[BostonCard]

Interesting piece in Rule of Tree, titled "Trying to Fix Stanford's Offense"

https://www.ruleoftree.com/2018/10/11/17...ce=twitter

I have my disagreements with the piece, but I'm going to hold my tongue because at least the author is trying to think of options instead of simplistic "we should pass more".  I'm interested in what other people have to say.


BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting piece in Rule of Tree, titled "Trying to Fix Stanford's Offense"

https://www.ruleoftree.com/2018/10/11/17...ce=twitter

I have my disagreements with the piece, but I'm going to hold my tongue because at least the author is trying to think of options instead of simplistic "we should pass more".  I'm interested in what other people have to say.


BC

[washingtonismoney]

RPOs make a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure bootlegs do, though: limited sample size but there were quite a few of them against Davis and, for whatever reason, basically all of 'em failed.

[washingtonismoney]

RPOs make a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure bootlegs do, though: limited sample size but there were quite a few of them against Davis and, for whatever reason, basically all of 'em failed.

[BostonCard]

RPOs make a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure bootlegs do, though: limited sample size but there were quite a few of them against Davis and, for whatever reason, basically all of 'em failed.

My thought on bootlegs is that Costello has issues with his mobility right now, and might be affecting his ability to throw accurately on the run (I think there have been scattered out of pocket experiences since Davis, and I don't remember any successes).  I like the idea if he can make the throws.

I'd love to see the offense start to incorporate some RPO concepts over the long term, but that is not the sort of thing you do if you need a short term fix.  Look at Kelly's struggles to implement a new system at UCLA, and it would be a similar undertaking to implement RPO, except we'd be doing it midseason!  Also, who would implement it?  Our offensive staff does not have experience running an RPO based offense.  Maybe with the benefits of spring and summer practices, but not 6 weeks into the season.

BC

[BostonCard]

RPOs make a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure bootlegs do, though: limited sample size but there were quite a few of them against Davis and, for whatever reason, basically all of 'em failed.

My thought on bootlegs is that Costello has issues with his mobility right now, and might be affecting his ability to throw accurately on the run (I think there have been scattered out of pocket experiences since Davis, and I don't remember any successes).  I like the idea if he can make the throws.

I'd love to see the offense start to incorporate some RPO concepts over the long term, but that is not the sort of thing you do if you need a short term fix.  Look at Kelly's struggles to implement a new system at UCLA, and it would be a similar undertaking to implement RPO, except we'd be doing it midseason!  Also, who would implement it?  Our offensive staff does not have experience running an RPO based offense.  Maybe with the benefits of spring and summer practices, but not 6 weeks into the season.

BC

[French Rage]

1.  Bryce Love needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine.
2.  Whenever Bryce Love's not on the field, all the other players should be asking "Where's Bryce"?

[French Rage]

1.  Bryce Love needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine.
2.  Whenever Bryce Love's not on the field, all the other players should be asking "Where's Bryce"?

[washingtonismoney]

I'd love to see the offense start to incorporate some RPO concepts over the long term, but that is not the sort of thing you do if you need a short term fix.  Look at Kelly's struggles to implement a new system at UCLA, and it would be a similar undertaking to implement RPO, except we'd be doing it midseason!  Also, who would implement it?  Our offensive staff does not have experience running an RPO based offense.  Maybe with the benefits of spring and summer practices, but not 6 weeks into the season.

Stanford ran some RPOs when McCaffrey was around. A lot of stuff mysteriously disappears from the offense and never reappears.

[washingtonismoney]

I'd love to see the offense start to incorporate some RPO concepts over the long term, but that is not the sort of thing you do if you need a short term fix.  Look at Kelly's struggles to implement a new system at UCLA, and it would be a similar undertaking to implement RPO, except we'd be doing it midseason!  Also, who would implement it?  Our offensive staff does not have experience running an RPO based offense.  Maybe with the benefits of spring and summer practices, but not 6 weeks into the season.

Stanford ran some RPOs when McCaffrey was around. A lot of stuff mysteriously disappears from the offense and never reappears.

[CTcard]

A few thoughts.

The author's primary theme seems to be, "the Cardinal are also a mere few tweaks from success with the talent on their offense".
I don't think so. Primarily because little tweaks will have little effect.

The options presented seem to be solely to get more time for Costello to throw. While pass protection was a problem vs und and at times vs Utah, I am not sure it has been the major issue overall. 

There are also a lot of statements I don't understand what he is talking about. He extols (here and in previous articles) Stanford's great use of the pistol - which is about the only common formation Stanford never uses. I think he just means the shotgun.
In the same paragraph talking about the pistol, he talks about how great rollouts would be out of the "power formation". As far as I know, power isn't a formation - it's a play. We usually run Power out of the I, but this paragraph seems to be about plays out of the shotgun (see pistol comments).
He claims that "the consistent success in Stanford’s running game has been outside". I don't think that is correct, though I haven't charted all the run plays. There was a successful sweep versus $C, but mostly I remember sweeps and stretch plays going for significant negative yards.

As to the solutions.

While RPO can mean many things, it appears that his request for rollouts and RPOs are approximately the same thing; as in I think he is looking for a rollout from the shotgun where Costello can either pass or take off with the ball depending upon the situation. By itself that is fine, but is clearly not within what Costello can, or perhaps is allowed, to do this season. Costello has 16 official runs, which include 14 sacks, 1 semi-sack but he got back to the LOS for zero yards, and one scramble where he got 12 yards vs $C. I am quite certain our nominal zone read plays involve no read at all - and it looks like opposing defenses think the same. It seems that isn't in the cards.

As for extra blockers in max-protect, we've done that at times. It can be helpful, but I haven't seen it be a game changer. It does have the disadvantage of being the approach most likely to put our receivers in double coverage, where we have struggled.

-------------
So, you might say to me, "instead of just whining, what do you suggest?"
Fair enough.

First I should note, I am not enough of a football coach that I necessarily have much reliable to contribute. With that caveat ...

Nothing is going to help much if we cannot run for at least 3+ yds/carry. We have to get there, and primarily involves improvement on the OL (perhaps coupled to facing weaker DLs?). My thought is we've been a little better in man blocking than zone, so I might emphasize those plays. But I am not certain. A counter argument is that Love may be better suited for zone plays, but he certainly has lots of big runs from Power.

I think the pass game needs more use of relatively easy, safe throws that give receivers a chance to catch the ball while running up field. It's hard to keep drives alive relying so heavily on go routes, deep seams, and box outs. We don't run lots of slants and drag routes, but I think we could ... maybe. And I like to dream about Weddington coming back and catching passes out of the backfield.

Until we fall too far behind, I'd have a general though of trying to keep close to 50% run plays, well maybe 45%, to keep defenses in their automatic response of looking for us to run and leaving our receivers one on one.

[CTcard]

A few thoughts.

The author's primary theme seems to be, "the Cardinal are also a mere few tweaks from success with the talent on their offense".
I don't think so. Primarily because little tweaks will have little effect.

The options presented seem to be solely to get more time for Costello to throw. While pass protection was a problem vs und and at times vs Utah, I am not sure it has been the major issue overall. 

There are also a lot of statements I don't understand what he is talking about. He extols (here and in previous articles) Stanford's great use of the pistol - which is about the only common formation Stanford never uses. I think he just means the shotgun.
In the same paragraph talking about the pistol, he talks about how great rollouts would be out of the "power formation". As far as I know, power isn't a formation - it's a play. We usually run Power out of the I, but this paragraph seems to be about plays out of the shotgun (see pistol comments).
He claims that "the consistent success in Stanford’s running game has been outside". I don't think that is correct, though I haven't charted all the run plays. There was a successful sweep versus $C, but mostly I remember sweeps and stretch plays going for significant negative yards.

As to the solutions.

While RPO can mean many things, it appears that his request for rollouts and RPOs are approximately the same thing; as in I think he is looking for a rollout from the shotgun where Costello can either pass or take off with the ball depending upon the situation. By itself that is fine, but is clearly not within what Costello can, or perhaps is allowed, to do this season. Costello has 16 official runs, which include 14 sacks, 1 semi-sack but he got back to the LOS for zero yards, and one scramble where he got 12 yards vs $C. I am quite certain our nominal zone read plays involve no read at all - and it looks like opposing defenses think the same. It seems that isn't in the cards.

As for extra blockers in max-protect, we've done that at times. It can be helpful, but I haven't seen it be a game changer. It does have the disadvantage of being the approach most likely to put our receivers in double coverage, where we have struggled.

-------------
So, you might say to me, "instead of just whining, what do you suggest?"
Fair enough.

First I should note, I am not enough of a football coach that I necessarily have much reliable to contribute. With that caveat ...

Nothing is going to help much if we cannot run for at least 3+ yds/carry. We have to get there, and primarily involves improvement on the OL (perhaps coupled to facing weaker DLs?). My thought is we've been a little better in man blocking than zone, so I might emphasize those plays. But I am not certain. A counter argument is that Love may be better suited for zone plays, but he certainly has lots of big runs from Power.

I think the pass game needs more use of relatively easy, safe throws that give receivers a chance to catch the ball while running up field. It's hard to keep drives alive relying so heavily on go routes, deep seams, and box outs. We don't run lots of slants and drag routes, but I think we could ... maybe. And I like to dream about Weddington coming back and catching passes out of the backfield.

Until we fall too far behind, I'd have a general though of trying to keep close to 50% run plays, well maybe 45%, to keep defenses in their automatic response of looking for us to run and leaving our receivers one on one.

[OutsiderFan]

Start games running a pro style offense with 22 personnel (1 RB, 1 FB, 1 TE, 2 WRs), give the same look for run and pass to start games, and start with play acton passes.  Michigan is the team to follow here. They are the closest thing to Stanford on offense that you will see. They do a masterful job of showing run looks, faking runs, getting linebackers to come up to stop run, and creating space behind them and in front of safeties.  Stanford may even be able to get behind safeties given how they too may overcommit to run.

Love should be used as a decoy more often than he has been, until things loosen up for him. Run hard play action fakes off power run action.  Put him in motion to shift the defense to his side of the field and throw to opposite side. Line him up wide and fake an end around to him to find other guys one-on-one on the opposite side of the field. And throw some swing passes to Love in the flat to get him in space.

In the second half, employ the offense you really want.  You can run 60-40 in the second half, or even 70-30, because the defense won't be selling out to stop the run given it was burned by doing so in the first half.

When is the last time you saw a defense truly off balance against Stanford, where run and pass were equally effective in a game Stanford wasn't coming from behind? Has there been one the last three seasons? When is the last time one paid dearly for overcommitting to stopping something?  It seems to me they get rewarded for too often for their aggressiveness, and Stanford needs to do some things to put them on their heels a bit because they are playing on their toes too much, especially in first halves of games.

[OutsiderFan]

Start games running a pro style offense with 22 personnel (1 RB, 1 FB, 1 TE, 2 WRs), give the same look for run and pass to start games, and start with play acton passes.  Michigan is the team to follow here. They are the closest thing to Stanford on offense that you will see. They do a masterful job of showing run looks, faking runs, getting linebackers to come up to stop run, and creating space behind them and in front of safeties.  Stanford may even be able to get behind safeties given how they too may overcommit to run.

Love should be used as a decoy more often than he has been, until things loosen up for him. Run hard play action fakes off power run action.  Put him in motion to shift the defense to his side of the field and throw to opposite side. Line him up wide and fake an end around to him to find other guys one-on-one on the opposite side of the field. And throw some swing passes to Love in the flat to get him in space.

In the second half, employ the offense you really want.  You can run 60-40 in the second half, or even 70-30, because the defense won't be selling out to stop the run given it was burned by doing so in the first half.

When is the last time you saw a defense truly off balance against Stanford, where run and pass were equally effective in a game Stanford wasn't coming from behind? Has there been one the last three seasons? When is the last time one paid dearly for overcommitting to stopping something?  It seems to me they get rewarded for too often for their aggressiveness, and Stanford needs to do some things to put them on their heels a bit because they are playing on their toes too much, especially in first halves of games.

[CTcard]

Start games running a pro style offense with 22 personnel (1 RB, 1 FB, 1 TE, 2 WRs),

That's 21 personnel as I was taught [2 RB, 1 TE].

give the same look for run and pass to start games,

Personally, I am not much of a fan of the shotgun outside of obvious passing downs.
I would prefer under center in whatever formation.
And while I understand why Stanford changes formation so much, I personally am in favor of formations that give more flexibility to play calls.

and start with play acton passes.  ...  Stanford may even be able to get behind safeties given how they too may overcommit to run.

So far, Stanford has been getting behind safeties, and having opponents giving no safety help over the top, regularly. That seems to be ending, as opponents realize we have no run game even against max-coverage. As it ends, play action may become more useful, though it is not clear that Stanford is very good at this.

When is the last time one paid dearly for overcommitting to stopping something? 

Well, San Diego State for sure.
Oregon was still playing a lot of run-first D in the second half as we passed the ball over them.

[CTcard]

Start games running a pro style offense with 22 personnel (1 RB, 1 FB, 1 TE, 2 WRs),

That's 21 personnel as I was taught [2 RB, 1 TE].

give the same look for run and pass to start games,

Personally, I am not much of a fan of the shotgun outside of obvious passing downs.
I would prefer under center in whatever formation.
And while I understand why Stanford changes formation so much, I personally am in favor of formations that give more flexibility to play calls.

and start with play acton passes.  ...  Stanford may even be able to get behind safeties given how they too may overcommit to run.

So far, Stanford has been getting behind safeties, and having opponents giving no safety help over the top, regularly. That seems to be ending, as opponents realize we have no run game even against max-coverage. As it ends, play action may become more useful, though it is not clear that Stanford is very good at this.

When is the last time one paid dearly for overcommitting to stopping something? 

Well, San Diego State for sure.
Oregon was still playing a lot of run-first D in the second half as we passed the ball over them.

[Renaissance Man]

Given that we run a number of plays that are designed as read option, when there is no chance of the QB keeping the ball, this is the first season that extensive use of wildcat would make sense.  Therefore, it has finally been removed from the playbook.

[Renaissance Man]

Given that we run a number of plays that are designed as read option, when there is no chance of the QB keeping the ball, this is the first season that extensive use of wildcat would make sense.  Therefore, it has finally been removed from the playbook.

[OL84]

I agree with CT's criticism of the article.  RPOs, bootlegs and roll outs are all standard tools for slowing the rush, so they make some sense at that level.  However, we do not seem to use them much so the execution is often lacking when we try.

The solution depends on the problem.  Is the primary problem personnel, execution play calling?  The OL has been a disappointment in addition to being banged up, and the execution has certainly been shaky too often.  My impression (which some are sick of hearing) is that the primary problem, and easiest one to solve, are the calls.  Our power offense is a riff on the West Coast Offense, and we have all of those plays in our vaunted play book. 

Diversity of personnel groups, formations, and audible alternatives gives the QB and O a chance to exploit any weaknesses in the D or avoid the strength of the D.  At a minimum, it help avoid running against numbers on regular basis.  All the change up plays get set up by success out of balanced sets. 

The hardest part of this change is that the planning strategy, weekday practice and QB reads need a new focus.  It can be done if there is a commitment to do so.  The plays have been in the book from the beginning.

[OL84]

I agree with CT's criticism of the article.  RPOs, bootlegs and roll outs are all standard tools for slowing the rush, so they make some sense at that level.  However, we do not seem to use them much so the execution is often lacking when we try.

The solution depends on the problem.  Is the primary problem personnel, execution play calling?  The OL has been a disappointment in addition to being banged up, and the execution has certainly been shaky too often.  My impression (which some are sick of hearing) is that the primary problem, and easiest one to solve, are the calls.  Our power offense is a riff on the West Coast Offense, and we have all of those plays in our vaunted play book. 

Diversity of personnel groups, formations, and audible alternatives gives the QB and O a chance to exploit any weaknesses in the D or avoid the strength of the D.  At a minimum, it help avoid running against numbers on regular basis.  All the change up plays get set up by success out of balanced sets. 

The hardest part of this change is that the planning strategy, weekday practice and QB reads need a new focus.  It can be done if there is a commitment to do so.  The plays have been in the book from the beginning.

[Goose]

The hardest part of this change is that the planning strategy, weekday practice and QB reads need a new focus.  It can be done if there is a commitment to do so.  The plays have been in the book from the beginning.

One factor you aren't giving enough weight is that you also need players that can run those plays. You can "put them in" and practice them. The result of that practice can be the conclusion "We don't run this play well at all. I can't call it and expect it to work." While the coaching staff may be biased, they aren't so foolish as to disregard a successful play on general principles. I am pretty sure they have looked carefully at their options and decided that the "change" won't work.
When things aren't going as well as expected, the temptation is to say "We should change <fill in the blank> and then things will get better." Often that just isn't true, and when you change something, things get worse. I am pretty sure the coaches see what we see. Unlike us, they probably have seen the results when they try some of the changes on Tuesday. There are some value judgements involved, for sure. It may be that if we made a change and stuck with it, things would get worse and then later in the year they would get better. But six games into the season is pretty late to go there.

[Goose]

The hardest part of this change is that the planning strategy, weekday practice and QB reads need a new focus.  It can be done if there is a commitment to do so.  The plays have been in the book from the beginning.

One factor you aren't giving enough weight is that you also need players that can run those plays. You can "put them in" and practice them. The result of that practice can be the conclusion "We don't run this play well at all. I can't call it and expect it to work." While the coaching staff may be biased, they aren't so foolish as to disregard a successful play on general principles. I am pretty sure they have looked carefully at their options and decided that the "change" won't work.
When things aren't going as well as expected, the temptation is to say "We should change <fill in the blank> and then things will get better." Often that just isn't true, and when you change something, things get worse. I am pretty sure the coaches see what we see. Unlike us, they probably have seen the results when they try some of the changes on Tuesday. There are some value judgements involved, for sure. It may be that if we made a change and stuck with it, things would get worse and then later in the year they would get better. But six games into the season is pretty late to go there.

[BostonCard]

Start games running a pro style offense with 22 personnel (1 RB, 1 FB, 1 TE, 2 WRs)

22 personnel is two running backs and two tight ends (the number of wide receivers is inferred, by subtracting the total of running backs and tight ends from 5).

That being said, I agree that the personnel grouping you described (21 personnel) or 12 personnel without a fullback is probably the best way to go given our strengths right now.  The good news is that I think this is the grouping we are running most commonly, especially on pass plays.  I agree with OL that given that having a heavy (22) grouping doesn’t seem to be benefiting us in terms of the run game, and makes it more difficult to change the play to a pass when we see an unfavorable pre-snap defensive alignment, we should ditch it except in rare cases (third or fourth and short, goal line formations, etc.).

I also favor simplifying the playbook until the offense (and particularly the offensive line) shows that they can execute it successfully.  I actually think play action passing is a particularly bad idea right now for reasons that CTCard has elucidated in the past:
1) teams are generally no longer overcommiting to stopping the run now that they know they can stop our running attack straight up
2) we are not having particular trouble with receiving match-ups downfield
3) Costello is not especially good at selling the fake
4) play action requires the offensive line to hold its blocks longer, which right now doesn’t seem to be the strength of the OL

Don’t get me wrong, I love the play action pass, because it can be deadly when the offense is clicking.  To me, the Orange Bowl against Virginia Tech is the epitome of what I would like the Stanford offense to look like, and it featured big passes to Coby Fleener off the play action pass.  But I think the offense is a ways away from being able to execute it successfully, and right now I don’t think the running game is clicking well enough to make the fake credible.

Perhaps the converse may be more helpful.  Throw downfield and then run a draw using 11 or 12 personnel if the defense shifts to a cover 2 defense (but again, the line would have to hold its blocks long enough to let the play develop, and I’m not entirely sure they can do that).

BC

---

The hardest part of this change is that the planning strategy, weekday practice and QB reads need a new focus.  It can be done if there is a commitment to do so.  The plays have been in the book from the beginning.

One factor you aren't giving enough weight is that you also need players that can run those plays. You can "put them in" and practice them. The result of that practice can be the conclusion "We don't run this play well at all. I can't call it and expect it to work." While the coaching staff may be biased, they aren't so foolish as to disregard a successful play on general principles. I am pretty sure they have looked carefully at their options and decided that the "change" won't work.
When things aren't going as well as expected, the temptation is to say "We should change <fill in the blank> and then things will get better." Often that just isn't true, and when you change something, things get worse. I am pretty sure the coaches see what we see. Unlike us, they probably have seen the results when they try some of the changes on Tuesday. There are some value judgements involved, for sure. It may be that if we made a change and stuck with it, things would get worse and then later in the year they would get better. But six games into the season is pretty late to go there.

Completely agree.  As the post suggesting that we run the wildcat shows, when things aren’t working, fans will always call for running x, where x is anything we aren’t running, even when x is a play that is almost universally panned when it is being run.

BC

[BostonCard]

Start games running a pro style offense with 22 personnel (1 RB, 1 FB, 1 TE, 2 WRs)

22 personnel is two running backs and two tight ends (the number of wide receivers is inferred, by subtracting the total of running backs and tight ends from 5).

That being said, I agree that the personnel grouping you described (21 personnel) or 12 personnel without a fullback is probably the best way to go given our strengths right now.  The good news is that I think this is the grouping we are running most commonly, especially on pass plays.  I agree with OL that given that having a heavy (22) grouping doesn’t seem to be benefiting us in terms of the run game, and makes it more difficult to change the play to a pass when we see an unfavorable pre-snap defensive alignment, we should ditch it except in rare cases (third or fourth and short, goal line formations, etc.).

I also favor simplifying the playbook until the offense (and particularly the offensive line) shows that they can execute it successfully.  I actually think play action passing is a particularly bad idea right now for reasons that CTCard has elucidated in the past:
1) teams are generally no longer overcommiting to stopping the run now that they know they can stop our running attack straight up
2) we are not having particular trouble with receiving match-ups downfield
3) Costello is not especially good at selling the fake
4) play action requires the offensive line to hold its blocks longer, which right now doesn’t seem to be the strength of the OL

Don’t get me wrong, I love the play action pass, because it can be deadly when the offense is clicking.  To me, the Orange Bowl against Virginia Tech is the epitome of what I would like the Stanford offense to look like, and it featured big passes to Coby Fleener off the play action pass.  But I think the offense is a ways away from being able to execute it successfully, and right now I don’t think the running game is clicking well enough to make the fake credible.

Perhaps the converse may be more helpful.  Throw downfield and then run a draw using 11 or 12 personnel if the defense shifts to a cover 2 defense (but again, the line would have to hold its blocks long enough to let the play develop, and I’m not entirely sure they can do that).

BC

---

The hardest part of this change is that the planning strategy, weekday practice and QB reads need a new focus.  It can be done if there is a commitment to do so.  The plays have been in the book from the beginning.

One factor you aren't giving enough weight is that you also need players that can run those plays. You can "put them in" and practice them. The result of that practice can be the conclusion "We don't run this play well at all. I can't call it and expect it to work." While the coaching staff may be biased, they aren't so foolish as to disregard a successful play on general principles. I am pretty sure they have looked carefully at their options and decided that the "change" won't work.
When things aren't going as well as expected, the temptation is to say "We should change <fill in the blank> and then things will get better." Often that just isn't true, and when you change something, things get worse. I am pretty sure the coaches see what we see. Unlike us, they probably have seen the results when they try some of the changes on Tuesday. There are some value judgements involved, for sure. It may be that if we made a change and stuck with it, things would get worse and then later in the year they would get better. But six games into the season is pretty late to go there.

Completely agree.  As the post suggesting that we run the wildcat shows, when things aren’t working, fans will always call for running x, where x is anything we aren’t running, even when x is a play that is almost universally panned when it is being run.

BC

[Phogge]

Concerning quick change I watched Kingsbury at TT last night go from his air raid to a mobile QB due to injury last game. Of course you have to have the personnel but Tech definitely was “Not who we are.” Just sayin.....

Kyler Murray, the kid at Bama, Herbert, yada, yada. Perhaps Shaw needs to find a kid who can pack it AND throw it. Just sayin.....

[Phogge]

Concerning quick change I watched Kingsbury at TT last night go from his air raid to a mobile QB due to injury last game. Of course you have to have the personnel but Tech definitely was “Not who we are.” Just sayin.....

Kyler Murray, the kid at Bama, Herbert, yada, yada. Perhaps Shaw needs to find a kid who can pack it AND throw it. Just sayin.....

[BostonCard]

We are passing more often than we run the ball.  That has not happened before during the Harbaugh/Shaw era.  For a team whose identity has always been run-first, and was returning an all-American running back, the change is striking.

I hate to break it to you, but we are “not who we are”, as much as Shaw might want us to be, and as much as many posters seem to think we are.

BC

[BostonCard]

We are passing more often than we run the ball.  That has not happened before during the Harbaugh/Shaw era.  For a team whose identity has always been run-first, and was returning an all-American running back, the change is striking.

I hate to break it to you, but we are “not who we are”, as much as Shaw might want us to be, and as much as many posters seem to think we are.

BC

[needle]

Stanford is tied for 31st nationally with 6.0 yards per play.

Last year, the team finished ranked 18th with 6.3 yards per play.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo...2018-10-12

I guess my point is that the offense, while very disappointing, is not quite yet statistically bad as a whole.

[needle]

Stanford is tied for 31st nationally with 6.0 yards per play.

Last year, the team finished ranked 18th with 6.3 yards per play.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo...2018-10-12

I guess my point is that the offense, while very disappointing, is not quite yet statistically bad as a whole.

[Goose]

I hate to break it to you, but we are “not who we are”, as much as Shaw might want us to be, and as much as many posters seem to think we are.

BC

+1. Not only are we "not who we (were) (want to be)", it is not yet clear "who we are". It is for sure a work in progress. I am sure Shaw wants to revert to" who we were", with a few tweaks. However, it is clear that we can't (yet? ever?) do that, and he knows it. What we will see at ASU is anybody's guess, I think.

[Goose]

I hate to break it to you, but we are “not who we are”, as much as Shaw might want us to be, and as much as many posters seem to think we are.

BC

+1. Not only are we "not who we (were) (want to be)", it is not yet clear "who we are". It is for sure a work in progress. I am sure Shaw wants to revert to" who we were", with a few tweaks. However, it is clear that we can't (yet? ever?) do that, and he knows it. What we will see at ASU is anybody's guess, I think.

[washingtonismoney]

Stanford is tied for 31st nationally with 6.0 yards per play.

Last year, the team finished ranked 18th with 6.3 yards per play.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo...2018-10-12

I guess my point is that the offense, while very disappointing, is not quite yet statistically bad as a whole.

Feels similar to the 2014 offense in that respect -- solid-ish yards per play stats but a glitchy offense overall. (The numerous OL penalties are ... another similar aspect, perhaps.) 

Meanwhile the Bootleg has a semi-interesting look: https://247sports.com/college/stanford/A...123215046/

I agree the stats show Costello is better this year than last, but I'm not sure why they prove a lack of reps is the culprit here. Certainly nearly the entire team -- not merely Costello, but the OL and RB -- have been unsettled. (The receivers are the only reasonably stable unit...and perhaps not coincidentally appear to be performing best.) But if a lack of gelling is the problem, why does Costello perform so well on deep throws and third-and-longs?

[washingtonismoney]

Stanford is tied for 31st nationally with 6.0 yards per play.

Last year, the team finished ranked 18th with 6.3 yards per play.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo...2018-10-12

I guess my point is that the offense, while very disappointing, is not quite yet statistically bad as a whole.

Feels similar to the 2014 offense in that respect -- solid-ish yards per play stats but a glitchy offense overall. (The numerous OL penalties are ... another similar aspect, perhaps.) 

Meanwhile the Bootleg has a semi-interesting look: https://247sports.com/college/stanford/A...123215046/

I agree the stats show Costello is better this year than last, but I'm not sure why they prove a lack of reps is the culprit here. Certainly nearly the entire team -- not merely Costello, but the OL and RB -- have been unsettled. (The receivers are the only reasonably stable unit...and perhaps not coincidentally appear to be performing best.) But if a lack of gelling is the problem, why does Costello perform so well on deep throws and third-and-longs?

[Austroturf]

I hate to break it to you, but we are “not who we are”, as much as Shaw might want us to be, and as much as many posters seem to think we are.

BC

+1. Not only are we "not who we (were) (want to be)", it is not yet clear "who we are". It is for sure a work in progress. I am sure Shaw wants to revert to" who we were", with a few tweaks. However, it is clear that we can't (yet? ever?) do that, and he knows it. What we will see at ASU is anybody's guess, I think.

This is extremely correct (both Goose and BostonCard).  We are a run-first team currently incapable of running (124th out of 130 FBS programs as of mid-season: see the rushing stats in my previous post).  Frankly, I only have one true hope for this season: the OL finally comes together, gels and allows Bryce to do his magic again and Costello to have the time to hit our excellent receivers.  Unfortunately, the D is probably what it is and will be gashed by our opponents.  But if our O-line can come together (the talent is there) and make the offense more effective, we might actually put together a decent season.  Barring this, the 2018 campaign could unravel in a hurry; and I would be pained to see this happen given the talent level of this Cardinal team.

[Austroturf]

I hate to break it to you, but we are “not who we are”, as much as Shaw might want us to be, and as much as many posters seem to think we are.

BC

+1. Not only are we "not who we (were) (want to be)", it is not yet clear "who we are". It is for sure a work in progress. I am sure Shaw wants to revert to" who we were", with a few tweaks. However, it is clear that we can't (yet? ever?) do that, and he knows it. What we will see at ASU is anybody's guess, I think.

This is extremely correct (both Goose and BostonCard).  We are a run-first team currently incapable of running (124th out of 130 FBS programs as of mid-season: see the rushing stats in my previous post).  Frankly, I only have one true hope for this season: the OL finally comes together, gels and allows Bryce to do his magic again and Costello to have the time to hit our excellent receivers.  Unfortunately, the D is probably what it is and will be gashed by our opponents.  But if our O-line can come together (the talent is there) and make the offense more effective, we might actually put together a decent season.  Barring this, the 2018 campaign could unravel in a hurry; and I would be pained to see this happen given the talent level of this Cardinal team.

[Phogge]

Duh BC.

[Phogge]

Duh BC.

[BostonCard]

Duh BC.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your post for another one implying that Shaw was being stubborn.  Lots of people on this board clinging to the notion that Shaw is stubbornly insisting on running the ball, even though we are running it less as a percentage of plays than any Pac-12 team not named Washington State, and Shaw will never be confused with the pirate. 

BC

[BostonCard]

Duh BC.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your post for another one implying that Shaw was being stubborn.  Lots of people on this board clinging to the notion that Shaw is stubbornly insisting on running the ball, even though we are running it less as a percentage of plays than any Pac-12 team not named Washington State, and Shaw will never be confused with the pirate. 

BC