[Goose]

When a D stacks the box and the RB gets to the 2nd level,  he's gone to the house.   In '15 CMac ran through stacked boxes on his way to one of the best seasons ever by a RB.  In '17 BLove did the same.  It's not surprising that DS expected more of the same in '18.  After 4 games, he changed the game plan.

While I basically agree with this point of view, there were "warning signs" during CMac's years and even more so during Love's first year. With CMac, despite Shaw's protestations to the contrary, we ran outside the tackles much more than we had previously. Partly, we did that because CMac did it well, but also because we had some trouble imposing our will on the defense as we had in the past. See our center flying back into the QB in the Colorado game.  In 2017, Love was effective but not efficient, as was discussed on this board extensively. Last year, with Love not 100%, we imposed our will on nobody. I was surprised Shaw didn't realize that from summer practices. The downward trend over time was clear. However, I am sure he really, really wanted to be able to run. Fortunately, when he became convinced we couldn't, we were able to compensate to some extent by throwing the ball well.

With Toby and his supporting cast, you could run with 11 in the box. If you have that kind of advantage, you use it. It isn't probable we will have that advantage this year, or maybe ever again. However, you should play to your (relative) strengths. If you can run successfully against 8 in the box, do it. Any defense is going to attempt to match your strength with their strength. What you want is a mismatch. If you can get that by running right at them, fine. If you can get that passing, fine. Next year, we may have enough offensive strength to make the defense pick their poison. If we have the strength to dictate play and do what we want whenever we want, even better.

I am pretty sure Shaw will spend quite a bit of time against Northwestern trying to figure out what he has in a run game. We need to know that. It also often takes a bit of time for the OL to "gel". You need game reps to do that. Hopefully, he can do this without also losing the game. If our passing game is as good as many here have suggested, it will provide the "cover" to allow the run game to develop.

---

Just because something works out, it doesn't mean the decision that led to the result was a good one. I can send a LHP to face a right hand batter who crushes left hand pitching, and see the LHP retire him, but that doesn't mean it would have been a smart decision. It would have been very lucky.

If that LHP was Mr. Koufax, it would probably be considered very smart. The problem with your argument is that it utilizes only one factor, the defensive alignment. It says nothing about any of the other factors, and therefore is very limited.

Same with running into stacked boxes. Sure, you get a couple runs that break through the defense. But all or nothing is not sustainable, winning offensive football. Pressuring the defense consistently in diverse ways, being a threat to move the ball all the time by being unpredictable

I certainly agree with you that being balanced and diverse is a good idea. It makes it harder on the defense.

and not running into stacked boxes,

Which now makes you totally predictable. This contradicts your previous assertion.

is much more effective.

You don't beat the best opponents by playing for lucky breaks. You beat them playing the percentages.

You don't win by playing for lucky breaks. You win by playing better football than you opponent. The "percentages" are modulated by many factors. Bringing in Koufax to pitch to a right-handed batter may violate one percentage, but Koufax's record carries with it another percentage. One factor analysis is almost always too limited to live or die with.

[Goose]

When a D stacks the box and the RB gets to the 2nd level,  he's gone to the house.   In '15 CMac ran through stacked boxes on his way to one of the best seasons ever by a RB.  In '17 BLove did the same.  It's not surprising that DS expected more of the same in '18.  After 4 games, he changed the game plan.

While I basically agree with this point of view, there were "warning signs" during CMac's years and even more so during Love's first year. With CMac, despite Shaw's protestations to the contrary, we ran outside the tackles much more than we had previously. Partly, we did that because CMac did it well, but also because we had some trouble imposing our will on the defense as we had in the past. See our center flying back into the QB in the Colorado game.  In 2017, Love was effective but not efficient, as was discussed on this board extensively. Last year, with Love not 100%, we imposed our will on nobody. I was surprised Shaw didn't realize that from summer practices. The downward trend over time was clear. However, I am sure he really, really wanted to be able to run. Fortunately, when he became convinced we couldn't, we were able to compensate to some extent by throwing the ball well.

With Toby and his supporting cast, you could run with 11 in the box. If you have that kind of advantage, you use it. It isn't probable we will have that advantage this year, or maybe ever again. However, you should play to your (relative) strengths. If you can run successfully against 8 in the box, do it. Any defense is going to attempt to match your strength with their strength. What you want is a mismatch. If you can get that by running right at them, fine. If you can get that passing, fine. Next year, we may have enough offensive strength to make the defense pick their poison. If we have the strength to dictate play and do what we want whenever we want, even better.

I am pretty sure Shaw will spend quite a bit of time against Northwestern trying to figure out what he has in a run game. We need to know that. It also often takes a bit of time for the OL to "gel". You need game reps to do that. Hopefully, he can do this without also losing the game. If our passing game is as good as many here have suggested, it will provide the "cover" to allow the run game to develop.

---

Just because something works out, it doesn't mean the decision that led to the result was a good one. I can send a LHP to face a right hand batter who crushes left hand pitching, and see the LHP retire him, but that doesn't mean it would have been a smart decision. It would have been very lucky.

If that LHP was Mr. Koufax, it would probably be considered very smart. The problem with your argument is that it utilizes only one factor, the defensive alignment. It says nothing about any of the other factors, and therefore is very limited.

Same with running into stacked boxes. Sure, you get a couple runs that break through the defense. But all or nothing is not sustainable, winning offensive football. Pressuring the defense consistently in diverse ways, being a threat to move the ball all the time by being unpredictable

I certainly agree with you that being balanced and diverse is a good idea. It makes it harder on the defense.

and not running into stacked boxes,

Which now makes you totally predictable. This contradicts your previous assertion.

is much more effective.

You don't beat the best opponents by playing for lucky breaks. You beat them playing the percentages.

You don't win by playing for lucky breaks. You win by playing better football than you opponent. The "percentages" are modulated by many factors. Bringing in Koufax to pitch to a right-handed batter may violate one percentage, but Koufax's record carries with it another percentage. One factor analysis is almost always too limited to live or die with.

[BobK]

I’m with Marty here. Running thru the box of 8 resulted in TDS. No secret our OL couldn’t run Run Block last season.

So tried of Shaw didn’t adjust and yet had one of the greatest passing seasons ever.

[BobK]

I’m with Marty here. Running thru the box of 8 resulted in TDS. No secret our OL couldn’t run Run Block last season.

So tried of Shaw didn’t adjust and yet had one of the greatest passing seasons ever.

[Goose]

Goose: Wazzu beat us because Sean Barton got torched down the seam by a slot receiver/RB (I forget) on 3rd and a million with like 30 seconds left. Their defense couldn't stop us at all, even WITH adjusting to the pass. And even if the line isn't amazing, Scarlett can actually push a pile. Bryce could get taken down with 1 arm, and repeatedly was.

In the first half, while they played with one safety deep and a run defense, we scored 28 points. In the second half, with them playing 2 deep, we scored 10 points. I would say they stopped us. Furthermore, the fact they had the opportunity to torch Barton was due to the fact we couldn't get enough first downs to keep them off the field. In that game, Scarlett ran 3 times for 5 yards. Love ran 6 times for 71 yards.

While I fully expect a lot more from Scarlett this year, I wouldn't say he was the solution against WSU in 2018. We needed to keep them off the field, like we somewhat did in the first half. Our defense wasn't going to stop them.  The one time in the third quarter they did, we did nothing with it. End of story.

[Goose]

Goose: Wazzu beat us because Sean Barton got torched down the seam by a slot receiver/RB (I forget) on 3rd and a million with like 30 seconds left. Their defense couldn't stop us at all, even WITH adjusting to the pass. And even if the line isn't amazing, Scarlett can actually push a pile. Bryce could get taken down with 1 arm, and repeatedly was.

In the first half, while they played with one safety deep and a run defense, we scored 28 points. In the second half, with them playing 2 deep, we scored 10 points. I would say they stopped us. Furthermore, the fact they had the opportunity to torch Barton was due to the fact we couldn't get enough first downs to keep them off the field. In that game, Scarlett ran 3 times for 5 yards. Love ran 6 times for 71 yards.

While I fully expect a lot more from Scarlett this year, I wouldn't say he was the solution against WSU in 2018. We needed to keep them off the field, like we somewhat did in the first half. Our defense wasn't going to stop them.  The one time in the third quarter they did, we did nothing with it. End of story.

[Spiny_Norman]

Shaw is the only coach in the Pac12 with a winning record against each team we face in the league and NDAM. 

Shaw does not have a winning record vs. Utah. He is only 1-3.

[Spiny_Norman]

Shaw is the only coach in the Pac12 with a winning record against each team we face in the league and NDAM. 

Shaw does not have a winning record vs. Utah. He is only 1-3.

[ADPinWDC]

Shaw is the only coach in the Pac12 with a winning record against each team we face in the league and NDAM. 

Shaw does not have a winning record vs. Utah. He is only 1-3.

We don't play UTAH this year.  ["Each team we face."]  
Yes, UTAH is kryptonite for us.  Fortunately, they are off the schedule... but are odds on fave to win South.

[ADPinWDC]

Shaw is the only coach in the Pac12 with a winning record against each team we face in the league and NDAM. 

Shaw does not have a winning record vs. Utah. He is only 1-3.

We don't play UTAH this year.  ["Each team we face."]  
Yes, UTAH is kryptonite for us.  Fortunately, they are off the schedule... but are odds on fave to win South.

[BostonCard]

Gotta say I'm more pessimistic than the consensus, though what I've seen and heard this summer make me a bit less pessimistic than I had been in the spring.  Still, we are gloriously thin at OL and our starters are anything but iron horses.  Maybe we'll be lucky, but odds are against it.  And it is hard to see a better defense than last year's, given the holes in the center of the field.  This really does seem like a seven win team to me.  Yes, some upside potential given some young talent at positions of need, but also a fair bit of downside potential.  Like, there is a very real possibility that with injuries at a couple key positions, the wheels fall off this team and we have a losing season for the first time in a while.

We could easily start 0-4.

BC

[BostonCard]

Gotta say I'm more pessimistic than the consensus, though what I've seen and heard this summer make me a bit less pessimistic than I had been in the spring.  Still, we are gloriously thin at OL and our starters are anything but iron horses.  Maybe we'll be lucky, but odds are against it.  And it is hard to see a better defense than last year's, given the holes in the center of the field.  This really does seem like a seven win team to me.  Yes, some upside potential given some young talent at positions of need, but also a fair bit of downside potential.  Like, there is a very real possibility that with injuries at a couple key positions, the wheels fall off this team and we have a losing season for the first time in a while.

We could easily start 0-4.

BC

[Brickcity]

Gotta say I'm more pessimistic than the consensus, though what I've seen and heard this summer make me a bit less pessimistic than I had been in the spring.  Still, we are gloriously thin at OL and our starters are anything but iron horses.  Maybe we'll be lucky, but odds are against it.  And it is hard to see a better defense than last year's, given the holes in the center of the field.  This really does seem like a seven win team to me.  Yes, some upside potential given some young talent at positions of need, but also a fair bit of downside potential.  Like, there is a very real possibility that with injuries at a couple key positions, the wheels fall off this team and we have a losing season for the first time in a while.

We could easily start 0-4.

BC

Sure, we have a brutal schedule this year. And, there's no doubt our offensive line is super thin. But, I'm not too concerned about the defense. Our new inside linebackers (top three) will make some rookie mistakes. But, they're all first rate athletes. My guess is that our front seven will be very good. 

I'm a little more concerned about safety. However, we kind of sucked there last year. I don't see it getting worse. I mean, the one starter who graduated (number 5, who shall go nameless) was one of the worst "tacklers" I've ever seen. Whoever his replacement is can't be worse. And, our corners should be much improved (Adebo with a year under his belt and Eboh apparently looking very good.) 

So, yes, it comes down to the offensive line. IF it can manage to stay reasonably healthy - a big if - then I think the offense - and thus the team overall - will be very competitive. With the schedule we play, not sure how many wins that translates to.

[Brickcity]

Gotta say I'm more pessimistic than the consensus, though what I've seen and heard this summer make me a bit less pessimistic than I had been in the spring.  Still, we are gloriously thin at OL and our starters are anything but iron horses.  Maybe we'll be lucky, but odds are against it.  And it is hard to see a better defense than last year's, given the holes in the center of the field.  This really does seem like a seven win team to me.  Yes, some upside potential given some young talent at positions of need, but also a fair bit of downside potential.  Like, there is a very real possibility that with injuries at a couple key positions, the wheels fall off this team and we have a losing season for the first time in a while.

We could easily start 0-4.

BC

Sure, we have a brutal schedule this year. And, there's no doubt our offensive line is super thin. But, I'm not too concerned about the defense. Our new inside linebackers (top three) will make some rookie mistakes. But, they're all first rate athletes. My guess is that our front seven will be very good. 

I'm a little more concerned about safety. However, we kind of sucked there last year. I don't see it getting worse. I mean, the one starter who graduated (number 5, who shall go nameless) was one of the worst "tacklers" I've ever seen. Whoever his replacement is can't be worse. And, our corners should be much improved (Adebo with a year under his belt and Eboh apparently looking very good.) 

So, yes, it comes down to the offensive line. IF it can manage to stay reasonably healthy - a big if - then I think the offense - and thus the team overall - will be very competitive. With the schedule we play, not sure how many wins that translates to.

[OutsiderFan]

Love it when this happens...  I make a point about the coach possibly evolving, and then people say it sounds good, but they don't believe Shaw will ever change. Then I get to post THIS:

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/shaw-po...re-schemes

So much to love about these comments, but the thing that stands out to me is this:

"I think it's important for us to know, important for our players to know, what our core is. We have to fight my longevity here and all the things we've done, all the things we can reach back and call up in our playbook. That's not what's important. What's important is what are our guys good at and what are we committing to?"

By definition you can't be great at everything. So 100 different plays can't possibly be executed as well as 10.  But when you have those 10 down, you can do things off of them that break tendencies or otherwise can fool a defense.

David Shaw has done some self-reflection, exposed himself to different ideas, and become better. He's done the hardest thing for anyone to do.  He's gone from following a philosophy that worked, to changing his approach against his comfort zone, to get better. Nick Saban did this at Alabama. Before him, Gary Patterson did it at TCU.

Now if he'll just start allowing Spring official visits...

[OutsiderFan]

Love it when this happens...  I make a point about the coach possibly evolving, and then people say it sounds good, but they don't believe Shaw will ever change. Then I get to post THIS:

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/shaw-po...re-schemes

So much to love about these comments, but the thing that stands out to me is this:

"I think it's important for us to know, important for our players to know, what our core is. We have to fight my longevity here and all the things we've done, all the things we can reach back and call up in our playbook. That's not what's important. What's important is what are our guys good at and what are we committing to?"

By definition you can't be great at everything. So 100 different plays can't possibly be executed as well as 10.  But when you have those 10 down, you can do things off of them that break tendencies or otherwise can fool a defense.

David Shaw has done some self-reflection, exposed himself to different ideas, and become better. He's done the hardest thing for anyone to do.  He's gone from following a philosophy that worked, to changing his approach against his comfort zone, to get better. Nick Saban did this at Alabama. Before him, Gary Patterson did it at TCU.

Now if he'll just start allowing Spring official visits...

[Goose]

"I think it's important for us to know, important for our players to know, what our core is. We have to fight my longevity here and all the things we've done, all the things we can reach back and call up in our playbook. That's not what's important. What's important is what are our guys good at and what are we committing to?"

By definition you can't be great at everything. So 100 different plays can't possibly be executed as well as 10.  But when you have those 10 down, you can do things off of them that break tendencies or otherwise can fool a defense.

David Shaw has done some self-reflection, exposed himself to different ideas, and become better. He's done the hardest thing for anyone to do.  He's gone from following a philosophy that worked, to changing his approach against his comfort zone, to get better. Nick Saban did this at Alabama. Before him, Gary Patterson did it at TCU.

Now if he'll just start allowing Spring official visits...

"I told our offensive staff earlier I'm Ok with building a tendency, that means you're good at something. If you're good at something you do it well and then you break your tendencies when you want to break your tendencies. That's what I want to make sure we're doing."

It is really interesting to me that we read the same information and see different things. I see a David Shaw who is invoking a "back to basics" approach, where you see a David Shaw who is evolving into new areas. I interpret his statements as saying that Stanford got too "cute" with it's schemes, and that we first and foremost want to be true to our core competencies. The area where Shaw may have evolved is that he isn't targeting the core towards what he would prefer it to be, but rather more towards what the players are best able to do. Perhaps both interpretations are true. However, I still expect lots of running plays called early in the game against Northwestern.

I do worry quite a bit when our defense is doing so much better than our offense. The "normal" progression is the offense catching up to the defense, but so far that hasn't been reported. In the recent past, the inability of our OL to perform against our own defense has translated into a similar inability against other teams defense. I hope we aren't in for a repeat performance of this trend.

[Goose]

"I think it's important for us to know, important for our players to know, what our core is. We have to fight my longevity here and all the things we've done, all the things we can reach back and call up in our playbook. That's not what's important. What's important is what are our guys good at and what are we committing to?"

By definition you can't be great at everything. So 100 different plays can't possibly be executed as well as 10.  But when you have those 10 down, you can do things off of them that break tendencies or otherwise can fool a defense.

David Shaw has done some self-reflection, exposed himself to different ideas, and become better. He's done the hardest thing for anyone to do.  He's gone from following a philosophy that worked, to changing his approach against his comfort zone, to get better. Nick Saban did this at Alabama. Before him, Gary Patterson did it at TCU.

Now if he'll just start allowing Spring official visits...

"I told our offensive staff earlier I'm Ok with building a tendency, that means you're good at something. If you're good at something you do it well and then you break your tendencies when you want to break your tendencies. That's what I want to make sure we're doing."

It is really interesting to me that we read the same information and see different things. I see a David Shaw who is invoking a "back to basics" approach, where you see a David Shaw who is evolving into new areas. I interpret his statements as saying that Stanford got too "cute" with it's schemes, and that we first and foremost want to be true to our core competencies. The area where Shaw may have evolved is that he isn't targeting the core towards what he would prefer it to be, but rather more towards what the players are best able to do. Perhaps both interpretations are true. However, I still expect lots of running plays called early in the game against Northwestern.

I do worry quite a bit when our defense is doing so much better than our offense. The "normal" progression is the offense catching up to the defense, but so far that hasn't been reported. In the recent past, the inability of our OL to perform against our own defense has translated into a similar inability against other teams defense. I hope we aren't in for a repeat performance of this trend.

[Spiny_Norman]

At the end of practice there was a cheer from the defense and the offense did some pushups. What was that about?
"Every training camp, one day we do short yardage and goal line and we keep score. Typically it's tilted toward the offense because you only have to get a yard to win, but the defense won. It's always a good sign when the defense's back is against the wall, and the odds are against them, and they still come out with a victory."

If Coach Shaw wants the offense to be really really good at "the core", apparently that still does not include getting a push from the OL on 3rd and short.

[Spiny_Norman]

At the end of practice there was a cheer from the defense and the offense did some pushups. What was that about?
"Every training camp, one day we do short yardage and goal line and we keep score. Typically it's tilted toward the offense because you only have to get a yard to win, but the defense won. It's always a good sign when the defense's back is against the wall, and the odds are against them, and they still come out with a victory."

If Coach Shaw wants the offense to be really really good at "the core", apparently that still does not include getting a push from the OL on 3rd and short.

[OutsiderFan]

It's near impossible to judge your team based on how it practices against itself. How can anyone make any real accurate judgments on the short yardage contest? Maybe the defense is told the play, to make it harder on the offense. Maybe play-action passing isn't allowed in such scenarios. Maybe the least talented ball carrier got the ball.  Was it first team OL vs. first team DL?  

One could just as easily raise concern if the defense didn't stop the offense.. How could the defense actually be improved if it can't beat a still in flux OL?

[OutsiderFan]

It's near impossible to judge your team based on how it practices against itself. How can anyone make any real accurate judgments on the short yardage contest? Maybe the defense is told the play, to make it harder on the offense. Maybe play-action passing isn't allowed in such scenarios. Maybe the least talented ball carrier got the ball.  Was it first team OL vs. first team DL?  

One could just as easily raise concern if the defense didn't stop the offense.. How could the defense actually be improved if it can't beat a still in flux OL?

[Mick]

Shaw is a complex, if extremely personally dull, football coach. I think that the lack of pizazz in the SID office is his doing. Stanford runs a clean, successful program and that is to be admired. Good SID's with support from staff often figure out ways to get the message out and I think Stanford's shortcomings in that arena eventually hurt the program.

Somehow, I think that description is A-OK with the administration, with the donors, with the fans.  It might literally be in his Bradford Freeman job description, along with "successful prevention of information dissemination" in the SID job description.

[Mick]

Shaw is a complex, if extremely personally dull, football coach. I think that the lack of pizazz in the SID office is his doing. Stanford runs a clean, successful program and that is to be admired. Good SID's with support from staff often figure out ways to get the message out and I think Stanford's shortcomings in that arena eventually hurt the program.

Somehow, I think that description is A-OK with the administration, with the donors, with the fans.  It might literally be in his Bradford Freeman job description, along with "successful prevention of information dissemination" in the SID job description.

[ADPinWDC]

Stats since 2006:  Stanford's yardage, both Passing and Rushing compared to Opponents' Passing and Rushing.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...ater&ifg=1[/img]

The Best stretch (2010-2013), two years with A.Luck at QB, show a combo of Superior Passing combined with League best defense against the Rush.  We seem to be able to tolerate more passing yards ("Bend, don't break" Defense in the red zone), but we lose games without a solid rushing attack (Love injured, Lack of a "Go to" RB in 2014, before McCaff and B.Love) -- unless Costello bails us out throwing the ball, as in 2018. Last year we were 11th in the Pac12 Rushing. 11th !  A revert to 2006 levels.  

If we THROW MORE in 2019, as Costello did later in the season last year, then that could open it up for the Run. 
This has not been Shaw practice. But, after losing in the middle of the season last year -- Shaw changed. 
He said, "We just were not blocking well on runs, and with injuries to the O-Line, and 
we did better at pass blocking with the group we had." [Plus Love was clearly injured.]  
I think it is more to do with defenses improving top to bottom in the Pac12 -- to make run blocking difficult.  

THROW
Our Wide Receiver Corp + TEs is LOADED, eight deep; Shaw has confidence EARLY throwing with Costello. 
With Mills, and then Tanner McKee (6'6", 220; H.S. powerhouse Corona Centennial -- the second coming of Andrew Luck, IMO) --
 YOU THROW THE BALL. Unlike Mills and KJ, McKee can run, like Luck. 
And, those 5-Star QBs lined up to 2024 helped us with recruiting WRs.  
The pipeline at WR + TE HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER.   If you start at TE for Stanford ==> NFL.

[ADPinWDC]

Stats since 2006:  Stanford's yardage, both Passing and Rushing compared to Opponents' Passing and Rushing.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...ater&ifg=1[/img]

The Best stretch (2010-2013), two years with A.Luck at QB, show a combo of Superior Passing combined with League best defense against the Rush.  We seem to be able to tolerate more passing yards ("Bend, don't break" Defense in the red zone), but we lose games without a solid rushing attack (Love injured, Lack of a "Go to" RB in 2014, before McCaff and B.Love) -- unless Costello bails us out throwing the ball, as in 2018. Last year we were 11th in the Pac12 Rushing. 11th !  A revert to 2006 levels.  

If we THROW MORE in 2019, as Costello did later in the season last year, then that could open it up for the Run. 
This has not been Shaw practice. But, after losing in the middle of the season last year -- Shaw changed. 
He said, "We just were not blocking well on runs, and with injuries to the O-Line, and 
we did better at pass blocking with the group we had." [Plus Love was clearly injured.]  
I think it is more to do with defenses improving top to bottom in the Pac12 -- to make run blocking difficult.  

THROW
Our Wide Receiver Corp + TEs is LOADED, eight deep; Shaw has confidence EARLY throwing with Costello. 
With Mills, and then Tanner McKee (6'6", 220; H.S. powerhouse Corona Centennial -- the second coming of Andrew Luck, IMO) --
 YOU THROW THE BALL. Unlike Mills and KJ, McKee can run, like Luck. 
And, those 5-Star QBs lined up to 2024 helped us with recruiting WRs.  
The pipeline at WR + TE HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER.   If you start at TE for Stanford ==> NFL.

[Goose]

It's near impossible to judge your team based on how it practices against itself. How can anyone make any real accurate judgments on the short yardage contest? Maybe the defense is told the play, to make it harder on the offense. Maybe play-action passing isn't allowed in such scenarios. Maybe the least talented ball carrier got the ball.  Was it first team OL vs. first team DL?

You are correct. It is next to impossible to judge your team based on how it practices against itself. Even if the defense isn't told the play, their total familiarity with the offense gives them lots of insights in what is coming.

One could just as easily raise concern if the defense didn't stop the offense.. How could the defense actually be improved if it can't beat a still in flux OL?

Very true. The concern is that with Shaw's teams prior to 2015, that was exactly what happened. In the spring games and in early practices, the OL seemed to do very well against the DL. We had limitations on the DL, in that we had a very few excellent players and the rest not so many and not so good. It turned out that this disparity was a pretty good prediction of the relative merits of the groups. From 2016 on, as I recall, it has been the opposite. The defense has looked better. Granted, we have had problems piecing together an OL for the spring, but that isn't a good thing. Now, it could be that this years DL is just really, really good. However, following the trend, it could be that we once again can't move anybody on offense. I would have liked to hear a report of the opposite case, all things considered.

[Goose]

It's near impossible to judge your team based on how it practices against itself. How can anyone make any real accurate judgments on the short yardage contest? Maybe the defense is told the play, to make it harder on the offense. Maybe play-action passing isn't allowed in such scenarios. Maybe the least talented ball carrier got the ball.  Was it first team OL vs. first team DL?

You are correct. It is next to impossible to judge your team based on how it practices against itself. Even if the defense isn't told the play, their total familiarity with the offense gives them lots of insights in what is coming.

One could just as easily raise concern if the defense didn't stop the offense.. How could the defense actually be improved if it can't beat a still in flux OL?

Very true. The concern is that with Shaw's teams prior to 2015, that was exactly what happened. In the spring games and in early practices, the OL seemed to do very well against the DL. We had limitations on the DL, in that we had a very few excellent players and the rest not so many and not so good. It turned out that this disparity was a pretty good prediction of the relative merits of the groups. From 2016 on, as I recall, it has been the opposite. The defense has looked better. Granted, we have had problems piecing together an OL for the spring, but that isn't a good thing. Now, it could be that this years DL is just really, really good. However, following the trend, it could be that we once again can't move anybody on offense. I would have liked to hear a report of the opposite case, all things considered.

[81alum]

I bet you could chart the optimism levels of the Cardboard over the last decade by looking at rosy posts right before each season starts and "sky is falling" posts right after each season's first loss.

This is the traditional time of year for excessive optimism.  Reality will come soon enough.

That doesn't mean reality will be bad--but it will almost certainly not be quite what anyone predicts just now, with no information based on real performances to go on.

All that said, I am heartened by the amount of optimism about this season.  OutsiderFan has been a tough realist in the past, and the fact that he is now optimistic seems significant to me.  But rather than trust this annual "consumer confidence" survey I'll just wait and see.

[81alum]

I bet you could chart the optimism levels of the Cardboard over the last decade by looking at rosy posts right before each season starts and "sky is falling" posts right after each season's first loss.

This is the traditional time of year for excessive optimism.  Reality will come soon enough.

That doesn't mean reality will be bad--but it will almost certainly not be quite what anyone predicts just now, with no information based on real performances to go on.

All that said, I am heartened by the amount of optimism about this season.  OutsiderFan has been a tough realist in the past, and the fact that he is now optimistic seems significant to me.  But rather than trust this annual "consumer confidence" survey I'll just wait and see.

[winflop]

Goose: Wazzu beat us because Sean Barton got torched down the seam by a slot receiver/RB (I forget) on 3rd and a million with like 30 seconds left. Their defense couldn't stop us at all, even WITH adjusting to the pass. And even if the line isn't amazing, Scarlett can actually push a pile. Bryce could get taken down with 1 arm, and repeatedly was.

In the first half, while they played with one safety deep and a run defense, we scored 28 points. In the second half, with them playing 2 deep, we scored 10 points. I would say they stopped us. Furthermore, the fact they had the opportunity to torch Barton was due to the fact we couldn't get enough first downs to keep them off the field. In that game, Scarlett ran 3 times for 5 yards. Love ran 6 times for 71 yards.

While I fully expect a lot more from Scarlett this year, I wouldn't say he was the solution against WSU in 2018. We needed to keep them off the field, like we somewhat did in the first half. Our defense wasn't going to stop them.  The one time in the third quarter they did, we did nothing with it. End of story.

Sorry but I can't see Scarlett being a solution unless there's less than 5 needed for a first down. He's tough to bring down but is way too slow. He can't break away for a big gain.

That's also why when he's in the game I expect to see 8/9 in the box, and I hope to God that ShawVita uses him as a decoy as often as they run him. I think play action off him is going to be one of our best plays this year.

[winflop]

Goose: Wazzu beat us because Sean Barton got torched down the seam by a slot receiver/RB (I forget) on 3rd and a million with like 30 seconds left. Their defense couldn't stop us at all, even WITH adjusting to the pass. And even if the line isn't amazing, Scarlett can actually push a pile. Bryce could get taken down with 1 arm, and repeatedly was.

In the first half, while they played with one safety deep and a run defense, we scored 28 points. In the second half, with them playing 2 deep, we scored 10 points. I would say they stopped us. Furthermore, the fact they had the opportunity to torch Barton was due to the fact we couldn't get enough first downs to keep them off the field. In that game, Scarlett ran 3 times for 5 yards. Love ran 6 times for 71 yards.

While I fully expect a lot more from Scarlett this year, I wouldn't say he was the solution against WSU in 2018. We needed to keep them off the field, like we somewhat did in the first half. Our defense wasn't going to stop them.  The one time in the third quarter they did, we did nothing with it. End of story.

Sorry but I can't see Scarlett being a solution unless there's less than 5 needed for a first down. He's tough to bring down but is way too slow. He can't break away for a big gain.

That's also why when he's in the game I expect to see 8/9 in the box, and I hope to God that ShawVita uses him as a decoy as often as they run him. I think play action off him is going to be one of our best plays this year.

[OutsiderFan]

If you read the The Athletic piece by Lombardi on KJ Costello you would know Shaw aims for him to be at 70% completions this season. This requires more quick passing and check downs to RBs than we have seen recently. Looks like a much more Bill Walshian approach on tap for this season.

[OutsiderFan]

If you read the The Athletic piece by Lombardi on KJ Costello you would know Shaw aims for him to be at 70% completions this season. This requires more quick passing and check downs to RBs than we have seen recently. Looks like a much more Bill Walshian approach on tap for this season.

[MVDan]

Agree...If I remember my 49er history during Bill Walsh's tenure correctly the Niners were unable to run the ball very well his first years there.  They threw the ball early in the game to be able to set up running the ball in the second half.

[MVDan]

Agree...If I remember my 49er history during Bill Walsh's tenure correctly the Niners were unable to run the ball very well his first years there.  They threw the ball early in the game to be able to set up running the ball in the second half.

[81alum]

Agree...If I remember my 49er history during Bill Walsh's tenure correctly the Niners were unable to run the ball very well his first years there.  They threw the ball early in the game to be able to set up running the ball in the second half.

Walsh used, both at Stanford and then in the first years with the 49ers, lots of passes behind the line of scrimmage out on the flat to running backs like Phil Francis (and later Roger Craig.)  It was like a long handoff.  Francis was drafted by the 49ers and Walsh used him in the same capacity again as a pro, although not so successfully.   At the time it was thought to be highly innovative to be throwing so many passes to running backs, and commentators marveled that it was serving the same purpose as a ground-control run game. 

Nelson also got in on the pass receptions, but he was always a threat to sidestep a tackle or three.  Francis would catch the ball in stride five years behind the LOS, often would have contact at the LOS, but he had enough momentum and strength to always fall forward for about a five yard gain.  In those early years it was the signature play of the Walsh playbook and seemed to be used at least once on every set of downs.

[81alum]

Agree...If I remember my 49er history during Bill Walsh's tenure correctly the Niners were unable to run the ball very well his first years there.  They threw the ball early in the game to be able to set up running the ball in the second half.

Walsh used, both at Stanford and then in the first years with the 49ers, lots of passes behind the line of scrimmage out on the flat to running backs like Phil Francis (and later Roger Craig.)  It was like a long handoff.  Francis was drafted by the 49ers and Walsh used him in the same capacity again as a pro, although not so successfully.   At the time it was thought to be highly innovative to be throwing so many passes to running backs, and commentators marveled that it was serving the same purpose as a ground-control run game. 

Nelson also got in on the pass receptions, but he was always a threat to sidestep a tackle or three.  Francis would catch the ball in stride five years behind the LOS, often would have contact at the LOS, but he had enough momentum and strength to always fall forward for about a five yard gain.  In those early years it was the signature play of the Walsh playbook and seemed to be used at least once on every set of downs.

[winflop]

Love it when this happens...  I make a point about the coach possibly evolving, and then people say it sounds good, but they don't believe Shaw will ever change. Then I get to post THIS:

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/shaw-po...re-schemes

So much to love about these comments, but the thing that stands out to me is this:

"I think it's important for us to know, important for our players to know, what our core is. We have to fight my longevity here and all the things we've done, all the things we can reach back and call up in our playbook. That's not what's important. What's important is what are our guys good at and what are we committing to?"

By definition you can't be great at everything. So 100 different plays can't possibly be executed as well as 10.  But when you have those 10 down, you can do things off of them that break tendencies or otherwise can fool a defense.

David Shaw has done some self-reflection, exposed himself to different ideas, and become better. He's done the hardest thing for anyone to do.  He's gone from following a philosophy that worked, to changing his approach against his comfort zone, to get better. Nick Saban did this at Alabama. Before him, Gary Patterson did it at TCU.

Now if he'll just start allowing Spring official visits...

I'd love to believe him, but I'm in Missouri mode when it comes to this.

[winflop]

Love it when this happens...  I make a point about the coach possibly evolving, and then people say it sounds good, but they don't believe Shaw will ever change. Then I get to post THIS:

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/shaw-po...re-schemes

So much to love about these comments, but the thing that stands out to me is this:

"I think it's important for us to know, important for our players to know, what our core is. We have to fight my longevity here and all the things we've done, all the things we can reach back and call up in our playbook. That's not what's important. What's important is what are our guys good at and what are we committing to?"

By definition you can't be great at everything. So 100 different plays can't possibly be executed as well as 10.  But when you have those 10 down, you can do things off of them that break tendencies or otherwise can fool a defense.

David Shaw has done some self-reflection, exposed himself to different ideas, and become better. He's done the hardest thing for anyone to do.  He's gone from following a philosophy that worked, to changing his approach against his comfort zone, to get better. Nick Saban did this at Alabama. Before him, Gary Patterson did it at TCU.

Now if he'll just start allowing Spring official visits...

I'd love to believe him, but I'm in Missouri mode when it comes to this.