014

The play-calling debate is tough, because it's almost purely anecdotal.  Very few of the debaters on either side can point to anything other than "yeah, but he went for it on fourth and one" or "he punted from inside the opponent's thirty," single plays in a game where on average over 60 will happen.

I know there must be some stats geek out there who does this, but Spiny's comment does crystallize something I've been thinking about.  It's not necessarily that the play-calling is conservative or innovative or whatever adverb you would choose consistently.  But my purely and faultily human-memory based system wonders if something happens when Stanford has a "scoring chance" - not necessarily in the red zone, but say from the opponents' 40 or 35 on in.  It FEELS like Stanford's play list becomes much more constrained, especially on first and second downs.  It would be interesting to compare the first-down calls on plays beginning outside the opponents' 40 and those inside - run v. pass balance, inside vs outside runs, etc.  Anecdotally, it feels like we end up in a lot more "3rd and 6+" inside the 40.

About the only first-down passing plays with the team in "scoring position" I can recall are the inevitable heave on a sideline fade route that hasn't seemed to work in years.

Does anyone know of any resource like that?

And on Yvonne's point, at some point last season (I think), I posted that what disappointed me was not that Stanford was still running power over and over again - it was that there was no variance at all in how it was being run, and there never seemed to be any misdirection or tendency-breaking change, like the old bringing players from a wide split to start inside.  I know on the fourth and 1 play last week, and whenever we've run the full house backfield set, I've wanted to see 1 of the tight ends or eligible tackles hit the line and run out into the flat or simply get over the line and turn to face Hogan. A post in another thread called it an arrogant attitude to think that other teams with equally motivated, similarly talented players couldn't find an adjustment to a dive play to the left or  the right, even with all the extra linemen.  Stanford may be a "power-running" team, but until the line comes together a bit more, we might want to vary our short-yardage play at least a bit.

And did anyone else, especially the observers of o-line play, see the Colts' miserable failed quarterback sneak on Sunday night?  That was what I felt like on Sunday - SC got their pads lower, and cut down the blockers to open space over the top for the linebackers to hit.  But I've never been a lineman.

VG


Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - Mick - 09-09-2014

(09-09-2014, 03:00 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=10596.msg97651#msg97651 date=1410297457]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=10596.msg97580#msg97580 date=1410280297]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=10596.msg97534#msg97534 date=1410236484]
I know we ran up big offensive stats.  I know U$€ had a good defense.  But Stanford hasn't scored 10 or fewer points in a football game since 11/3/07, Idiotface's last year as a coach.  Four games that year they scored less than 10 points.

Mick, you are talking about the Washington game in Harbaugh's first season.  I was at that game.  Pretty desultory experience.  The enthusiasm from the U$€ upset a month prior had faded.  Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in three games that season.  This was a significant improvement over the 2006 season when Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in 9 of the 12 games.

Stanford does have offensive problems, but nowhere near the level experienced in 2006 and to some extent in 2007.

Here is a stat that should concern the coaches (credit to Kyle Bonagura) - Over first two games, Stanford has converted 2 of 12 third downs when inside opponent’s 40. 8 for 11 on third down on rest of the field.
[/quote]
That must be entirely due to execution errors.  I have it on good authority that it is not related to play calling.
[/quote]

CornFed - is that a serious or facetious comment?  Some CardBoarders have strong feelings about the play calling.  Perhaps you are one of them or perhaps you are teasing them.  It is hard to tell whether or not you are speaking tongue in cheek. 

I had no problem (for the most part) with the play calling.  The results of course are another matter.  Still, do folks think it is significant that Pep Hamilton was the OC when Hogan's Red Zone success rate was 100% (in 2012) vs. the mediocre levels (or worse) since Hamilton left?  Or is this correlation without causation?
[/quote]

CornFed is funnin' ya...

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - BostonCard - 09-09-2014

For rushing:
http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/team/674/rushing/offense/situational.html
You can look at the breakdown by field position:
Combining the Opp 39 to 21 and opp 20 to 1 yard line:
2 games, 38 rushes, 103 yards (2.7 ypc), 2 TD (Hogan and Skov), 6 first downs, long of 17 yards; 4 10+ yard rushes; 0 20+ plays
This compares to 70 attempts for 277 yards (3.96 ypc), 2 TD, 15 first downs, long of 20 yards; 11 10+ yard rushes; 1 20+ yard rush

For passing:
http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/team/674/passing/offense/situational.html
12/22, 54.5% comp percentage, 147 yards, 6.68 ypa, 1 TD, 0 INT,  6 first downs, long of 27 yards, 4 15+ yard plays; 1 25+ yard plays
This compares to 43/60 71.7% comp percentage, 597 yards, 9.95 ypa, 4 TD, 1 INT, long of 52 yards, 25 first downs, 16 15+ yard plays, 6 25+ yard plays


Basically, both running and passing has suffered in the red zone.

BC


Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - CornFed - 09-09-2014

But with due consideration of short field etc. is it reasonable to assume that that decrease in efficiency is more the norm?  I mean, it's not a problem that is unique to Stanford, I presume, but rather a matter of magnitude.

I think this is an inquiry, not a statement.  Don't know what to think of those (excellent) numbers you provided BC in the absence of something to compare it to.

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - Viking_Guy - 09-09-2014

Thanks BC!

So on first glance, Stanford rushed on 70 out of 130 plays outside the opponent's 40, and on 38 out of 60 inside.  Small sample size, but it does seem we skew run a bit (54% vs. 64%) in the scoring zone.  Will have to play around on that site a bit more.

Thanks again for pointing it out.

VG


Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - CornFed - 09-09-2014

(09-09-2014, 03:00 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=10596.msg97651#msg97651 date=1410297457]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=10596.msg97580#msg97580 date=1410280297]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=10596.msg97534#msg97534 date=1410236484]
I know we ran up big offensive stats.  I know U$€ had a good defense.  But Stanford hasn't scored 10 or fewer points in a football game since 11/3/07, Idiotface's last year as a coach.  Four games that year they scored less than 10 points.

Mick, you are talking about the Washington game in Harbaugh's first season.  I was at that game.  Pretty desultory experience.  The enthusiasm from the U$€ upset a month prior had faded.  Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in three games that season.  This was a significant improvement over the 2006 season when Stanford scored 10 points or fewer in 9 of the 12 games.

Stanford does have offensive problems, but nowhere near the level experienced in 2006 and to some extent in 2007.

Here is a stat that should concern the coaches (credit to Kyle Bonagura) - Over first two games, Stanford has converted 2 of 12 third downs when inside opponent’s 40. 8 for 11 on third down on rest of the field.
[/quote]
That must be entirely due to execution errors.  I have it on good authority that it is not related to play calling.
[/quote]

CornFed - is that a serious or facetious comment?  Some CardBoarders have strong feelings about the play calling.  Perhaps you are one of them or perhaps you are teasing them.  It is hard to tell whether or not you are speaking tongue in cheek. 

I had no problem (for the most part) with the play calling.  The results of course are another matter.  Still, do folks think it is significant that Pep Hamilton was the OC when Hogan's Red Zone success rate was 100% (in 2012) vs. the mediocre levels (or worse) since Hamilton left?  Or is this correlation without causation?
[/quote]
I think I'm just frustrated.  I have checked myself and hope my reaction to the play calling is not all hindsight.  Garvin and others posts give me serious pause in that regard.  I know that in real time (watching by myself) when they lined up to go for it on fourth at the goal line I audibly reacted,"Oh no!!"  But I would admit that a great deal of that was related to the fact that my "dread" factor had been triggered and the game dynamics were feeling crummy.  Like Utah, SC from last year.  Like Washington the year before.  Like it was for the opening kickoff in the old days.  (Joking!)

It would be my hope and expectation that Shaw does not have that trigger in his brain.  And I for one am very uncomfortable with anecdotal evidence.  And, honestly, there are only a few individual calls that make my stomach acid flare up.  He'd probably like to have those back as well.

But there is something going on when we're on the opponent's end of the field that doesn't feel like we're in charge.  Play calling may be the wrong focus.  Maybe it's execution, which hopefully can be fixed. 

Whatever it is, please Shaw fix it.  Saturday has left a taste in my mouth like I've been chewing on dung beetles!

Re: One stat that really, really concerns me - Spiny_Norman - 09-09-2014

The football writer for the Daily George Chen looks at the Red Zone play calling drive-by-drive, then draws conclusions.  It's a good read that is worth a few minutes of your time.

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/09/09/chen-a-drive-by-drive-analysis-of-david-shaws-play-calling-and-why-stanford-fans-need-to-chill/