[CTcard]

And generally, I defend sticking with the run, and specializing in a smaller number of plays.

I might defend that too, but it's mostly not what Stanford does.
Stanford runs more plays than most teams, and typically from far more different formations.
This year, outside of the ASU game, Stanford has not stuck with the run, but they have cut down on the number of different formations and plays.

Oregon under Chip Kelly was a primo example of the advantages of sticking with the run and specializing in a small number of plays.

The current Bryce Love pitch play has a particular set up, a particular rhythm, a particular location, a particular player, and, perhaps most significantly, a particular timing -- it is a slow-developing play that has been disrupted by interior run blitzing.

It looks to me as if the pitch play is exclusive to Love. I don't think I have seen it with any of the other backs. At any rate, it was not part of the fourth quarter kill-the-clock efforts vs ASU.
Like everything else in the run game, the Love-pitch has not been effective. I am not sure it has been worse than other run plays.

But my question is this -- Coach Shaw defends the play call by saying the correct choice was to run, but does that necessarily mean the correct choice was to run the same run play, to the same place, with the same timing, to the same gap, with the same player, over and over?

I am not quite sure if you are referring to the fourth quarter kill or Stanford's run game overall.
During that fourth quarter Stanford ran a several different run plays, mostly inside but at least two were intended to be stretch plays. They ran out of two back and one back sets, under center and out of the shotgun, and looked about 2/3 zone blocking vs gap plays, mostly to the right but some to the left. A couple that might have been read the defense run/pass - but likely there wasn't really an option for Costello.

So, at least during that drive, all of Stanford's run plays were ineffective, but they were not all the same play.


And not really on topic of anything here, the tripping penalty on Scarlett that started the all-run fourth quarter was bogus. He tried to cut block the outside rusher, half-missed, and the defender got somewhat tangled up in his legs. It's not the worst call I have ever seen, and perhaps could be appreciated as payback for the iffy PI call on the St. Brown play, but still pretty weak.

[CTcard]

And generally, I defend sticking with the run, and specializing in a smaller number of plays.

I might defend that too, but it's mostly not what Stanford does.
Stanford runs more plays than most teams, and typically from far more different formations.
This year, outside of the ASU game, Stanford has not stuck with the run, but they have cut down on the number of different formations and plays.

Oregon under Chip Kelly was a primo example of the advantages of sticking with the run and specializing in a small number of plays.

The current Bryce Love pitch play has a particular set up, a particular rhythm, a particular location, a particular player, and, perhaps most significantly, a particular timing -- it is a slow-developing play that has been disrupted by interior run blitzing.

It looks to me as if the pitch play is exclusive to Love. I don't think I have seen it with any of the other backs. At any rate, it was not part of the fourth quarter kill-the-clock efforts vs ASU.
Like everything else in the run game, the Love-pitch has not been effective. I am not sure it has been worse than other run plays.

But my question is this -- Coach Shaw defends the play call by saying the correct choice was to run, but does that necessarily mean the correct choice was to run the same run play, to the same place, with the same timing, to the same gap, with the same player, over and over?

I am not quite sure if you are referring to the fourth quarter kill or Stanford's run game overall.
During that fourth quarter Stanford ran a several different run plays, mostly inside but at least two were intended to be stretch plays. They ran out of two back and one back sets, under center and out of the shotgun, and looked about 2/3 zone blocking vs gap plays, mostly to the right but some to the left. A couple that might have been read the defense run/pass - but likely there wasn't really an option for Costello.

So, at least during that drive, all of Stanford's run plays were ineffective, but they were not all the same play.


And not really on topic of anything here, the tripping penalty on Scarlett that started the all-run fourth quarter was bogus. He tried to cut block the outside rusher, half-missed, and the defender got somewhat tangled up in his legs. It's not the worst call I have ever seen, and perhaps could be appreciated as payback for the iffy PI call on the St. Brown play, but still pretty weak.