[BobK]

https://mobile.twitter.com/stanfordrival...1719973888

An answer here

[BobK]

https://mobile.twitter.com/stanfordrival...1719973888

An answer here

[lex24]

A beat up o-line is a major problem

[lex24]

A beat up o-line is a major problem

[81alum]

We've had these sorts of rashes of injuries on the O-line before.  Is this just something to be expected?  Are linemen just prone to injuries?

It seems as if our deep pool of excellent talent on the line is stretched to the breaking point, and now it sure doesn't seem so deep.

[81alum]

We've had these sorts of rashes of injuries on the O-line before.  Is this just something to be expected?  Are linemen just prone to injuries?

It seems as if our deep pool of excellent talent on the line is stretched to the breaking point, and now it sure doesn't seem so deep.

[CardinalSagehen]

Ugh.  The Davis game turns out to be a minor disaster for us, taking out 2-3 more starters (including Toohill at LB) just as we begin to face the meat of our schedule. It’s kind of our fault for failing to dominate early and needing to keep our starters in the game too long. At what stage did Hall get hurt?

[CardinalSagehen]

Ugh.  The Davis game turns out to be a minor disaster for us, taking out 2-3 more starters (including Toohill at LB) just as we begin to face the meat of our schedule. It’s kind of our fault for failing to dominate early and needing to keep our starters in the game too long. At what stage did Hall get hurt?

[qwerty49]

https://mobile.twitter.com/stanfordrival...1719973888

An answer here

Sheesh.  We may have to go to unbalanced ogre with Wilson and maybe even Fisk.  Or are they banged up too?

[qwerty49]

https://mobile.twitter.com/stanfordrival...1719973888

An answer here

Sheesh.  We may have to go to unbalanced ogre with Wilson and maybe even Fisk.  Or are they banged up too?

[OutsiderFan]

The injury situation plaguing the OL is nothing other teams haven't faced before.  I remember a few years ago Oregon was forced into starting a True Frosh LT and a walk-on Center.  These things can and do happen.  Good teams find a way to overcome it.  I find it odd to put Herbig at RT. He will be annihilated in pass protection, and Stanford will give up a great player at RG, so you weaken two positions this way.  The simplest answer if Hall can't play would be to replace him with Hattis. Even if Hattis isn't great, you can always put the TE on his side, and run plays to the opposite direction.  

Putting aside the DEFCON 1 state of OL health and depth, that Rivals article sure was fascinating.  Shaw admits to being stubborn about running on first down, and admits defenses are basically saying "we know what you are doing and we are going to stop it." Shaw even says they may need to pass more on first down to get defenses to back off.  It's like he's reading the Cardboard or something.

What is most amazing about this is the backdrop of how Stanford's only converting 33% of 3rd down attempts because they are basically averaging 3rd and 10 for the season as a result of defenses loading up to stop first down runs. This is insane.  When even UC Davis can stop first down runs, the offensive philosophy needs to be re-evaluated.

If I was them, I would open the Oregon game with 10 straight play action passes off run blocking actions out of 22 personnel. Use Love as an outlet receiver on those plays, and get Heimuli (who has shown he is a good receiver) some swing passes. Give defenses some different looks, more to think about, and get those Safeties to back off on first down!

[OutsiderFan]

The injury situation plaguing the OL is nothing other teams haven't faced before.  I remember a few years ago Oregon was forced into starting a True Frosh LT and a walk-on Center.  These things can and do happen.  Good teams find a way to overcome it.  I find it odd to put Herbig at RT. He will be annihilated in pass protection, and Stanford will give up a great player at RG, so you weaken two positions this way.  The simplest answer if Hall can't play would be to replace him with Hattis. Even if Hattis isn't great, you can always put the TE on his side, and run plays to the opposite direction.  

Putting aside the DEFCON 1 state of OL health and depth, that Rivals article sure was fascinating.  Shaw admits to being stubborn about running on first down, and admits defenses are basically saying "we know what you are doing and we are going to stop it." Shaw even says they may need to pass more on first down to get defenses to back off.  It's like he's reading the Cardboard or something.

What is most amazing about this is the backdrop of how Stanford's only converting 33% of 3rd down attempts because they are basically averaging 3rd and 10 for the season as a result of defenses loading up to stop first down runs. This is insane.  When even UC Davis can stop first down runs, the offensive philosophy needs to be re-evaluated.

If I was them, I would open the Oregon game with 10 straight play action passes off run blocking actions out of 22 personnel. Use Love as an outlet receiver on those plays, and get Heimuli (who has shown he is a good receiver) some swing passes. Give defenses some different looks, more to think about, and get those Safeties to back off on first down!

[Hurlburt88]

I kind of remember in lucks final two years a decent number of first down passes.   Anyone out there have any stats to confirm or refute this?   At any rate, this week I would not be surprised to see first down passing approaching 40%

[Hurlburt88]

I kind of remember in lucks final two years a decent number of first down passes.   Anyone out there have any stats to confirm or refute this?   At any rate, this week I would not be surprised to see first down passing approaching 40%

[Goose]

I kind of remember in lucks final two years a decent number of first down passes.   Anyone out there have any stats to confirm or refute this?   At any rate, this week I would not be surprised to see first down passing approaching 40%

Hard to say. Oregon has been pretty soft against the run (given their opposition hasn't been great). I don't think Shaw is going to abandon it. That said, we passed a good deal against Oregon last year, as I recall. I think we will start out simple and see what Oregon is doing. If they are crashing the LOS, we will throw the ball. If not, look for lots of Love.

[Goose]

I kind of remember in lucks final two years a decent number of first down passes.   Anyone out there have any stats to confirm or refute this?   At any rate, this week I would not be surprised to see first down passing approaching 40%

Hard to say. Oregon has been pretty soft against the run (given their opposition hasn't been great). I don't think Shaw is going to abandon it. That said, we passed a good deal against Oregon last year, as I recall. I think we will start out simple and see what Oregon is doing. If they are crashing the LOS, we will throw the ball. If not, look for lots of Love.

[oldalum]

 Are linemen just prone to injuries?

I was once told by a parent of a Stanford offensive lineman that they are the least-often injured of any position on the team. Anyone know if that is true?

[oldalum]

 Are linemen just prone to injuries?

I was once told by a parent of a Stanford offensive lineman that they are the least-often injured of any position on the team. Anyone know if that is true?

[CTcard]

I kind of remember in lucks final two years a decent number of first down passes.   Anyone out there have any stats to confirm or refute this?   At any rate, this week I would not be surprised to see first down passing approaching 40%

2018 
All Plays - 49% runs
First Down - 62.5% runs

2011 (Luck Senior year)
All Plays - 55% runs
First Down - 63% runs

2010 (Luck Junior year, Harbaugh final year)
All Plays - 59% runs
First Down - 67% runs

2014*
All Plays - 56% runs
First Down - 66% runs

A few notes. 
- To give some perspective on these numbers, generally few teams pass more often than they run over the course of a season. Last year, only three Pac 12 teams did so: WSU (of course), UCLA (Rosen), Cal (surprise to me). 
- *I include 2014 because it was the one other year Stanford tried to pass a lot under Shaw. However, that completely changed over the final three games of the season (and sort of the final four), making the season long stats not that far out of line from other Shaw years. 
- So far this year, Stanford has been passing a little more on first downs than any other year under Shaw and quite a bit more overall. 
- There are two issues to note with the fact that so far this year we only have three games to look at. 
Almost assuredly, Stanford has had three games in other years with more passing - and likely even three games in a row. 
On the other hand, these are three games that Stanford won handily - the minimum margin being two touchdowns. All teams run more often with the lead with Stanford apparently more extreme in that regard. Thus the higher passing numbers are in games where one would expect higher running numbers. 
- And while this goes into the "of course" category, it is worth remembering that while run vs pass is easy to see during a game and easy to find relevant stats, it is far too simplistic to think about Stanford's strategies and play calling. What types of run and pass games Stanford uses is perhaps more on point. 

On that score, the changes in the Stanford run game over the past few seasons haven't been commented upon much. Without doing any counting, it looks to me as if Stanford has switched from being a primarily man-blocking team to primarily a zone-blocking team. That seems to coincide with fewer snaps under center and more in the shot-gun - though my impression is that Costello is under center more than Chryst was. 

--------------
I am not as thrilled with the Rivals article as OutsiderFan. 
It's fine, but it seems to be reflecting standard fan talking points more than breaking any new ground. 

In particular, as always, I wouldn't take what Shaw or any coach says at face value. Shaw is always mindful that he is talking to his team as much as the media and the fan base - and presumably cares much more about the former. 

I don't think that all these comments about suddenly this year opposing teams are selling out to stop our run game are remotely true, and doubt Shaw really believes it. While it's true that the scheme SDSU runs is unique, it looks to me as if their approach last year was basically the same. More broadly, every team that plays Stanford for a decade now believes that first and foremost their job is to stop our run game. There are wrinkles of course, there always are - but fundamentally Stanford is seeing what Stanford teams have seen for some time. 

Thus, my take is that right now Shaw believes that the OL needs some bucking up of their confidence. The comments about extreme defensive approaches, "it's my fault for being stubborn", etc. are more about trying to protect the individuals on the line than a candid evaluation of the problems and intended solutions.

[CTcard]

I kind of remember in lucks final two years a decent number of first down passes.   Anyone out there have any stats to confirm or refute this?   At any rate, this week I would not be surprised to see first down passing approaching 40%

2018 
All Plays - 49% runs
First Down - 62.5% runs

2011 (Luck Senior year)
All Plays - 55% runs
First Down - 63% runs

2010 (Luck Junior year, Harbaugh final year)
All Plays - 59% runs
First Down - 67% runs

2014*
All Plays - 56% runs
First Down - 66% runs

A few notes. 
- To give some perspective on these numbers, generally few teams pass more often than they run over the course of a season. Last year, only three Pac 12 teams did so: WSU (of course), UCLA (Rosen), Cal (surprise to me). 
- *I include 2014 because it was the one other year Stanford tried to pass a lot under Shaw. However, that completely changed over the final three games of the season (and sort of the final four), making the season long stats not that far out of line from other Shaw years. 
- So far this year, Stanford has been passing a little more on first downs than any other year under Shaw and quite a bit more overall. 
- There are two issues to note with the fact that so far this year we only have three games to look at. 
Almost assuredly, Stanford has had three games in other years with more passing - and likely even three games in a row. 
On the other hand, these are three games that Stanford won handily - the minimum margin being two touchdowns. All teams run more often with the lead with Stanford apparently more extreme in that regard. Thus the higher passing numbers are in games where one would expect higher running numbers. 
- And while this goes into the "of course" category, it is worth remembering that while run vs pass is easy to see during a game and easy to find relevant stats, it is far too simplistic to think about Stanford's strategies and play calling. What types of run and pass games Stanford uses is perhaps more on point. 

On that score, the changes in the Stanford run game over the past few seasons haven't been commented upon much. Without doing any counting, it looks to me as if Stanford has switched from being a primarily man-blocking team to primarily a zone-blocking team. That seems to coincide with fewer snaps under center and more in the shot-gun - though my impression is that Costello is under center more than Chryst was. 

--------------
I am not as thrilled with the Rivals article as OutsiderFan. 
It's fine, but it seems to be reflecting standard fan talking points more than breaking any new ground. 

In particular, as always, I wouldn't take what Shaw or any coach says at face value. Shaw is always mindful that he is talking to his team as much as the media and the fan base - and presumably cares much more about the former. 

I don't think that all these comments about suddenly this year opposing teams are selling out to stop our run game are remotely true, and doubt Shaw really believes it. While it's true that the scheme SDSU runs is unique, it looks to me as if their approach last year was basically the same. More broadly, every team that plays Stanford for a decade now believes that first and foremost their job is to stop our run game. There are wrinkles of course, there always are - but fundamentally Stanford is seeing what Stanford teams have seen for some time. 

Thus, my take is that right now Shaw believes that the OL needs some bucking up of their confidence. The comments about extreme defensive approaches, "it's my fault for being stubborn", etc. are more about trying to protect the individuals on the line than a candid evaluation of the problems and intended solutions.

[Langdude]

I don't think that all these comments about suddenly this year opposing teams are selling out to stop our run game are remotely true, and doubt Shaw really believes it. While it's true that the scheme SDSU runs is unique, it looks to me as if their approach last year was basically the same. More broadly, every team that plays Stanford for a decade now believes that first and foremost their job is to stop our run game. There are wrinkles of course, there always are - but fundamentally Stanford is seeing what Stanford teams have seen for some time. 

Thus, my take is that right now Shaw believes that the OL needs some bucking up of their confidence. Thus the comments about extreme defensive approaches, "it's my fault for being stubborn", etc. are more about trying to protect the individuals on the line more than a candid evaluation of the problems and intended solutions.

I agree. I think other teams in years past have "sold out" to stop the run, too. I would be amazed if opposing coaches suddenly realized this year, "Hey! We just need to move up the safeties! I wish I would have thought of that when McCaffrey played!" I think that long runs by Love and CM most definitely inflated stats against stacked boxes. But I also think this year's version of the OL has lacked push and discipline, at least to my admittedly-amateur eye. Obviously, injuries compound the problem, as does a new FB.

-m.

[Langdude]

I don't think that all these comments about suddenly this year opposing teams are selling out to stop our run game are remotely true, and doubt Shaw really believes it. While it's true that the scheme SDSU runs is unique, it looks to me as if their approach last year was basically the same. More broadly, every team that plays Stanford for a decade now believes that first and foremost their job is to stop our run game. There are wrinkles of course, there always are - but fundamentally Stanford is seeing what Stanford teams have seen for some time. 

Thus, my take is that right now Shaw believes that the OL needs some bucking up of their confidence. Thus the comments about extreme defensive approaches, "it's my fault for being stubborn", etc. are more about trying to protect the individuals on the line more than a candid evaluation of the problems and intended solutions.

I agree. I think other teams in years past have "sold out" to stop the run, too. I would be amazed if opposing coaches suddenly realized this year, "Hey! We just need to move up the safeties! I wish I would have thought of that when McCaffrey played!" I think that long runs by Love and CM most definitely inflated stats against stacked boxes. But I also think this year's version of the OL has lacked push and discipline, at least to my admittedly-amateur eye. Obviously, injuries compound the problem, as does a new FB.

-m.

[Goose]

I don't think that all these comments about suddenly this year opposing teams are selling out to stop our run game are remotely true, and doubt Shaw really believes it. While it's true that the scheme SDSU runs is unique, it looks to me as if their approach last year was basically the same. More broadly, every team that plays Stanford for a decade now believes that first and foremost their job is to stop our run game. There are wrinkles of course, there always are - but fundamentally Stanford is seeing what Stanford teams have seen for some time.

FWIW, I do not agree. You are correct that Stanford's opponents have for many years realized that stopping the run was critical. The tactics they are now using are different.  In previous years, teams tried to "muscle up" against Stanford, and it didn't work. We had a big line and big strong backs. We could make four yards against anybody. When our back was Gaffney, that changed a bit. We ran a bit more outside and not so much between the tackles. With CMac, it changed even more. We were a different kind of run offense, but still very effective. I think that is the point at which we became more of a zone blocking team, allowing the back to read the play and pick the hole, rather than quickly attacking a predetermined point in a predetermined manner. That was great because CMac was real good at this.
However, after Hogan left, we had serious issues at QB. We simply weren't a competent passing team. It took a while, but defenses figured out a new way to attack our run game. More and more, they started not only stacking the box, but committing to doing so all the time. Previously, they possibly walked a safety up. Now, they plant them in the box and maybe drop back one sometimes. You can do this if your defense has the right personnel and the other team can't effectively throw the ball.
WSU and SDSU showed the way last year. They also added lots of pre-snap movement to confuse our blocking, as well as run blitzing. While these tactics by themselves are not new, using them all the time in all situations was new. Last year, SDSU did this frequently, but also played a "base" defense some of the time. This year, they did it exclusively the entire game, even on third and long and when they were behind in the game. USC ran all kinds of line stunts basically all the time instead of coming right at us. This is very different for a team that normally just tried to push us back (and often could.)
They are daring us to pass over this type of defense. We often have three receivers covered man-to-man, and always have at least one receiver with man coverage. Fortunately, it appears we have the talent to do this. If we can, eventually the defenses will have to dial back using such an aggressive run defense. It is also true that some teams will not run this type of defense, either because they are not quick enough or because the coach thinks they will get better results with a more conventional approach. WSU will not fall into this camp. Notre Dame may. Oregon, I have no guess. UW will not stack the box most of the time, I expect, and will play a more conventional defense, because they think they can.
If we had Toby or Stepfan, we could man block and run right at the defense. That isn't Loves game. He reads, like CMac, and then explodes through his chosen hole. He can't do that if the backside rush gets to him before the hole opens or if the hole is immediately filled with an unblocked man. It produces explosive plays when it works, not much when it doesn't. The OL can't fix that. Throwing the ball can and will.

[Goose]

I don't think that all these comments about suddenly this year opposing teams are selling out to stop our run game are remotely true, and doubt Shaw really believes it. While it's true that the scheme SDSU runs is unique, it looks to me as if their approach last year was basically the same. More broadly, every team that plays Stanford for a decade now believes that first and foremost their job is to stop our run game. There are wrinkles of course, there always are - but fundamentally Stanford is seeing what Stanford teams have seen for some time.

FWIW, I do not agree. You are correct that Stanford's opponents have for many years realized that stopping the run was critical. The tactics they are now using are different.  In previous years, teams tried to "muscle up" against Stanford, and it didn't work. We had a big line and big strong backs. We could make four yards against anybody. When our back was Gaffney, that changed a bit. We ran a bit more outside and not so much between the tackles. With CMac, it changed even more. We were a different kind of run offense, but still very effective. I think that is the point at which we became more of a zone blocking team, allowing the back to read the play and pick the hole, rather than quickly attacking a predetermined point in a predetermined manner. That was great because CMac was real good at this.
However, after Hogan left, we had serious issues at QB. We simply weren't a competent passing team. It took a while, but defenses figured out a new way to attack our run game. More and more, they started not only stacking the box, but committing to doing so all the time. Previously, they possibly walked a safety up. Now, they plant them in the box and maybe drop back one sometimes. You can do this if your defense has the right personnel and the other team can't effectively throw the ball.
WSU and SDSU showed the way last year. They also added lots of pre-snap movement to confuse our blocking, as well as run blitzing. While these tactics by themselves are not new, using them all the time in all situations was new. Last year, SDSU did this frequently, but also played a "base" defense some of the time. This year, they did it exclusively the entire game, even on third and long and when they were behind in the game. USC ran all kinds of line stunts basically all the time instead of coming right at us. This is very different for a team that normally just tried to push us back (and often could.)
They are daring us to pass over this type of defense. We often have three receivers covered man-to-man, and always have at least one receiver with man coverage. Fortunately, it appears we have the talent to do this. If we can, eventually the defenses will have to dial back using such an aggressive run defense. It is also true that some teams will not run this type of defense, either because they are not quick enough or because the coach thinks they will get better results with a more conventional approach. WSU will not fall into this camp. Notre Dame may. Oregon, I have no guess. UW will not stack the box most of the time, I expect, and will play a more conventional defense, because they think they can.
If we had Toby or Stepfan, we could man block and run right at the defense. That isn't Loves game. He reads, like CMac, and then explodes through his chosen hole. He can't do that if the backside rush gets to him before the hole opens or if the hole is immediately filled with an unblocked man. It produces explosive plays when it works, not much when it doesn't. The OL can't fix that. Throwing the ball can and will.

[OutsiderFan]

Just the percentage of running plays and first down running plays doesn't necessarily tell the full story. Personnel groupings and formations also need to be factored into the equation, as well as the type of running plays being called out of them.

Why would Shaw come out and say I like to run on first down and am stubborn about it, then add he may need to pass more on first down? What does he gain by making that comment to a reporter?  It's not like he's afraid to telegraph what he is doing in games, so why should he be in interviews? IOW, what if Shaw's comments are the truth and should be taken at face value? 

I'm just not ready to discount what Shaw says, because I've never heard or read him say anything remotely close to what he said in that Rivals story.  Maybe he has, but I've missed it. Moreover, what he says makes sense in the context of what has transpired through the first three games.

[OutsiderFan]

Just the percentage of running plays and first down running plays doesn't necessarily tell the full story. Personnel groupings and formations also need to be factored into the equation, as well as the type of running plays being called out of them.

Why would Shaw come out and say I like to run on first down and am stubborn about it, then add he may need to pass more on first down? What does he gain by making that comment to a reporter?  It's not like he's afraid to telegraph what he is doing in games, so why should he be in interviews? IOW, what if Shaw's comments are the truth and should be taken at face value? 

I'm just not ready to discount what Shaw says, because I've never heard or read him say anything remotely close to what he said in that Rivals story.  Maybe he has, but I've missed it. Moreover, what he says makes sense in the context of what has transpired through the first three games.

[winflop]

It’s kind of our fault for failing to dominate early and needing to keep our starters in the game too long.

Stanford played the entire fourth quarter with backups along the Front 7 and the final 10 minutes or so with DB backups. I don't think you could ask for less PT than that for the starters.

Starters should have expected to play the full game against both U$C & SDSU. The Aztecs are legit - see last Saturday's win over ASU.

[winflop]

It’s kind of our fault for failing to dominate early and needing to keep our starters in the game too long.

Stanford played the entire fourth quarter with backups along the Front 7 and the final 10 minutes or so with DB backups. I don't think you could ask for less PT than that for the starters.

Starters should have expected to play the full game against both U$C & SDSU. The Aztecs are legit - see last Saturday's win over ASU.

[d4cohn]

I don't think that all these comments about suddenly this year opposing teams are selling out to stop our run game are remotely true, and doubt Shaw really believes it. While it's true that the scheme SDSU runs is unique, it looks to me as if their approach last year was basically the same. More broadly, every team that plays Stanford for a decade now believes that first and foremost their job is to stop our run game. There are wrinkles of course, there always are - but fundamentally Stanford is seeing what Stanford teams have seen for some time.

FWIW, I do not agree. You are correct that Stanford's opponents have for many years realized that stopping the run was critical. The tactics they are now using are different.  In previous years, teams tried to "muscle up" against Stanford, and it didn't work. We had a big line and big strong backs. We could make four yards against anybody. When our back was Gaffney, that changed a bit. We ran a bit more outside and not so much between the tackles. With CMac, it changed even more. We were a different kind of run offense, but still very effective. I think that is the point at which we became more of a zone blocking team, allowing the back to read the play and pick the hole, rather than quickly attacking a predetermined point in a predetermined manner. That was great because CMac was real good at this.
However, after Hogan left, we had serious issues at QB. We simply weren't a competent passing team. It took a while, but defenses figured out a new way to attack our run game. More and more, they started not only stacking the box, but committing to doing so all the time. Previously, they possibly walked a safety up. Now, they plant them in the box and maybe drop back one sometimes. You can do this if your defense has the right personnel and the other team can't effectively throw the ball.
WSU and SDSU showed the way last year. They also added lots of pre-snap movement to confuse our blocking, as well as run blitzing. While these tactics by themselves are not new, using them all the time in all situations was new. Last year, SDSU did this frequently, but also played a "base" defense some of the time. This year, they did it exclusively the entire game, even on third and long and when they were behind in the game. USC ran all kinds of line stunts basically all the time instead of coming right at us. This is very different for a team that normally just tried to push us back (and often could.)
They are daring us to pass over this type of defense. We often have three receivers covered man-to-man, and always have at least one receiver with man coverage. Fortunately, it appears we have the talent to do this. If we can, eventually the defenses will have to dial back using such an aggressive run defense. It is also true that some teams will not run this type of defense, either because they are not quick enough or because the coach thinks they will get better results with a more conventional approach. WSU will not fall into this camp. Notre Dame may. Oregon, I have no guess. UW will not stack the box most of the time, I expect, and will play a more conventional defense, because they think they can.
If we had Toby or Stepfan, we could man block and run right at the defense. That isn't Loves game. He reads, like CMac, and then explodes through his chosen hole. He can't do that if the backside rush gets to him before the hole opens or if the hole is immediately filled with an unblocked man. It produces explosive plays when it works, not much when it doesn't. The OL can't fix that. Throwing the ball can and will.

+1 for the great analysis. Completely agree with all of this.

[d4cohn]

I don't think that all these comments about suddenly this year opposing teams are selling out to stop our run game are remotely true, and doubt Shaw really believes it. While it's true that the scheme SDSU runs is unique, it looks to me as if their approach last year was basically the same. More broadly, every team that plays Stanford for a decade now believes that first and foremost their job is to stop our run game. There are wrinkles of course, there always are - but fundamentally Stanford is seeing what Stanford teams have seen for some time.

FWIW, I do not agree. You are correct that Stanford's opponents have for many years realized that stopping the run was critical. The tactics they are now using are different.  In previous years, teams tried to "muscle up" against Stanford, and it didn't work. We had a big line and big strong backs. We could make four yards against anybody. When our back was Gaffney, that changed a bit. We ran a bit more outside and not so much between the tackles. With CMac, it changed even more. We were a different kind of run offense, but still very effective. I think that is the point at which we became more of a zone blocking team, allowing the back to read the play and pick the hole, rather than quickly attacking a predetermined point in a predetermined manner. That was great because CMac was real good at this.
However, after Hogan left, we had serious issues at QB. We simply weren't a competent passing team. It took a while, but defenses figured out a new way to attack our run game. More and more, they started not only stacking the box, but committing to doing so all the time. Previously, they possibly walked a safety up. Now, they plant them in the box and maybe drop back one sometimes. You can do this if your defense has the right personnel and the other team can't effectively throw the ball.
WSU and SDSU showed the way last year. They also added lots of pre-snap movement to confuse our blocking, as well as run blitzing. While these tactics by themselves are not new, using them all the time in all situations was new. Last year, SDSU did this frequently, but also played a "base" defense some of the time. This year, they did it exclusively the entire game, even on third and long and when they were behind in the game. USC ran all kinds of line stunts basically all the time instead of coming right at us. This is very different for a team that normally just tried to push us back (and often could.)
They are daring us to pass over this type of defense. We often have three receivers covered man-to-man, and always have at least one receiver with man coverage. Fortunately, it appears we have the talent to do this. If we can, eventually the defenses will have to dial back using such an aggressive run defense. It is also true that some teams will not run this type of defense, either because they are not quick enough or because the coach thinks they will get better results with a more conventional approach. WSU will not fall into this camp. Notre Dame may. Oregon, I have no guess. UW will not stack the box most of the time, I expect, and will play a more conventional defense, because they think they can.
If we had Toby or Stepfan, we could man block and run right at the defense. That isn't Loves game. He reads, like CMac, and then explodes through his chosen hole. He can't do that if the backside rush gets to him before the hole opens or if the hole is immediately filled with an unblocked man. It produces explosive plays when it works, not much when it doesn't. The OL can't fix that. Throwing the ball can and will.

+1 for the great analysis. Completely agree with all of this.

[OL84]

[quote="Langdude" pid='229902' dateline='1537214999']
But one thing still nags at me regarding the "stacked box" argument. I still wonder - last year, with more question surrounding the passing game and Bryce Love on a Bridesman run, I'm guessing that teams stacked the box, too, and yet we were able to solve it (except against WSU, IIRC). What's the difference?

Well, I think it depends on what you mean by "solved." Bill Connelly has some interesting stats here: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/...al-profile

Relevantly, Stanford had a rushing success rate of 38.9% in 2017: that is, Stanford running backs gained less than 50% of needed yardage on first down, 70% on second down, and 100% on third and fourth downs just less than 4 in 10 times. That was 101st last year. So stacking the box was indeed quite successful from the perspective of making Stanford's rushing offense inefficient. On the other hand, when Stanford was successful, it was extremely explosive. It was the latter part that makes fans think things were great. 

Have things changed this year? Obviously the Stanford rushing offense is still inefficient in the sense of setting up favorable downs and distances. But it's not getting as many explosive runs, at least so far this year. (Only 3 runs at 20 yards or more, or about 1 explosive run every 30 carries. That compares to a 7% explosive run rate in 2017.) 

On the other hand, passing is (so far) much more effective. Sacks are slightly down (3.15% of dropbacks end in a sack this year, versus 4.47% in 2017). And yards per attempt are up by a healthy margin -- Costello has 8.3 YPA versus 7.2 for last year's motley crew. The big flaw with the passing game is, again, efficiency: Costello's completion percentage is modestly up (61.4% versus 58.8%), but it's still much lower than you'd like. 

Basically, Stanford needs to improve efficiency and get in more favorable down and distances more frequently. I suspect some of that will come naturally: for whatever reason the team had a very poor pass-blocking day against Davis. Given it held up against probably-solid college defenses SC and SDSU I'm guessing it'll hold up in the future. I dunno if that'll be "enough" but it sure as heck will help.
[/quote

Great post

---

Is anyone else fretting our Offensive Tackle situation? Hall is in a boot and questionable. Hamilton is questionable and not practicing. Sarrell is out.  That puts 3 out our 4 tackles that appeared on this season's depth chart as injured with Little coming off an injury as well that was supposed to sideline him for Davis. This is dangerously thin.  Hattis has been playing some on special teams and came in late against Davis after Hall got hurt.  Will Hattis start against Oregon? I don't know much about him but the fact that he hasn't appeared on any depth charts isn't a good sign.  If Little or Hattis get hurt, who is next up? Pease, the walkon true frosh who played the last series agains Davis or does Wilson come in at guard and Fanaika or Herbig move over to tackle?

Definitely concerned about tackle.  We had tremendous depth, and we are down 3 of 4 with the one cleared player gimpy.  Yikes.

[OL84]

[quote="Langdude" pid='229902' dateline='1537214999']
But one thing still nags at me regarding the "stacked box" argument. I still wonder - last year, with more question surrounding the passing game and Bryce Love on a Bridesman run, I'm guessing that teams stacked the box, too, and yet we were able to solve it (except against WSU, IIRC). What's the difference?

Well, I think it depends on what you mean by "solved." Bill Connelly has some interesting stats here: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/...al-profile

Relevantly, Stanford had a rushing success rate of 38.9% in 2017: that is, Stanford running backs gained less than 50% of needed yardage on first down, 70% on second down, and 100% on third and fourth downs just less than 4 in 10 times. That was 101st last year. So stacking the box was indeed quite successful from the perspective of making Stanford's rushing offense inefficient. On the other hand, when Stanford was successful, it was extremely explosive. It was the latter part that makes fans think things were great. 

Have things changed this year? Obviously the Stanford rushing offense is still inefficient in the sense of setting up favorable downs and distances. But it's not getting as many explosive runs, at least so far this year. (Only 3 runs at 20 yards or more, or about 1 explosive run every 30 carries. That compares to a 7% explosive run rate in 2017.) 

On the other hand, passing is (so far) much more effective. Sacks are slightly down (3.15% of dropbacks end in a sack this year, versus 4.47% in 2017). And yards per attempt are up by a healthy margin -- Costello has 8.3 YPA versus 7.2 for last year's motley crew. The big flaw with the passing game is, again, efficiency: Costello's completion percentage is modestly up (61.4% versus 58.8%), but it's still much lower than you'd like. 

Basically, Stanford needs to improve efficiency and get in more favorable down and distances more frequently. I suspect some of that will come naturally: for whatever reason the team had a very poor pass-blocking day against Davis. Given it held up against probably-solid college defenses SC and SDSU I'm guessing it'll hold up in the future. I dunno if that'll be "enough" but it sure as heck will help.
[/quote

Great post

---

Is anyone else fretting our Offensive Tackle situation? Hall is in a boot and questionable. Hamilton is questionable and not practicing. Sarrell is out.  That puts 3 out our 4 tackles that appeared on this season's depth chart as injured with Little coming off an injury as well that was supposed to sideline him for Davis. This is dangerously thin.  Hattis has been playing some on special teams and came in late against Davis after Hall got hurt.  Will Hattis start against Oregon? I don't know much about him but the fact that he hasn't appeared on any depth charts isn't a good sign.  If Little or Hattis get hurt, who is next up? Pease, the walkon true frosh who played the last series agains Davis or does Wilson come in at guard and Fanaika or Herbig move over to tackle?

Definitely concerned about tackle.  We had tremendous depth, and we are down 3 of 4 with the one cleared player gimpy.  Yikes.

[82lsju]

Relevantly, Stanford had a rushing success rate of 38.9% in 2017: that is, Stanford running backs gained less than 50% of needed yardage on first down, 70% on second down, and 100% on third and fourth downs just less than 4 in 10 times. That was 101st last year. So stacking the box was indeed quite successful from the perspective of making Stanford's rushing offense inefficient. On the other hand, when Stanford was successful, it was extremely explosive. It was the latter part that makes fans think things were great. 

Have things changed this year? Obviously the Stanford rushing offense is still inefficient in the sense of setting up favorable downs and distances. But it's not getting as many explosive runs, at least so far this year. (Only 3 runs at 20 yards or more, or about 1 explosive run every 30 carries. That compares to a 7% explosive run rate in 2017.) 

last year Bryce Love was "Mr. Explosive"

• 20-yard rushes - 30
• 30-yard rushes - 24
• 40-yard rushes - 15
• 50-yard rushes - 13 
• 60-yard rushes - 7

so 30 runs of 20+ yards totaled ~1,300 yards (~60% of his total) on 30 carries (~11% of his total)

~43 yards per carry on the 20+ yard runs, for the other ~800 yards ~3.4 yards per carry

2.3 runs of 20+ yards per game

this year he has not been as explosive

- 28 yard run vs SDSU
- 59 yard run vs USC

40 total carries for 165 yards

so his 20+ yard runs are ~53% of his total yards (a little less than last year) and ~5% of his carries (half of last year)

~43 yards/carry on the explosive runs (about the same as last year), for the other 78 yards ~2.1 yards per carry (much worse than last year)

1 run of 20+ yards per game, almost 60% less than last year

[82lsju]

Relevantly, Stanford had a rushing success rate of 38.9% in 2017: that is, Stanford running backs gained less than 50% of needed yardage on first down, 70% on second down, and 100% on third and fourth downs just less than 4 in 10 times. That was 101st last year. So stacking the box was indeed quite successful from the perspective of making Stanford's rushing offense inefficient. On the other hand, when Stanford was successful, it was extremely explosive. It was the latter part that makes fans think things were great. 

Have things changed this year? Obviously the Stanford rushing offense is still inefficient in the sense of setting up favorable downs and distances. But it's not getting as many explosive runs, at least so far this year. (Only 3 runs at 20 yards or more, or about 1 explosive run every 30 carries. That compares to a 7% explosive run rate in 2017.) 

last year Bryce Love was "Mr. Explosive"

• 20-yard rushes - 30
• 30-yard rushes - 24
• 40-yard rushes - 15
• 50-yard rushes - 13 
• 60-yard rushes - 7

so 30 runs of 20+ yards totaled ~1,300 yards (~60% of his total) on 30 carries (~11% of his total)

~43 yards per carry on the 20+ yard runs, for the other ~800 yards ~3.4 yards per carry

2.3 runs of 20+ yards per game

this year he has not been as explosive

- 28 yard run vs SDSU
- 59 yard run vs USC

40 total carries for 165 yards

so his 20+ yard runs are ~53% of his total yards (a little less than last year) and ~5% of his carries (half of last year)

~43 yards/carry on the explosive runs (about the same as last year), for the other 78 yards ~2.1 yards per carry (much worse than last year)

1 run of 20+ yards per game, almost 60% less than last year

[winflop]

OL is gonna be banged up that's for sure. Next man up. The TWU is gonna have to deliver.

[winflop]

OL is gonna be banged up that's for sure. Next man up. The TWU is gonna have to deliver.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't know if this was brought up elsewhere, but this thread seemed like the right place if not...

Can anyone explain the OL shuffle at Oregon?

First half: Little - Fanaika - Burkett - Dalman - Herbig 
Second half: Little - Fanaika - Burkett - Herbig - Hall
Pachyderm (jumbo): Hattis - Fanaika - Chaffin - Herbig - Little

That's three different OL combos for this game.  If Hall was healthy enough to play in second half, why not the first?  And does anyone think the first half OL was part of the problem on offense?

I thought Hall played really well in the second half, FWIW. Little got beat for the strip sack once, but that was a lot on Costello for holding the ball too long and not stepping up to throw away.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't know if this was brought up elsewhere, but this thread seemed like the right place if not...

Can anyone explain the OL shuffle at Oregon?

First half: Little - Fanaika - Burkett - Dalman - Herbig 
Second half: Little - Fanaika - Burkett - Herbig - Hall
Pachyderm (jumbo): Hattis - Fanaika - Chaffin - Herbig - Little

That's three different OL combos for this game.  If Hall was healthy enough to play in second half, why not the first?  And does anyone think the first half OL was part of the problem on offense?

I thought Hall played really well in the second half, FWIW. Little got beat for the strip sack once, but that was a lot on Costello for holding the ball too long and not stepping up to throw away.

[CompSci87]

Didn't we hear during the week that Hall was injured and it would be a game time decision whether hedh play?

Maybe the game time decision was to hold him out, and the halftime realization was "we need him". Or, I don't know, maybe the plan all along was to use him but limit his snaps.

Chaffin has been the short yardage center for a year or two.

[CompSci87]

Didn't we hear during the week that Hall was injured and it would be a game time decision whether hedh play?

Maybe the game time decision was to hold him out, and the halftime realization was "we need him". Or, I don't know, maybe the plan all along was to use him but limit his snaps.

Chaffin has been the short yardage center for a year or two.