[Red80]

And there is a contingent of people on this board who think the problem is not that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy enough, but that he strayed from what was working, and that we should go back to being a ball-control, power running team, a proposition that I am sympathetic to.  

Put me in that camp.

I'm probably the strongest advocate for Phone Booth football for Stanford. I clamored for it for years before it actually arrived. I was thrilled when it transpired in  2012 and 2013. Both of the those teams had mostly average players on offense, but the schemes they ran gave them a big tactical and physical advantage over opponents whose defenses were accustomed to facing spread, uptempo offenses that were much less physical than Stanford's. "Intellectual Brutality" was born out of this approach to offense and Stanford made a name for itself on a national level when they employed the Power O system. Up until 2018 (Exceptions in '14 and '16), Wisconsin and Stanford were the two teams that were the most recognized for running this kind of O. Now it's just Wisconsin, and they continue to win.

---

Not to quibble, since I think we all agree Shaw fielded one of the worst Stanford football efforts of our lifetimes last night. But, the difference I see with Shaw in terms of predictability and play-calling is that Shaw keeps doing things that don't work, drive-to-drive, quarter-to-quarter, week-to-week, and season-to-season.  It's one thing to run up the middle with Gerhart 37 times a game, if it's working.  It's an entirely different thing to run the same plays week after week that simply are not working, and then to do it with such amazing predictability. It's just inexplicable.  

I don’t know how you can look at the offense 10 years ago and compare it today, and conclude Shaw does the same thing season to season.  It’s probably easier to describe the things that are similar to 10 years ago than the things that are different.  We still huddle, and we still feature passes to 

the tight end.  And that’s about it for similarities to 10 years ago.

Let’s start with formation.  We used to run most of our plays out of the i-formation with 21 personnel (1 rb, 1 fb, 1 te, and 2 wrs).  Now we run most of our plays out of the shotgun with 11 personnel.  The fullback rarely features, and we are more likely to run an empty backfield than we are to have 2 running backs.  An empty backfield was something we only used to run on third and long, and even then, we liked having a running back in there for protection.



Next, let’s look at the run/pass mix.  In 2011, we had 417 passing attempts and 518 rushing attempts (running 55.4% of the time).  This year, we have had 282 passing attempts and 250 rushing attempts (running just 47% of the time).  The disparity is even more stark when you take sacks into account, as the 27 times our QB’s count as sacks are considered rushes, even though they were dropbacks.  If you reclassify the times our Qb’s were sacked, we only ran 41.9% of the time (Luck was only sacked 11 times in 2011, so even if you reclassify the runs in 2011, we still ran it 54.2% of the time).

The disparity is even more significant if you look at first down.  While we still run more than we pass on first down (51.7% rushes), back then we ran it a lot more than we passed it on first down (63% rushes).  And that was with Andrew Luck, a senior QB.

Moreover, how we run has changed.  As I mentioned, our primary formation and personnel has changed.  So has the offensive line’s blocking scheme.  Whereas before our quintessential play was Power, with a pulling guard and a lead fullback and a zone blocking scheme, now we run duo (or at least, that’s what we were supposed to have been running, but we do it so poorly it’s hard to tell) and count on the running back to read the linebacker and pick his hole.  Duo is a man blocking scheme, and we rarely, if ever pull our linemen (probably because they are not nimble enough to do it effectively).  I don’t know that we’ve run power this season.  Sacrilege!

Furthermore, how we pass has changed.  Because we used to run effectively out of the I formation, a lot of our passing was built off play action passing, of which Luck and Hogan were masters.  The receivers were not barn burners, but took advantage of the play fake and crisp route running to create separation from the DB.  Now we occasionally run some play action, but mostly we are running three wide receiver sets with big tall receivers, where we count on their height to win the ball one on one against the DB’s.  In 2011, our top receiving targets were 6’1” Griff Whalen, 6’2” Chris Owusu, and 6’2” Ty Montgomery (along with 6’6” TE Coby Fleener).  This year, our top receivers are 6’3” Elijah Higgins, 6’5” John Humphreys, and 6’4” Brycen Tremayne, (along with 6’5” TE Benjamin Yurosek); our receivers now are 2-3 inches taller than 10 years ago, and we rely on that plus the occasional slant, for most of our passing yardage.  Other than the fact that the tight end still features heavily in our passing offense, the passing game we use today would have been unrecognizeable 10 years ago.

Shaw may or may not be stubborn.  It is probably fair to criticize him for taking too long to adjust from his game plan when it doesn’t work (see Nov 5).  But for goodness sakes, people, let’s put to rest the idea that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy in 10 years.  Except for our tempo, or lack thereof, we are probably much closer to a run and shoot offense now than we are a power offense of 10 years ago.  And there is a contingent of people on this board who think the problem is not that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy enough, but that he strayed from what was working, and that we should go back to being a ball-control, power running team, a proposition that I am sympathetic to.  It is of course hard to disentangle cause from effect, but our offensive production has declined as we’ve moved away from being a power running, ball control offense.

Whatever it is, it can’t be any worse than what we witnessed yesterday, can it?


BC

This is really an excellent and cogent analysis of Stanford's offense, before and now. Agree 100%

[Red80]

And there is a contingent of people on this board who think the problem is not that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy enough, but that he strayed from what was working, and that we should go back to being a ball-control, power running team, a proposition that I am sympathetic to.  

Put me in that camp.

I'm probably the strongest advocate for Phone Booth football for Stanford. I clamored for it for years before it actually arrived. I was thrilled when it transpired in  2012 and 2013. Both of the those teams had mostly average players on offense, but the schemes they ran gave them a big tactical and physical advantage over opponents whose defenses were accustomed to facing spread, uptempo offenses that were much less physical than Stanford's. "Intellectual Brutality" was born out of this approach to offense and Stanford made a name for itself on a national level when they employed the Power O system. Up until 2018 (Exceptions in '14 and '16), Wisconsin and Stanford were the two teams that were the most recognized for running this kind of O. Now it's just Wisconsin, and they continue to win.

---

Not to quibble, since I think we all agree Shaw fielded one of the worst Stanford football efforts of our lifetimes last night. But, the difference I see with Shaw in terms of predictability and play-calling is that Shaw keeps doing things that don't work, drive-to-drive, quarter-to-quarter, week-to-week, and season-to-season.  It's one thing to run up the middle with Gerhart 37 times a game, if it's working.  It's an entirely different thing to run the same plays week after week that simply are not working, and then to do it with such amazing predictability. It's just inexplicable.  

I don’t know how you can look at the offense 10 years ago and compare it today, and conclude Shaw does the same thing season to season.  It’s probably easier to describe the things that are similar to 10 years ago than the things that are different.  We still huddle, and we still feature passes to 

the tight end.  And that’s about it for similarities to 10 years ago.

Let’s start with formation.  We used to run most of our plays out of the i-formation with 21 personnel (1 rb, 1 fb, 1 te, and 2 wrs).  Now we run most of our plays out of the shotgun with 11 personnel.  The fullback rarely features, and we are more likely to run an empty backfield than we are to have 2 running backs.  An empty backfield was something we only used to run on third and long, and even then, we liked having a running back in there for protection.



Next, let’s look at the run/pass mix.  In 2011, we had 417 passing attempts and 518 rushing attempts (running 55.4% of the time).  This year, we have had 282 passing attempts and 250 rushing attempts (running just 47% of the time).  The disparity is even more stark when you take sacks into account, as the 27 times our QB’s count as sacks are considered rushes, even though they were dropbacks.  If you reclassify the times our Qb’s were sacked, we only ran 41.9% of the time (Luck was only sacked 11 times in 2011, so even if you reclassify the runs in 2011, we still ran it 54.2% of the time).

The disparity is even more significant if you look at first down.  While we still run more than we pass on first down (51.7% rushes), back then we ran it a lot more than we passed it on first down (63% rushes).  And that was with Andrew Luck, a senior QB.

Moreover, how we run has changed.  As I mentioned, our primary formation and personnel has changed.  So has the offensive line’s blocking scheme.  Whereas before our quintessential play was Power, with a pulling guard and a lead fullback and a zone blocking scheme, now we run duo (or at least, that’s what we were supposed to have been running, but we do it so poorly it’s hard to tell) and count on the running back to read the linebacker and pick his hole.  Duo is a man blocking scheme, and we rarely, if ever pull our linemen (probably because they are not nimble enough to do it effectively).  I don’t know that we’ve run power this season.  Sacrilege!

Furthermore, how we pass has changed.  Because we used to run effectively out of the I formation, a lot of our passing was built off play action passing, of which Luck and Hogan were masters.  The receivers were not barn burners, but took advantage of the play fake and crisp route running to create separation from the DB.  Now we occasionally run some play action, but mostly we are running three wide receiver sets with big tall receivers, where we count on their height to win the ball one on one against the DB’s.  In 2011, our top receiving targets were 6’1” Griff Whalen, 6’2” Chris Owusu, and 6’2” Ty Montgomery (along with 6’6” TE Coby Fleener).  This year, our top receivers are 6’3” Elijah Higgins, 6’5” John Humphreys, and 6’4” Brycen Tremayne, (along with 6’5” TE Benjamin Yurosek); our receivers now are 2-3 inches taller than 10 years ago, and we rely on that plus the occasional slant, for most of our passing yardage.  Other than the fact that the tight end still features heavily in our passing offense, the passing game we use today would have been unrecognizeable 10 years ago.

Shaw may or may not be stubborn.  It is probably fair to criticize him for taking too long to adjust from his game plan when it doesn’t work (see Nov 5).  But for goodness sakes, people, let’s put to rest the idea that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy in 10 years.  Except for our tempo, or lack thereof, we are probably much closer to a run and shoot offense now than we are a power offense of 10 years ago.  And there is a contingent of people on this board who think the problem is not that Shaw has not changed his offensive philosophy enough, but that he strayed from what was working, and that we should go back to being a ball-control, power running team, a proposition that I am sympathetic to.  It is of course hard to disentangle cause from effect, but our offensive production has declined as we’ve moved away from being a power running, ball control offense.

Whatever it is, it can’t be any worse than what we witnessed yesterday, can it?


BC

This is really an excellent and cogent analysis of Stanford's offense, before and now. Agree 100%