[OL84]

CT,  I take it you take issue with the observation in general.  I won't go looking up the numbers, but you believe that we generally avoid running against numbers?

My initial line of thinking was that for matters such as this, arguments of kind don't mean as much as arguments of degree.
Stanford ran 67 plays vs UCLA. Almost certainly some of them were runs into a stacked box. I would assume that happens to every team in every game ... almost. The issue is how often, and how much does that hurt the offense overall.

I don't have enough tape to go count every single play to check which were runs into a stacked box. However, your metric of safeties making plays at the LOS is easy to check - so I counted. By my own memory, I expected to see something like 4 of these. I was surprised to see only 1, and that seemed noteworthy.

More broadly, Stanford is rarely running the ball on standard downs at this point, so it seems a reach to think that running into stacked boxes is the most important cause of offensive trouble. Others have taken up that theme in this thread.

CT, thanks for the response.  To be clear, the UCLA game was not the best example of running against numbers.  The topic was the whole year, not just UCLA.  But the safeties were a factor in key running plays and were effectively run blitzing at times.  In fact, given the frequency of passing including the 9(?) straight passes to start the game, the UCLA game might be the least problematic game of the year as far as running against numbers.

I know some find my thesis tiresome, but it takes a qualitative judgment so it's difficult to put into numbers.  PFF tries to but I don't always agree with their judgment.  The reality of the D cannot be adequately assessed by the number of down line or line backers, because teams have mostly become rather accustomed to our packages and used their DB's in tighter alignments so that they can effectively play the run.  This may or may not show up numerically. 

Is Costello to blame?  Earlier in the year I wondered, but it's apparent now that he is not coached to change the play in most cases of running against numbers. 

I will also say that many defenses we faced have become more subtle in hiding their run blitzes.  SC tried to be subtle and blitz out of their base, and that happened be Love's only 100 yard game this season.  We still have not figured how to block SDSU's scheme, but we effectively countered in the second half by attaching the man coverage on the outside.

I will not be crunching the numbers, and the OL clearly missed a lot more blocks than they should have.  But it is clear to me that for Coach Shaw commitment to the run means running against numbers on a regular basis.  It's closer to Bo Schembechler than Bill Walsh.  It's worked remarkably well for longer than I would have expected, and I hope we maintain our physical identity.  But I also hope we continue to spread the field with the passing game and empower the QB attack the more weakly defended areas of the field on run and pass plays.

[OL84]

CT,  I take it you take issue with the observation in general.  I won't go looking up the numbers, but you believe that we generally avoid running against numbers?

My initial line of thinking was that for matters such as this, arguments of kind don't mean as much as arguments of degree.
Stanford ran 67 plays vs UCLA. Almost certainly some of them were runs into a stacked box. I would assume that happens to every team in every game ... almost. The issue is how often, and how much does that hurt the offense overall.

I don't have enough tape to go count every single play to check which were runs into a stacked box. However, your metric of safeties making plays at the LOS is easy to check - so I counted. By my own memory, I expected to see something like 4 of these. I was surprised to see only 1, and that seemed noteworthy.

More broadly, Stanford is rarely running the ball on standard downs at this point, so it seems a reach to think that running into stacked boxes is the most important cause of offensive trouble. Others have taken up that theme in this thread.

CT, thanks for the response.  To be clear, the UCLA game was not the best example of running against numbers.  The topic was the whole year, not just UCLA.  But the safeties were a factor in key running plays and were effectively run blitzing at times.  In fact, given the frequency of passing including the 9(?) straight passes to start the game, the UCLA game might be the least problematic game of the year as far as running against numbers.

I know some find my thesis tiresome, but it takes a qualitative judgment so it's difficult to put into numbers.  PFF tries to but I don't always agree with their judgment.  The reality of the D cannot be adequately assessed by the number of down line or line backers, because teams have mostly become rather accustomed to our packages and used their DB's in tighter alignments so that they can effectively play the run.  This may or may not show up numerically. 

Is Costello to blame?  Earlier in the year I wondered, but it's apparent now that he is not coached to change the play in most cases of running against numbers. 

I will also say that many defenses we faced have become more subtle in hiding their run blitzes.  SC tried to be subtle and blitz out of their base, and that happened be Love's only 100 yard game this season.  We still have not figured how to block SDSU's scheme, but we effectively countered in the second half by attaching the man coverage on the outside.

I will not be crunching the numbers, and the OL clearly missed a lot more blocks than they should have.  But it is clear to me that for Coach Shaw commitment to the run means running against numbers on a regular basis.  It's closer to Bo Schembechler than Bill Walsh.  It's worked remarkably well for longer than I would have expected, and I hope we maintain our physical identity.  But I also hope we continue to spread the field with the passing game and empower the QB attack the more weakly defended areas of the field on run and pass plays.