4th and 1

[Mick]

It is also perhaps worth mentioning that Oregon had two first downs in six rushing attempts on fourth down so far this season.  So, although people liked getting Herbert outside over our predictable play call, it's not clear that Oregon is more successful on fourth down generally.  They were three conversions in five attempts passing (and are now four of six), but I don't know how many of those were fourth and short.

BC

Except...and maybe it's just me...Costello looks super slow to me, like Joe-Namath-last-two-years-of-his-NFL-career slow.  And Oregon's defense is crazy fast.

[winflop]

Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. Tonight we needed some of both.

Luck creates opportunity but you have to have talent, heart, etc to seize it

[Goose]

Ironically, Cristobal's refusal to take a knee in favor of delivering a knockout punch to Stanford instead, is the same kind of arrogance that Shaw employs with his short yardage concepts. Both guys paid the price for it, but one more dearly than the other.

You are absolutely correct. However, I think you must at least consider the possibility that "arrogance" (the belief that you can impose your will on the other team) is what makes Shaw (and possibly Cristobal in the future) successful coaches. In the cold light of day, you don't do it. But, if you believe in your team and want them to believe in themselves, maybe you do it. In fairness, what are the odds the kid is going to fumble?

[Goose]

I'm calling it the Pachyderm offense.

Let's not forget, they also failed against USC in the Pac-12 Championship game with this truly ill-conceived football offense.  

On first and Goal from inside the 2, fine, do it for a change of pace, and to see if it works. Maybe give it another shot on 2nd down, but I would never, ever do it on 4th and 1. Ever.  I would always have at least one and more likely 2 WRs on the field on a 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1, and I would make at least 1/3 of my short yardage plays play action passes. 

What's comical about the Pachyderm offense is there is such a pile of bodies that you have to hurdle the pile to make anything.

I am sure what Shaw would tell you is "Yes, but that pile of bodies is supposed to be 1.5 yards down the field". With some of our previous teams, we could reliably do that. Right now, we can't. You are correct that we shouldn't consider this our "go to" play until we can get a push from the OL most of the time.

Previous Stanford teams also seemed to play at a lower pad level. We would get a pile alright, but everybody was horizontal on the ground. You could dive over it. The danger was from a linebacker that met the back at the top of the jump. Lately,  the entire defense seems to be standing at the end of the play.

On the last such play that should be retired to the dustbin of Stanford football history, Scarlett would have needed to be a champion high jumper to get over the top of the pile of bodies in front of him.

True. However, I would also say that in this case, Scarlett should have tried bouncing it to the outside. He only needed a yard. He clearly wasn't going to get it going straight ahead. We don't run this play as a true "dive", where the back is committed to a point of attack / particular gap. Scarlett runs it pretty upright. He can see what is happening (or not happening, in this case) in front of him. If he had slanted out to the left, he probably makes a first down. Oregon was pretty much committed inside. It may not break for a long run, but a yard is probable. Same "mistake" against USC last year, as the OLB had crashed down at the snap. In both cases, he ended up backing into the pile. Trying outside may not work, but backing into the pile for sure won't.
I do agree that we shouldn't run this play unless we can reasonably expect to  get a push. When we get an OL that is playing well enough to do that, fine, run it. However. when we aren't even sure who our stating left guard should be, and Burkett, returning from injury, is having trouble holding his own, do something else.

[qwerty49]

I think the announcers said that Chaffin was snapping on that play. Lots of shuffling - I did see Little move over to the middle of the right side.

In the past, what killed us was someone crashing from the outside and hitting the RB before he reaches the LOS. I noticed Wilson and Fanaika, the 2 “blocking backs,” conferring before the snap. They both went straight ahead and I think a Duck defender came in from the left and got a hand on Scarlett.

I'm calling it the Pachyderm offense.

Let's not forget, they also failed against USC in the Pac-12 Championship game with this truly ill-conceived football offense.  

On first and Goal from inside the 2, fine, do it for a change of pace, and to see if it works. Maybe give it another shot on 2nd down, but I would never, ever do it on 4th and 1. Ever.  I would always have at least one and more likely 2 WRs on the field on a 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1, and I would make at least 1/3 of my short yardage plays play action passes. 

What's comical about the Pachyderm offense is there is such a pile of bodies that you have to hurdle the pile to make anything.

I am sure what Shaw would tell you is "Yes, but that pile of bodies is supposed to be 1.5 yards down the field". With some of our previous teams, we could reliably do that. Right now, we can't. You are correct that we shouldn't consider this our "go to" play until we can get a push from the OL most of the time.

Previous Stanford teams also seemed to play at a lower pad level. We would get a pile alright, but everybody was horizontal on the ground. You could dive over it. The danger was from a linebacker that met the back at the top of the jump. Lately,  the entire defense seems to be standing at the end of the play.

On the last such play that should be retired to the dustbin of Stanford football history, Scarlett would have needed to be a champion high jumper to get over the top of the pile of bodies in front of him.

True. However, I would also say that in this case, Scarlett should have tried bouncing it to the outside. He only needed a yard. He clearly wasn't going to get it going straight ahead. We don't run this play as a true "dive", where the back is committed to a point of attack / particular gap. Scarlett runs it pretty upright. He can see what is happening (or not happening, in this case) in front of him. If he had slanted out to the left, he probably makes a first down. Oregon was pretty much committed inside. It may not break for a long run, but a yard is probable. Same "mistake" against USC last year, as the OLB had crashed down at the snap. In both cases, he ended up backing into the pile. Trying outside may not work, but backing into the pile for sure won't.
I do agree that we shouldn't run this play unless we can reasonably expect to  get a push. When we get an OL that is playing well enough to do that, fine, run it. However. when we aren't even sure who our stating left guard should be, and Burkett, returning from injury, is having trouble holding his own, do something else.

[CTcard]

A few things about our short yardage package that have not been commented upon.

We had two important less-than-a-yard plays during the second half, both of which failed to pick up a first down. The first was third and 1/2 yard from our own 15 on our first drive of the half, the other the 4th down play of this thread.

We now have a completely separate personnel package for these plays with an overhaul of the OL.

On the first of those the lineup was:
Harrington, left side TE, Hattis LT, Fanaika LG, Chaffin C, Herbig RG, Little RT, Fisk right TE.
Williams FB and Wilson as HB on the right side of the line.
https://youtu.be/jl8ldVjPR9I?t=1h12m23s (there's no single great shot, but if you step back and forth you can make everyone out)
On the fourth down it was:
Harrington, left side TE, Hattis LT, Dalman LG, Chaffin C, Herbig RG, Little RT, Fisk right TE.
Fanaika (left) and Wilson (right) in the backfield in front of Scarlett.
See: https://youtu.be/jl8ldVjPR9I?t=1h39m35s  and still right away.

That's a lot of new bodies coming onto the field for the play. It caused some confusion on the first of these, that didn't seem to be the issue on the second.
Presumably much of this is to give backups some very specific plays to practice and get good at. But does that work?

On the first of the two plays, the play call appeared to be Power, and Hattis was not able to engage the end who rushed the gap that Fanaika abandoned in order to pull. That blew up the play.

The second play seemed to be a simpler dive. The Oregon NG got underneath Chaffin and plugged up the center. It looked to me that if Fanaika (in particular) or Wilson had gone wide to block and take out the edge rusher then the play would still have succeeded, possibly for a big gain. But as it unfolded, Fanaika the mess in the center meant Fanaika couldn't get far enough forward to make an effective block and Scarlett didn't have anywhere to go. (There were some good blocks - Little and Herbig seemed to take out their men on the right side, but Scarlett got held up by the mess in the middle while trying to run left.

For the moment I am skeptical of such a complete rearrangement of the line for short yardage plays. Would Little or a regular rotation Tackle have made the block on the Oregon end? Would Burkett or Dalman have managed to hold their ground better versus the submarining Oregon NT? Of course I don't know, but cannot help wondering.

(This post was last modified: 09-25-2018, 07:20 AM by CTcard.)

[BostonCard]

http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/leader/905/...ort01.html

So, stanford was fourth in the conference in fourth down conversions this year.  If everyone knows what we are going to do, how come everybody could stop it only one in three times?

BC

[slide]

interesting stat.  

Stanford went for it on 4th fewer than any other team in the conference.  50/50 run/pass split.

6 runs, 4 successful (1 TD, 3 first downs), 14 yards total with 1 explosive burst for 7 yards.

hopefully OL will be healthier and play better in '19.  not many OL bodies available for spring.