09-19-2017, 11:34 AM
Where to begin . . . .
Guys, it's not just "we should run more" vs. "we should pass more" (though I agree a coaching staff must have a clue about what will work/is working against a particular opponent).
It starts with not telegraphing what kind of play you're running. That should be a given. Stanford fails at this, on at least half the snaps. Seriously, watch a game - look at the alignment - and then predict whether it will be a run or pass. (And I'm not talking about the overused "heavy" formation where not only does everyone know it's a run, but everyone also knows where the RB is headed).
Second, an OC has to have a clue about down and distance and flow of the game, etc. So basic. But again, Stanford under this regime has REPEATEDLY failed to grasp this most basic need. From sporadic viewing of game against SDSU (was at a friend's 50th birthday party), one sequence encapsulated this recurring failure. Stanford is struggling to do anything on offense (think it was late 1H or early 2H). Stanford manages 7 yards on a first down play, and it's second and 3 around Stanford's 40 yard line(?). In this situation, it seems like a no-brainer to run the ball on second down. And then again on third down, if necessary. And if it's fourth an inches, then maybe you go for it. Alternatively, if it's third and inches, maybe you play action fake, with knowledge you're going to go for it on fourth down. But the play call was completely at odds with what is common sense: pass on 2nd down (inc); and pass on third down (inc.) and punt. (I'm pretty sure 3rd down was also a pass, though it may have been a run for short gain - the point is the second down call, anyway). It's baffling.
Now, if you're gashing a D on the ground at will, then trying a pass on 2nd and 3 (with confidence that you could always run for the 3 yards on third down (and fourth down, if necessary)) may make some sense. But that clearly was not the case against SDSU, and the staff took the approach that lessened the odds of moving the chains and giving the O some mojo (and the D some rest).
There are too many examples of this with the O under this regime (starting with the Fiesta Bowl, the inexcusable play calling at Utah near the goal line, the back-to-back Ls against SC, etc.). The staff is not maximizing the O's success, and thus undermining peak team performance with these fundamental misapprehensions of game situations. And BC, I'd argue that this problem has plagued Stanford, even in "the good years."
And btw, on third and short - is a heavy bunch formation really always the best option?Â
There is no dynamism to this offense - "plodding" is a fair characterization. Combine that with a lack of game feel, and it is a hideous mix.Â
Has everyone forgotten about Stanford offenses of yesteryear? There was no gadgetry involved; no spread; no read option every play. It was a pro style offense that attacked all areas of the field and kept defenses just a little off balance. I keep going back to the 2000 and 2001 teams because those were incredibly prolific offenses with players who do not match the talent profiles of the rosters we have had of late. I loved Husak, but does anyone think he has more talent than Chryst or Costello? If your answer is "yes," then I respectfully suggest that you're incorporating into your evaluation how Husak was "coached up" while running Stanford's offense.Â
And therein lies the problem.
Guys, it's not just "we should run more" vs. "we should pass more" (though I agree a coaching staff must have a clue about what will work/is working against a particular opponent).
It starts with not telegraphing what kind of play you're running. That should be a given. Stanford fails at this, on at least half the snaps. Seriously, watch a game - look at the alignment - and then predict whether it will be a run or pass. (And I'm not talking about the overused "heavy" formation where not only does everyone know it's a run, but everyone also knows where the RB is headed).
Second, an OC has to have a clue about down and distance and flow of the game, etc. So basic. But again, Stanford under this regime has REPEATEDLY failed to grasp this most basic need. From sporadic viewing of game against SDSU (was at a friend's 50th birthday party), one sequence encapsulated this recurring failure. Stanford is struggling to do anything on offense (think it was late 1H or early 2H). Stanford manages 7 yards on a first down play, and it's second and 3 around Stanford's 40 yard line(?). In this situation, it seems like a no-brainer to run the ball on second down. And then again on third down, if necessary. And if it's fourth an inches, then maybe you go for it. Alternatively, if it's third and inches, maybe you play action fake, with knowledge you're going to go for it on fourth down. But the play call was completely at odds with what is common sense: pass on 2nd down (inc); and pass on third down (inc.) and punt. (I'm pretty sure 3rd down was also a pass, though it may have been a run for short gain - the point is the second down call, anyway). It's baffling.
Now, if you're gashing a D on the ground at will, then trying a pass on 2nd and 3 (with confidence that you could always run for the 3 yards on third down (and fourth down, if necessary)) may make some sense. But that clearly was not the case against SDSU, and the staff took the approach that lessened the odds of moving the chains and giving the O some mojo (and the D some rest).
There are too many examples of this with the O under this regime (starting with the Fiesta Bowl, the inexcusable play calling at Utah near the goal line, the back-to-back Ls against SC, etc.). The staff is not maximizing the O's success, and thus undermining peak team performance with these fundamental misapprehensions of game situations. And BC, I'd argue that this problem has plagued Stanford, even in "the good years."
And btw, on third and short - is a heavy bunch formation really always the best option?Â
There is no dynamism to this offense - "plodding" is a fair characterization. Combine that with a lack of game feel, and it is a hideous mix.Â
Has everyone forgotten about Stanford offenses of yesteryear? There was no gadgetry involved; no spread; no read option every play. It was a pro style offense that attacked all areas of the field and kept defenses just a little off balance. I keep going back to the 2000 and 2001 teams because those were incredibly prolific offenses with players who do not match the talent profiles of the rosters we have had of late. I loved Husak, but does anyone think he has more talent than Chryst or Costello? If your answer is "yes," then I respectfully suggest that you're incorporating into your evaluation how Husak was "coached up" while running Stanford's offense.Â
And therein lies the problem.
