[washingtonismoney]

If there's a consensus among Stanford fans, it's that Shaw's tenure hasn't seen stellar offensive coaching. A more tolerant wing concedes that his brain trust can do well, but perhaps should bring on a different set of coaches or try a different approach because of [insert familiar set of problems here]. A more, shall we say, ideologically rigorous group views Shaw as awful at offensive coaching for [insert familiar set of problems here, except with more...vehemence and ideological purity].

There's been little, however, asking two important questions:
1) How good is Stanford's offense, really, over the years?
2) How does that compare to other head coaches?

(You could also ask a third very important question: how are performances relative to talent? But I won't be answering that.)

Here's a crack at these two questions. I decided to take a peek at Bill Connelly's S&P+ metric. My original thought was that the Stanford offense at its top end compared reasonably well with elite and very good peers; but that it, perhaps, had more inconsistency than other head coaches. After looking into it, I think that's not wrong but could use some complication.

OK, during Shaw's tenure (2011-2015, complete years only), Stanford has finished in the top ten of S&P+ on offense twice. Fifteen other head coaches can claim the same. Nearly all of them are good offensive head coaches -- if you want to keep an eye on a midmajor coach, you should look at Western Kentucky's Jeff Brohm, who's two-for-two in S&P+ offense as a head coach.

The list of coaches who only finished in the top ten once is...considerably less distinguished: it's a list with Brady Hoke, Les Miles, and Bo Pelini on it.

OK, but are the lows lower? In a complete year, Stanford's worst performance was 45th. That's about median for the multi-top-ten coaches. Meanwhile some very highly regarded coaches have endured multiple years of offensive doldrums: Chris Petersen's Boise State and UW teams finished 37th, 40th, 40th, and 83rd, for example. Dabo Swinney's Clemson team finished 70th one year. It's probably fair to ding Shaw for not being the most consistent coach -- for example, Brian Kelly has finished top 25 basically every full year at N.D. (again, excepting this year's debacle.)

There is one very bad piece of news, however: this year's performance is 94th. That would be by far the worst performance of the fifteen multi-top-ten finishers. The most similar performances to that are from...Brady Hoke and George O'Leary: that is, coaches who soon found themselves without head jobs. Stanford had better get busy scoring or get busy dying.

[washingtonismoney]

If there's a consensus among Stanford fans, it's that Shaw's tenure hasn't seen stellar offensive coaching. A more tolerant wing concedes that his brain trust can do well, but perhaps should bring on a different set of coaches or try a different approach because of [insert familiar set of problems here]. A more, shall we say, ideologically rigorous group views Shaw as awful at offensive coaching for [insert familiar set of problems here, except with more...vehemence and ideological purity].

There's been little, however, asking two important questions:
1) How good is Stanford's offense, really, over the years?
2) How does that compare to other head coaches?

(You could also ask a third very important question: how are performances relative to talent? But I won't be answering that.)

Here's a crack at these two questions. I decided to take a peek at Bill Connelly's S&P+ metric. My original thought was that the Stanford offense at its top end compared reasonably well with elite and very good peers; but that it, perhaps, had more inconsistency than other head coaches. After looking into it, I think that's not wrong but could use some complication.

OK, during Shaw's tenure (2011-2015, complete years only), Stanford has finished in the top ten of S&P+ on offense twice. Fifteen other head coaches can claim the same. Nearly all of them are good offensive head coaches -- if you want to keep an eye on a midmajor coach, you should look at Western Kentucky's Jeff Brohm, who's two-for-two in S&P+ offense as a head coach.

The list of coaches who only finished in the top ten once is...considerably less distinguished: it's a list with Brady Hoke, Les Miles, and Bo Pelini on it.

OK, but are the lows lower? In a complete year, Stanford's worst performance was 45th. That's about median for the multi-top-ten coaches. Meanwhile some very highly regarded coaches have endured multiple years of offensive doldrums: Chris Petersen's Boise State and UW teams finished 37th, 40th, 40th, and 83rd, for example. Dabo Swinney's Clemson team finished 70th one year. It's probably fair to ding Shaw for not being the most consistent coach -- for example, Brian Kelly has finished top 25 basically every full year at N.D. (again, excepting this year's debacle.)

There is one very bad piece of news, however: this year's performance is 94th. That would be by far the worst performance of the fifteen multi-top-ten finishers. The most similar performances to that are from...Brady Hoke and George O'Leary: that is, coaches who soon found themselves without head jobs. Stanford had better get busy scoring or get busy dying.

[OutsiderFan]

Quarterback.  Offense starts and ends with a QB.  Even if the OL isn't terrific, you can have consistent offense wth a good QB.  I honestly thought that by now in the program's evolution, Stanford would be churning out top-end QBs.  Hogan was OK, and put up a lot of numbers as practically a four year starter, but he had a very slow delivery and wasn't a prototype NFL QB.

Shaw admitted how problematic the QBing is in his comments about the ND game.  I think he acknowledged KSU, U$C, UCLA, Washington, and even WSU had pretty good defenses, but for Burns to struggle against a terrible ND defense seemed to get Shaw to acknowledge the QB is a real problem for the offense.

If you're going to employ the WCO and be one of the few teams in college football running a pro style offense, and you're Stanford (historically lands top-rated QB recruits), I expect the QB development and performance to be much better than it has been.  Frankly, this is the year I expected a prototype QB to step up and really look like another bona-fide NFL prospect, and Chryst was the guy that based on pedigree, should have stepped up.  The fact he didn't, was kind of a red flag in retrospect given what Burns has done.

As it stands now, my hope is in CJ Costello and even more so, Davis Mills, who to my eye, is the most promising Stanford QB recruit since Luck.  I've seen enough of Burns and Chryst to conclude they simply don't have it to be considered NFL QB prospects.  It's now pretty clear that Shaw was having trouble deciding on the #1 QB, not because he had two great choices, but because as John Madden always said, if you have two QBs, you have none.

[OutsiderFan]

Quarterback.  Offense starts and ends with a QB.  Even if the OL isn't terrific, you can have consistent offense wth a good QB.  I honestly thought that by now in the program's evolution, Stanford would be churning out top-end QBs.  Hogan was OK, and put up a lot of numbers as practically a four year starter, but he had a very slow delivery and wasn't a prototype NFL QB.

Shaw admitted how problematic the QBing is in his comments about the ND game.  I think he acknowledged KSU, U$C, UCLA, Washington, and even WSU had pretty good defenses, but for Burns to struggle against a terrible ND defense seemed to get Shaw to acknowledge the QB is a real problem for the offense.

If you're going to employ the WCO and be one of the few teams in college football running a pro style offense, and you're Stanford (historically lands top-rated QB recruits), I expect the QB development and performance to be much better than it has been.  Frankly, this is the year I expected a prototype QB to step up and really look like another bona-fide NFL prospect, and Chryst was the guy that based on pedigree, should have stepped up.  The fact he didn't, was kind of a red flag in retrospect given what Burns has done.

As it stands now, my hope is in CJ Costello and even more so, Davis Mills, who to my eye, is the most promising Stanford QB recruit since Luck.  I've seen enough of Burns and Chryst to conclude they simply don't have it to be considered NFL QB prospects.  It's now pretty clear that Shaw was having trouble deciding on the #1 QB, not because he had two great choices, but because as John Madden always said, if you have two QBs, you have none.

[pcgoode]

Thanks WIM - good analysis. My own view is that the system Stanford has in place and Shawgren's play calling works well IF we have a very good OL and a very good QB. They don't all have to be Joshua Garnett/Andrew Luck clones - a step or two down from that will work just fine (e.g. David Yankee/Kevin Hogan). If we don't, we struggle. The part that I think that has been more difficult than I would like it to be is managing the turnover when players leave us and we need to reload. Not sure how we improve on this.

[pcgoode]

Thanks WIM - good analysis. My own view is that the system Stanford has in place and Shawgren's play calling works well IF we have a very good OL and a very good QB. They don't all have to be Joshua Garnett/Andrew Luck clones - a step or two down from that will work just fine (e.g. David Yankee/Kevin Hogan). If we don't, we struggle. The part that I think that has been more difficult than I would like it to be is managing the turnover when players leave us and we need to reload. Not sure how we improve on this.

[CTcard]

To flesh out a bit the numbers behind your post.

S&P+ Offense for Stanford
2011  133.2    8th
2012  113.4  29th
2013  121.4  17th
2014    32.0  45th *
2015    43.0    5th
2016    25.3  94th  (so far)

* Obviously the formula for S&P+ changed in 2014 versus previous years. So, roughly the raw number can be used as a year to year comparison but only 2011-2013 and separately 2014-2016.

I would be interested to see where 2012 Stanford ranked before the switch to Hogan, but I don't know how to find that.

There are several details about S&P I don't love. I like Brian Fremeau's FEI a little better - mostly because it is drive-based instead of play-based and I think that cancels out some issues of style versus effectiveness. [And, it seems 2016 offense FEI is available for the first time in the last few minutes!]

So, by FEI
2011    1.16      6th
2012    0.15    54th
2013    0.60    27th
2014    0.20    50th
2015    1.45    2nd
2016  -0.07    70th

These probably are not different enough to change your conclusions, but they probably show a little more variation year to year. And as we have noted before, there is a strong correlation between offensive performance and QB/OL experience.


For other reasons, I don't think it is quite correct to state that "It's probably fair to ding Shaw for not being the most consistent coach" given that Stanford's results under Shaw's tenure have been remarkably consistent. I know that is not what you meant - you were referring purely to the offense, but I think it is worth noting anyway.

In FEI Overall we find:
2011 = 7th
2012 = 7th
2013 = 2nd
2014 = 21st
2015 = 3rd
Which is really quite remarkable.

[CTcard]

To flesh out a bit the numbers behind your post.

S&P+ Offense for Stanford
2011  133.2    8th
2012  113.4  29th
2013  121.4  17th
2014    32.0  45th *
2015    43.0    5th
2016    25.3  94th  (so far)

* Obviously the formula for S&P+ changed in 2014 versus previous years. So, roughly the raw number can be used as a year to year comparison but only 2011-2013 and separately 2014-2016.

I would be interested to see where 2012 Stanford ranked before the switch to Hogan, but I don't know how to find that.

There are several details about S&P I don't love. I like Brian Fremeau's FEI a little better - mostly because it is drive-based instead of play-based and I think that cancels out some issues of style versus effectiveness. [And, it seems 2016 offense FEI is available for the first time in the last few minutes!]

So, by FEI
2011    1.16      6th
2012    0.15    54th
2013    0.60    27th
2014    0.20    50th
2015    1.45    2nd
2016  -0.07    70th

These probably are not different enough to change your conclusions, but they probably show a little more variation year to year. And as we have noted before, there is a strong correlation between offensive performance and QB/OL experience.


For other reasons, I don't think it is quite correct to state that "It's probably fair to ding Shaw for not being the most consistent coach" given that Stanford's results under Shaw's tenure have been remarkably consistent. I know that is not what you meant - you were referring purely to the offense, but I think it is worth noting anyway.

In FEI Overall we find:
2011 = 7th
2012 = 7th
2013 = 2nd
2014 = 21st
2015 = 3rd
Which is really quite remarkable.

[BobK]

Agree the OL isn't very good sadly which makes our running and passing a struggle

Keep in mind that we entered the season with 13 straight games scoring 30 or more points.  Next team had 9. 

Sarrell and Little are brobdingnagian recruits in so many ways

[BobK]

Agree the OL isn't very good sadly which makes our running and passing a struggle

Keep in mind that we entered the season with 13 straight games scoring 30 or more points.  Next team had 9. 

Sarrell and Little are brobdingnagian recruits in so many ways

[OutsiderFan]

You shouldn't need to have 5 star OT recruits, nor a 5 star QB to have a decent offense. 

[OutsiderFan]

You shouldn't need to have 5 star OT recruits, nor a 5 star QB to have a decent offense. 

[SamuelMcF]

You shouldn't need to have 5 star OT recruits, nor a 5 star QB to have a decent offense. 

Agree. But you should have a decent offense with a 4* QB and a Stanford-coached line (despite most of it consisting of 3* recruits - what happened to our OL recruiting after 2012?).

I'm cautiously encouraged by the fact that the whole lot comes back next year save Caspers.

[SamuelMcF]

You shouldn't need to have 5 star OT recruits, nor a 5 star QB to have a decent offense. 

Agree. But you should have a decent offense with a 4* QB and a Stanford-coached line (despite most of it consisting of 3* recruits - what happened to our OL recruiting after 2012?).

I'm cautiously encouraged by the fact that the whole lot comes back next year save Caspers.

[washingtonismoney]

You shouldn't need to have 5 star OT recruits, nor a 5 star QB to have a decent offense.

The 2013 offense was reasonably successful while starting:

Four three-star offensive linemen, who protected
A three-star quarterback, who handed the ball off to a
Four-star running back, and sometimes threw to
A bunch of nobodies at tight end and also
One four-star wide receiver and two three-star wideouts.

I wouldn't say high recruiting rankings are prerequisites for Stanford success at all.

[washingtonismoney]

You shouldn't need to have 5 star OT recruits, nor a 5 star QB to have a decent offense.

The 2013 offense was reasonably successful while starting:

Four three-star offensive linemen, who protected
A three-star quarterback, who handed the ball off to a
Four-star running back, and sometimes threw to
A bunch of nobodies at tight end and also
One four-star wide receiver and two three-star wideouts.

I wouldn't say high recruiting rankings are prerequisites for Stanford success at all.

[BostonCard]

First of all, WIM, thank you for doing the analysis.  I think that provides a useful context for where we are and how we should judge David Shaw.  It is, of course, very frustrating to have periods like we have over the last four games, where we struggle on offense so much.  However, it is nice to have some context, in terms of how good the offense can be, and to what extent other coaches who we consider to be "good coaches" can also struggle.

BC

[BostonCard]

First of all, WIM, thank you for doing the analysis.  I think that provides a useful context for where we are and how we should judge David Shaw.  It is, of course, very frustrating to have periods like we have over the last four games, where we struggle on offense so much.  However, it is nice to have some context, in terms of how good the offense can be, and to what extent other coaches who we consider to be "good coaches" can also struggle.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Agree. But you should have a decent offense with a 4* QB and a Stanford-coached line (despite most of it consisting of 3* recruits - what happened to our OL recruiting after 2012?).

Tucker was highly regarded (but obviously hasn't performed that way). Both Fanaika and Wilson were four-star players who got beaten out. Gibbons, a four-star, transferred basically immediately after getting to campus. (Thomas Oser, not a four-star guy, medically retired.) But it's true blue-chip recruiting wasn't as strong between 2013-2015; fortunately the class of '16 has multiple blue-chip players with strong reviews from fall camp. And if all goes according to plan they'll be joined by Sarrell and Little in the class of '17.

So there was a bit of a lull, compounded by some bad luck -- with perhaps some selected underperformance -- and that's why, from a recruiting perspective, we are where we are. Some of this OL performance seemingly comes as a shock, however: most people were confident in Bright coming into the year and I had heard good reviews of Hall as well. That...didn't pan out.

[washingtonismoney]

Agree. But you should have a decent offense with a 4* QB and a Stanford-coached line (despite most of it consisting of 3* recruits - what happened to our OL recruiting after 2012?).

Tucker was highly regarded (but obviously hasn't performed that way). Both Fanaika and Wilson were four-star players who got beaten out. Gibbons, a four-star, transferred basically immediately after getting to campus. (Thomas Oser, not a four-star guy, medically retired.) But it's true blue-chip recruiting wasn't as strong between 2013-2015; fortunately the class of '16 has multiple blue-chip players with strong reviews from fall camp. And if all goes according to plan they'll be joined by Sarrell and Little in the class of '17.

So there was a bit of a lull, compounded by some bad luck -- with perhaps some selected underperformance -- and that's why, from a recruiting perspective, we are where we are. Some of this OL performance seemingly comes as a shock, however: most people were confident in Bright coming into the year and I had heard good reviews of Hall as well. That...didn't pan out.

[ChicagoCard]

Tucker was highly regarded (but obviously hasn't performed that way). Both Fanaika and Wilson were four-star players who got beaten out. Gibbons, a four-star, transferred basically immediately after getting to campus.

Turns out Gibbons retired too post-transfer. Personally, I'm not giving up on the idea Tucker, Bright, Fanaika and Wilson (isn't Wilson still just a redshirt freshman?) can be part of a really good offensive line next season, and even later on this season.

[ChicagoCard]

Tucker was highly regarded (but obviously hasn't performed that way). Both Fanaika and Wilson were four-star players who got beaten out. Gibbons, a four-star, transferred basically immediately after getting to campus.

Turns out Gibbons retired too post-transfer. Personally, I'm not giving up on the idea Tucker, Bright, Fanaika and Wilson (isn't Wilson still just a redshirt freshman?) can be part of a really good offensive line next season, and even later on this season.

[washingtonismoney]

Personally, I'm not giving up on the idea Tucker, Bright, Fanaika and Wilson (isn't Wilson still just a redshirt freshman?) can be part of a really good offensive line next season, and even later on this season.

Could happen, certainly. I'm reasonably optimistic about 2017's line. Wilson is just a redshirt freshman, you're correct.

[washingtonismoney]

Personally, I'm not giving up on the idea Tucker, Bright, Fanaika and Wilson (isn't Wilson still just a redshirt freshman?) can be part of a really good offensive line next season, and even later on this season.

Could happen, certainly. I'm reasonably optimistic about 2017's line. Wilson is just a redshirt freshman, you're correct.

[OutsiderFan]

I've been quite impressed with Wilson's blocking this year.  Think he should be able to take over for Caspers without any issue.  That said, Fanaika and Herbig may well end up as the Guards instead. 

[OutsiderFan]

I've been quite impressed with Wilson's blocking this year.  Think he should be able to take over for Caspers without any issue.  That said, Fanaika and Herbig may well end up as the Guards instead. 

[CTcard]

Personally, I'm not giving up on the idea Tucker, Bright, Fanaika and Wilson (isn't Wilson still just a redshirt freshman?) can be part of a really good offensive line next season, and even later on this season.

I'm not either.
I think folks here are underestimating how much experience, and experience playing together, matters for an OL and not just individual ability.

This year's starting OL has been a selection of five out of Tucker, Bright, Fanaika, Burkett, Caspers, Hall. We should have four returning starters next year, which will be a big step up in the experience category.
... and if you squint your eyes and count just right you could perhaps even claim five returning starters - or at least five OL who have started.

My first guess is that the starting OL would likely consist of the five returners above, but there are a ton of other options (which itself should be a good sign). I understand that the coaches are very high on Herbig who could take Caspers spot as already noted.

[CTcard]

Personally, I'm not giving up on the idea Tucker, Bright, Fanaika and Wilson (isn't Wilson still just a redshirt freshman?) can be part of a really good offensive line next season, and even later on this season.

I'm not either.
I think folks here are underestimating how much experience, and experience playing together, matters for an OL and not just individual ability.

This year's starting OL has been a selection of five out of Tucker, Bright, Fanaika, Burkett, Caspers, Hall. We should have four returning starters next year, which will be a big step up in the experience category.
... and if you squint your eyes and count just right you could perhaps even claim five returning starters - or at least five OL who have started.

My first guess is that the starting OL would likely consist of the five returners above, but there are a ton of other options (which itself should be a good sign). I understand that the coaches are very high on Herbig who could take Caspers spot as already noted.

[fullmetal]

I think an OL is needed more than a QB right now.  We've got to execute blocks consistently for CMac and protect consistently for whoever's in at QB. 

Chryst needs to manage his game, and Burns needs to hit his guys in stride.

As far as Shaw is concerned, I'd like to see a more complete embrace of different offensive ideas.  Why don't we use the power-I more often?  How can we fix that?  Why don't we incorporate zone reads or option pitches out of the shotgun away from the defense?  I assume Shaw has his reasons, but I'm not sure those reasons are working out for him.  Do we have insufficient QB coaching expertise to teach our QBs how to take a snap under center?  (Did anyone see Tyrod Taylor line up in the shotgun behind his LG and whiff on receiving the snap?  I was never sold on him as an NFL QB after our Orange Bowl victory over his VA Tech team.)

How can we hire Conor McFadden back as a coach?

[fullmetal]

I think an OL is needed more than a QB right now.  We've got to execute blocks consistently for CMac and protect consistently for whoever's in at QB. 

Chryst needs to manage his game, and Burns needs to hit his guys in stride.

As far as Shaw is concerned, I'd like to see a more complete embrace of different offensive ideas.  Why don't we use the power-I more often?  How can we fix that?  Why don't we incorporate zone reads or option pitches out of the shotgun away from the defense?  I assume Shaw has his reasons, but I'm not sure those reasons are working out for him.  Do we have insufficient QB coaching expertise to teach our QBs how to take a snap under center?  (Did anyone see Tyrod Taylor line up in the shotgun behind his LG and whiff on receiving the snap?  I was never sold on him as an NFL QB after our Orange Bowl victory over his VA Tech team.)

How can we hire Conor McFadden back as a coach?

[CTcard]

As far as Shaw is concerned, I'd like to see a more complete embrace of different offensive ideas.

I think that what I would like to see is a more complete embrace of one fundamental set of ideas, sticking to it, and getting good at it.

It's not as bad as 2014, but we seem to be running all sorts of different stuff with in what seems a scattershot approach - throw it all out there and see what sticks. In 2014 it seemed fairly clear that the team needed to get back to it's strong inside run game, with Hogan's pass attempts kept to favorable occasions and when necessary for first downs. This year I am less sure what our strengths are, but it looks like we're trying too many things to be good at any one.

Though I would note that as I documented in another thread, the bread and butter run game hasn't been so terrible with the RBs averaging over 5 yards a carry. That's not nearly as good as last year, but basically as good as most any other year of recent vintage.
On the other hand we're running (non-sacks) on 55% of our plays even though we've had two games where we were way behind and thus passed more. [The RBs have carried on 42% of our plays.] There isn't a ton of room to lean more on the run game.

Why don't we use the power-I more often?  ...  Do we have insufficient QB coaching expertise to teach our QBs how to take a snap under center?

My impression is that the QB is under center about 1/3 of the time, but I haven't counted. I generally don't like the shotgun much, so would like to see that fraction go up quite a bit.

But it looks to me like Shaw, or Bloomgren, likes the shotgun. Hogan was using it more and more and that hasn't changed this year.

[CTcard]

As far as Shaw is concerned, I'd like to see a more complete embrace of different offensive ideas.

I think that what I would like to see is a more complete embrace of one fundamental set of ideas, sticking to it, and getting good at it.

It's not as bad as 2014, but we seem to be running all sorts of different stuff with in what seems a scattershot approach - throw it all out there and see what sticks. In 2014 it seemed fairly clear that the team needed to get back to it's strong inside run game, with Hogan's pass attempts kept to favorable occasions and when necessary for first downs. This year I am less sure what our strengths are, but it looks like we're trying too many things to be good at any one.

Though I would note that as I documented in another thread, the bread and butter run game hasn't been so terrible with the RBs averaging over 5 yards a carry. That's not nearly as good as last year, but basically as good as most any other year of recent vintage.
On the other hand we're running (non-sacks) on 55% of our plays even though we've had two games where we were way behind and thus passed more. [The RBs have carried on 42% of our plays.] There isn't a ton of room to lean more on the run game.

Why don't we use the power-I more often?  ...  Do we have insufficient QB coaching expertise to teach our QBs how to take a snap under center?

My impression is that the QB is under center about 1/3 of the time, but I haven't counted. I generally don't like the shotgun much, so would like to see that fraction go up quite a bit.

But it looks to me like Shaw, or Bloomgren, likes the shotgun. Hogan was using it more and more and that hasn't changed this year.

[BostonCard]

I think we are running more shotgun this year than in the past, especially in the last two games.  My hypothesis is that it is a reaction to the sacks we gave up against UW.  It seems that some of our linemen were getting beaten so badly that the pass rusher was approaching the QB at the same rate as Burns was dropping back.  With a shotgun, there is at least more time for the QB to see where the rush is coming from.  We are still having trouble, though.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think we are running more shotgun this year than in the past, especially in the last two games.  My hypothesis is that it is a reaction to the sacks we gave up against UW.  It seems that some of our linemen were getting beaten so badly that the pass rusher was approaching the QB at the same rate as Burns was dropping back.  With a shotgun, there is at least more time for the QB to see where the rush is coming from.  We are still having trouble, though.

BC

[fullmetal]

I think I remember reading that both Hogan and Burns were shotgun QBs in high school, so maybe the coaches are wary of center-QB exchange issues.  You'd think that 3+ years as a collegiate QB could have fixed that in practice under tutelage...maybe?  Call me crazy!

If we're running on 55% of our plays and our run game is successful, we should certainly leverage defensive anticipation and look like we're going to run on every down. 

One thing about the shotgun--the QB has to focus on catching the ball before scanning the field, right?  When you take the snap from under center, you get more time to see the defense and your receivers.  Isn't that a tradeoff to leverage sometimes?

I wonder if Burns isn't reading the defenses well enough to get us out of bad situations (underestimating number of pass rushers, coverage schemes, etc.).  Hard to tell from this comfy armchair  :-\

[fullmetal]

I think I remember reading that both Hogan and Burns were shotgun QBs in high school, so maybe the coaches are wary of center-QB exchange issues.  You'd think that 3+ years as a collegiate QB could have fixed that in practice under tutelage...maybe?  Call me crazy!

If we're running on 55% of our plays and our run game is successful, we should certainly leverage defensive anticipation and look like we're going to run on every down. 

One thing about the shotgun--the QB has to focus on catching the ball before scanning the field, right?  When you take the snap from under center, you get more time to see the defense and your receivers.  Isn't that a tradeoff to leverage sometimes?

I wonder if Burns isn't reading the defenses well enough to get us out of bad situations (underestimating number of pass rushers, coverage schemes, etc.).  Hard to tell from this comfy armchair  :-\