[stupac2]

So there's been, in my mind, a definite drop-off in performance on both sides of the ball in recent years. While the record has cosmetically been similar, the underlying performance is not as good. Shaw needs to rethink his program in toto.

I think most fans give the defense a pass because the problem there is largely that we're not as talented as we had been, that we have obvious weaknesses that you can only fix through recruiting (this year it seems to be safety and DL, previous years it was mostly DL).

Meanwhile we seem to have as much talent as we could possibly ask for on offense, but can't get even a modest output out of it. I think that's the difference, the D is largely performing to expectations (or perhaps even above), while the offense is way, way below. Is it possible that we should be doing better on D, given our talent level? I suppose. I'm much less convinced about that than the offense, though.

[stupac2]

So there's been, in my mind, a definite drop-off in performance on both sides of the ball in recent years. While the record has cosmetically been similar, the underlying performance is not as good. Shaw needs to rethink his program in toto.

I think most fans give the defense a pass because the problem there is largely that we're not as talented as we had been, that we have obvious weaknesses that you can only fix through recruiting (this year it seems to be safety and DL, previous years it was mostly DL).

Meanwhile we seem to have as much talent as we could possibly ask for on offense, but can't get even a modest output out of it. I think that's the difference, the D is largely performing to expectations (or perhaps even above), while the offense is way, way below. Is it possible that we should be doing better on D, given our talent level? I suppose. I'm much less convinced about that than the offense, though.

[BostonCard]

Coming off the bye week Stanford has plenty of time to open the game with three plays that leave the defensive coordinators thinking "what is this, this isn't the typical plays they run".

If Stanford opens the game getting "blown up" three straight plays just go fold some socks.

Hello longwinded.

BC

[BostonCard]

Coming off the bye week Stanford has plenty of time to open the game with three plays that leave the defensive coordinators thinking "what is this, this isn't the typical plays they run".

If Stanford opens the game getting "blown up" three straight plays just go fold some socks.

Hello longwinded.

BC

[CTcard]

Shaw is run heavy on 1st down (58%)

That number doesn't strike me as being particularly run-heavy on first down.
Where does in rank nationally?

[CTcard]

Shaw is run heavy on 1st down (58%)

That number doesn't strike me as being particularly run-heavy on first down.
Where does in rank nationally?

[washingtonismoney]

I think most fans give the defense a pass because the problem there is largely that we're not as talented as we had been, that we have obvious weaknesses that you can only fix through recruiting (this year it seems to be safety and DL, previous years it was mostly DL).

I dunno, I think people are just more plugged into scheme stuff on offense. There's no good explanation for the six-man ILB rotation (2016), shifting Alfieri to ILB (2017), the five-man boxes in running situations (2015-18), to take three examples off of the top of my head. 

Talent-wise, I'll grant you the players don't look quite as talented on offense. But the defense also was straight-up bad in 2017 despite being highly experienced (and had multiple third-round draft picks in Phillips and Reid, plus sixth-rounder Kalambayi). This year has been not much better, and there's more talent than that.

[washingtonismoney]

I think most fans give the defense a pass because the problem there is largely that we're not as talented as we had been, that we have obvious weaknesses that you can only fix through recruiting (this year it seems to be safety and DL, previous years it was mostly DL).

I dunno, I think people are just more plugged into scheme stuff on offense. There's no good explanation for the six-man ILB rotation (2016), shifting Alfieri to ILB (2017), the five-man boxes in running situations (2015-18), to take three examples off of the top of my head. 

Talent-wise, I'll grant you the players don't look quite as talented on offense. But the defense also was straight-up bad in 2017 despite being highly experienced (and had multiple third-round draft picks in Phillips and Reid, plus sixth-rounder Kalambayi). This year has been not much better, and there's more talent than that.

[BostonCard]

Perhaps the reason for that is because Stanford always runs on first down and usually gets stuffed for little to no gain, putting them into immediate passing situation.

People tend to focus on playcalling because it's very visible and (partially because of stuff like Madden) very easy to backseat drive/armchair QB. In this case critcizing the playcalling isn't *wrong,* per se -- certainly it was very bad in the fourth quarter last night, to take the really easy example.

But the real problem is simply that players aren't performing terribly well. You've got lots of dumb penalties. Costello underthrowing St. Brown by a lot. Some other stuff. It's a mistake-filled offense in the sense that a lot of plays are perfectly fine conceptually but aren't being executed. I won't leave the conclusion there, though: if you have players you think are good who make lots of dumb mistakes, on some level this is a coaching problem. But what? Are the players not practicing well? At a conceptual (rather than playcalling) level is the offense not executable? Something else? I have no idea! Something, however, has gone very deeply wrong because this offense is a talented one. And that's a coaching problem, and it's more than just "I wish there was a play-action or jet sweep here and there." (Which, to be clear, probably would help.)

I completely agree with you here.  Play-calling is also non-falsifiable.  If you say we should have zagged when we zigged, it's not like we can go to an alternate universe and see the zag play being blown up; we just know that the zig was stuffed.  So, I am normally very reluctant to criticize plays.

That being said, this year there is accumulating evidence that our player personnel is not well suited to running the football.  The "stuff rate" cited by slide is particularly egregious, and looking at tape the runs very often look doomed from the start, with defensive linemen in the backfield before the running back can hit the hole.  So, while we need to acknowledge that Shaw is actually passing more than he has historically, more often than not the shift seems to come after he has proven (again) that we can't run the ball.  I admire his willingness to give the run game every chance to succeed, but this is one case where the "eye test" and the statistics don't lie.  We are a worse rushing team than every other team in the Pac-12, including pass happy Washington State, and even worse than every team in the pass happy Big Twelve.   I hope that even though it is a challenge to our offensive identity, Shaw realizes that our best chance to win will come by passing more early and complementing the passing game with a few well-timed runs to keep the defense honest, rather than waiting until our rushing attack is proven infeffective after the first couple series of the game.

And I agree, the bigger indictment of Shaw and the rest of the coaching staff is not that he is calling runs when he should be calling passes, or running between the tackles when he should be running outside.  Rather, it is that the staff has failed to either recruit or develop the talent needed to run his preferred scheme.  And, though it might be tempting to cite recruiting limitations that we are facing, I don't think there is a lack of individual talent on the team.  And if getting a collection of individuals to execute together as a team is not the first and most important duty of a coach, I don't know what is.

BC

[BostonCard]

Perhaps the reason for that is because Stanford always runs on first down and usually gets stuffed for little to no gain, putting them into immediate passing situation.

People tend to focus on playcalling because it's very visible and (partially because of stuff like Madden) very easy to backseat drive/armchair QB. In this case critcizing the playcalling isn't *wrong,* per se -- certainly it was very bad in the fourth quarter last night, to take the really easy example.

But the real problem is simply that players aren't performing terribly well. You've got lots of dumb penalties. Costello underthrowing St. Brown by a lot. Some other stuff. It's a mistake-filled offense in the sense that a lot of plays are perfectly fine conceptually but aren't being executed. I won't leave the conclusion there, though: if you have players you think are good who make lots of dumb mistakes, on some level this is a coaching problem. But what? Are the players not practicing well? At a conceptual (rather than playcalling) level is the offense not executable? Something else? I have no idea! Something, however, has gone very deeply wrong because this offense is a talented one. And that's a coaching problem, and it's more than just "I wish there was a play-action or jet sweep here and there." (Which, to be clear, probably would help.)

I completely agree with you here.  Play-calling is also non-falsifiable.  If you say we should have zagged when we zigged, it's not like we can go to an alternate universe and see the zag play being blown up; we just know that the zig was stuffed.  So, I am normally very reluctant to criticize plays.

That being said, this year there is accumulating evidence that our player personnel is not well suited to running the football.  The "stuff rate" cited by slide is particularly egregious, and looking at tape the runs very often look doomed from the start, with defensive linemen in the backfield before the running back can hit the hole.  So, while we need to acknowledge that Shaw is actually passing more than he has historically, more often than not the shift seems to come after he has proven (again) that we can't run the ball.  I admire his willingness to give the run game every chance to succeed, but this is one case where the "eye test" and the statistics don't lie.  We are a worse rushing team than every other team in the Pac-12, including pass happy Washington State, and even worse than every team in the pass happy Big Twelve.   I hope that even though it is a challenge to our offensive identity, Shaw realizes that our best chance to win will come by passing more early and complementing the passing game with a few well-timed runs to keep the defense honest, rather than waiting until our rushing attack is proven infeffective after the first couple series of the game.

And I agree, the bigger indictment of Shaw and the rest of the coaching staff is not that he is calling runs when he should be calling passes, or running between the tackles when he should be running outside.  Rather, it is that the staff has failed to either recruit or develop the talent needed to run his preferred scheme.  And, though it might be tempting to cite recruiting limitations that we are facing, I don't think there is a lack of individual talent on the team.  And if getting a collection of individuals to execute together as a team is not the first and most important duty of a coach, I don't know what is.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

That being said, this year there is accumulating evidence that our player personnel is not well suited to running the football.  The "stuff rate" cited by slide is particularly egregious, and looking at tape the runs very often look doomed from the start, with defensive linemen in the backfield before the running back can hit the hole.  So, while we need to acknowledge that Shaw is actually passing more than he has historically, more often than not the shift seems to come after he has proven (again) that we can't run the ball.  I admire his willingness to give the run game every chance to succeed, but this is one case where the "eye test" and the statistics don't lie.  We are a worse rushing team than every other team in the Pac-12, including pass happy Washington State, and even worse than every team in the pass happy Big Twelve.   I hope that even though it is a challenge to our offensive identity, Shaw realizes that our best chance to win will come by passing more early and complementing the passing game with a few well-timed runs to keep the defense honest, rather than waiting until our rushing attack is proven infeffective after the first couple series of the game.

And I agree, the bigger indictment of Shaw and the rest of the coaching staff is not that he is calling runs when he should be calling passes, or running between the tackles when he should be running outside.  Rather, it is that the staff has failed to either recruit or develop the talent needed to run his preferred scheme.  And, though it might be tempting to cite recruiting limitations that we are facing, I don't think there is a lack of individual talent on the team.  And if getting a collection of individuals to execute together as a team is not the first and most important duty of a coach, I don't know what is.

BC

Right. I agree that the playcalling at times has been, seemingly, wishcasting -- running into cramped boxes. However, in the abstract, it seems Shaw grasps that the relative strengths of the team are passing -- because he's doing a lot of it. It's just that even the passing is not as consistent as it needs to be for a quality offense. Which means (for me) that slightly different playcalling would probably move the needle a little bit, but probably not make a big difference. 

That gets to the larger issue, that despite seemingly abundant talent, something in the machinery has fouled up. Superficially, the team looks well-adapted to 2018. Going into the year we thought Stanford had a strong running game and needed to have improved QB play to succeed offensively. If you'd told me at the outset of the year that Costello would be averaging 8.7 YPA on 64% passing -- albeit with 50% more interceptions -- at midseason I'd be predicting a 7-0 record and a playoff contender. I don't think any of us anticipated regression to such a major degree in the running game. 

Of course getting better on what you're working on while weakening on the stuff you aren't is no justification for performance. It's a description of a particular kind of failure. 

It strikes me that this year is similar to 2014 -- a similar blend of a lot of talent marred by lots of miscues and errors without obvious explanation. Again, the repetition of the same error is no justification; no education in two kicks from the mule, as they say. 

This all points to needing a coaching change: whether the existing coaches change philosophy, or are removed for coaches with different philosophies or better implementation skills, something more major needs to happen than just "we're working on it."

[washingtonismoney]

That being said, this year there is accumulating evidence that our player personnel is not well suited to running the football.  The "stuff rate" cited by slide is particularly egregious, and looking at tape the runs very often look doomed from the start, with defensive linemen in the backfield before the running back can hit the hole.  So, while we need to acknowledge that Shaw is actually passing more than he has historically, more often than not the shift seems to come after he has proven (again) that we can't run the ball.  I admire his willingness to give the run game every chance to succeed, but this is one case where the "eye test" and the statistics don't lie.  We are a worse rushing team than every other team in the Pac-12, including pass happy Washington State, and even worse than every team in the pass happy Big Twelve.   I hope that even though it is a challenge to our offensive identity, Shaw realizes that our best chance to win will come by passing more early and complementing the passing game with a few well-timed runs to keep the defense honest, rather than waiting until our rushing attack is proven infeffective after the first couple series of the game.

And I agree, the bigger indictment of Shaw and the rest of the coaching staff is not that he is calling runs when he should be calling passes, or running between the tackles when he should be running outside.  Rather, it is that the staff has failed to either recruit or develop the talent needed to run his preferred scheme.  And, though it might be tempting to cite recruiting limitations that we are facing, I don't think there is a lack of individual talent on the team.  And if getting a collection of individuals to execute together as a team is not the first and most important duty of a coach, I don't know what is.

BC

Right. I agree that the playcalling at times has been, seemingly, wishcasting -- running into cramped boxes. However, in the abstract, it seems Shaw grasps that the relative strengths of the team are passing -- because he's doing a lot of it. It's just that even the passing is not as consistent as it needs to be for a quality offense. Which means (for me) that slightly different playcalling would probably move the needle a little bit, but probably not make a big difference. 

That gets to the larger issue, that despite seemingly abundant talent, something in the machinery has fouled up. Superficially, the team looks well-adapted to 2018. Going into the year we thought Stanford had a strong running game and needed to have improved QB play to succeed offensively. If you'd told me at the outset of the year that Costello would be averaging 8.7 YPA on 64% passing -- albeit with 50% more interceptions -- at midseason I'd be predicting a 7-0 record and a playoff contender. I don't think any of us anticipated regression to such a major degree in the running game. 

Of course getting better on what you're working on while weakening on the stuff you aren't is no justification for performance. It's a description of a particular kind of failure. 

It strikes me that this year is similar to 2014 -- a similar blend of a lot of talent marred by lots of miscues and errors without obvious explanation. Again, the repetition of the same error is no justification; no education in two kicks from the mule, as they say. 

This all points to needing a coaching change: whether the existing coaches change philosophy, or are removed for coaches with different philosophies or better implementation skills, something more major needs to happen than just "we're working on it."

[CTcard]

One more point here. Stanford fans are, for whatever reason, fixated on offense. The (typically implicit) premise in these discussions is that the defense is fine.

Broadly speaking this seems quite true. It was particularly odd last season, where the defense should have been good, the offense was demonstrably much better than the defense, and the complaints on the board were primarily about the offense and in particular offensive play calling.

This year it's not so crazy, as the situation is roughly reversed. There was lots of reason to think the defense would struggle, yet it has at least occasionally risen to the occasion. In particular, the strengths and weaknesses are at least roughly as expected going into the season.
The offense, however, should have been very good and it is very not good. In particular, what is bad is pretty inconceivable: we're the worst rushing team in the conference and just about worst rushing team in the country (not taking into account opponent strength - which granted is a considerable issue here).

So, at least at the moment the thing that has appeared to have gone the most wrong this past off season was the development of the offense.

It strikes me that this year is similar to 2014 -- a similar blend of a lot of talent marred by lots of miscues and errors without obvious explanation.

There are some similarities to 2014, but right at the moment the differences in the two offenses seem more noteworthy to me.

The defense was far better then than now. It looks like the 2018 defense can handle lesser opposing OLs, and mostly that is what is left on the schedule. However, I do fear we may not have enough effective DBs to face WSU.

On the offense, in 2014 there was an intentional move away from the run game - apparently because Shaw didn't think we could run effectively (with a largely new OL and no clear top RB) and had Hogan coming off a strong second year so thought Hogan could shoulder the primary load of the offense. It turned out the pass game was mistake-prone and not robust against better defenses, while the run game remained at least generally effective though not used enough to free the pass game.
In 2018 it appears that Shaw thought we could run all over everyone (with a largely returning OL and a star RB) and had developed a pass game well suited for complementing a run game with deep seam routes, back-shoulder go routes, and box-out TD conversions. But it turns out the team cannot run the ball and has a pass game poorly designed for consistently sustaining drives and avoiding negative plays.

The solution in 2014 was running more often - mostly to help the pass game be more efficient, and figuring out that this guy named McCaffrey was actually worth using.
The solution for 2018 is the topic of this thread, though I fear it may not exist. It does look to me that the second and third quarters (and various other flashes) showed a pass first offense with a reasonable mix of running can be mostly successful, though I fear it will still be inefficient. Not sure who this year's McCaffrey might be - but I do think that Weddington could help a lot if he could magically appear healthy (he has three appearances to spare to still redshirt).

[CTcard]

One more point here. Stanford fans are, for whatever reason, fixated on offense. The (typically implicit) premise in these discussions is that the defense is fine.

Broadly speaking this seems quite true. It was particularly odd last season, where the defense should have been good, the offense was demonstrably much better than the defense, and the complaints on the board were primarily about the offense and in particular offensive play calling.

This year it's not so crazy, as the situation is roughly reversed. There was lots of reason to think the defense would struggle, yet it has at least occasionally risen to the occasion. In particular, the strengths and weaknesses are at least roughly as expected going into the season.
The offense, however, should have been very good and it is very not good. In particular, what is bad is pretty inconceivable: we're the worst rushing team in the conference and just about worst rushing team in the country (not taking into account opponent strength - which granted is a considerable issue here).

So, at least at the moment the thing that has appeared to have gone the most wrong this past off season was the development of the offense.

It strikes me that this year is similar to 2014 -- a similar blend of a lot of talent marred by lots of miscues and errors without obvious explanation.

There are some similarities to 2014, but right at the moment the differences in the two offenses seem more noteworthy to me.

The defense was far better then than now. It looks like the 2018 defense can handle lesser opposing OLs, and mostly that is what is left on the schedule. However, I do fear we may not have enough effective DBs to face WSU.

On the offense, in 2014 there was an intentional move away from the run game - apparently because Shaw didn't think we could run effectively (with a largely new OL and no clear top RB) and had Hogan coming off a strong second year so thought Hogan could shoulder the primary load of the offense. It turned out the pass game was mistake-prone and not robust against better defenses, while the run game remained at least generally effective though not used enough to free the pass game.
In 2018 it appears that Shaw thought we could run all over everyone (with a largely returning OL and a star RB) and had developed a pass game well suited for complementing a run game with deep seam routes, back-shoulder go routes, and box-out TD conversions. But it turns out the team cannot run the ball and has a pass game poorly designed for consistently sustaining drives and avoiding negative plays.

The solution in 2014 was running more often - mostly to help the pass game be more efficient, and figuring out that this guy named McCaffrey was actually worth using.
The solution for 2018 is the topic of this thread, though I fear it may not exist. It does look to me that the second and third quarters (and various other flashes) showed a pass first offense with a reasonable mix of running can be mostly successful, though I fear it will still be inefficient. Not sure who this year's McCaffrey might be - but I do think that Weddington could help a lot if he could magically appear healthy (he has three appearances to spare to still redshirt).

[washingtonismoney]

Broadly speaking this seems quite true. It was particularly odd last season, where the defense should have been good, the offense was demonstrably much better than the defense, and the complaints on the board were primarily about the offense and in particular offensive play calling.

This year it's not so crazy, as the situation is roughly reversed. There was lots of reason to think the defense would struggle, yet it has at least occasionally risen to the occasion....

I agree that, in isolation, the offense performing below expectations and the defense performing roughly at par (perhaps) means that the offense should receive more scrutiny. 

But I'm thinking about trends here. Anderson started in 2014 and immediately piloted an excellent defense, as you note elsewhere in your post. (#6 on ESPN's FPI, which sounds about right). Since then he's put out the #43, #10, #54 and (currently) #43 defenses. That seems like a decent enough record, I suppose -- averaging around the #31 defense -- but for me is marred by the way it was achieved: reliance on two superstar defensive linemen in Solly and Horrible Harry, with some odd conceptual problems listed above. 

I think stupac raised the point above that the defense may be less talented than the offense, but at a certain point a lack of talent becomes less of an excuse and more of an indictment: namely, you'd think Stanford, given its record, should be able to recruit talented defensive players. Certainly there are enough NFL role models to point to; Stanford also has a pretty long record of putting up sacks, TFLs, etc., which again you'd think is appealing. 

I don't want to get into a discussion of "what's worse, the defense or the offense," but just say that I think there are enough problems on defense that that side of the ball shouldn't be exempt from discussion.

[washingtonismoney]

Broadly speaking this seems quite true. It was particularly odd last season, where the defense should have been good, the offense was demonstrably much better than the defense, and the complaints on the board were primarily about the offense and in particular offensive play calling.

This year it's not so crazy, as the situation is roughly reversed. There was lots of reason to think the defense would struggle, yet it has at least occasionally risen to the occasion....

I agree that, in isolation, the offense performing below expectations and the defense performing roughly at par (perhaps) means that the offense should receive more scrutiny. 

But I'm thinking about trends here. Anderson started in 2014 and immediately piloted an excellent defense, as you note elsewhere in your post. (#6 on ESPN's FPI, which sounds about right). Since then he's put out the #43, #10, #54 and (currently) #43 defenses. That seems like a decent enough record, I suppose -- averaging around the #31 defense -- but for me is marred by the way it was achieved: reliance on two superstar defensive linemen in Solly and Horrible Harry, with some odd conceptual problems listed above. 

I think stupac raised the point above that the defense may be less talented than the offense, but at a certain point a lack of talent becomes less of an excuse and more of an indictment: namely, you'd think Stanford, given its record, should be able to recruit talented defensive players. Certainly there are enough NFL role models to point to; Stanford also has a pretty long record of putting up sacks, TFLs, etc., which again you'd think is appealing. 

I don't want to get into a discussion of "what's worse, the defense or the offense," but just say that I think there are enough problems on defense that that side of the ball shouldn't be exempt from discussion.

[qwerty49]

Broadly speaking this seems quite true. It was particularly odd last season, where the defense should have been good, the offense was demonstrably much better than the defense, and the complaints on the board were primarily about the offense and in particular offensive play calling.

This year it's not so crazy, as the situation is roughly reversed. There was lots of reason to think the defense would struggle, yet it has at least occasionally risen to the occasion....

I agree that, in isolation, the offense performing below expectations and the defense performing roughly at par (perhaps) means that the offense should receive more scrutiny. 

But I'm thinking about trends here. Anderson started in 2014 and immediately piloted an excellent defense, as you note elsewhere in your post. (#6 on ESPN's FPI, which sounds about right). Since then he's put out the #43, #10, #54 and (currently) #43 defenses. That seems like a decent enough record, I suppose -- averaging around the #31 defense -- but for me is marred by the way it was achieved: reliance on two superstar defensive linemen in Solly and Horrible Harry, with some odd conceptual problems listed above. 

I think stupac raised the point above that the defense may be less talented than the offense, but at a certain point a lack of talent becomes less of an excuse and more of an indictment: namely, you'd think Stanford, given its record, should be able to recruit talented defensive players. Certainly there are enough NFL role models to point to; Stanford also has a pretty long record of putting up sacks, TFLs, etc., which again you'd think is appealing. 

I don't want to get into a discussion of "what's worse, the defense or the offense," but just say that I think there are enough problems on defense that that side of the ball shouldn't be exempt from discussion.

Maybe things are just relative.  I wonder if there's a bit of a vicious cycle in that our front seven tends to get pushed around a bit against the run, and our OL practices against them.  So what might look good in practice might end up being ineffectual on the playing field.

I also wonder how much Costello's hand injury affected Shaw's decision to go full turtle.  It sure looked to me like the underthrow to OSB was a product of that injury, which occurred just before.

[qwerty49]

Broadly speaking this seems quite true. It was particularly odd last season, where the defense should have been good, the offense was demonstrably much better than the defense, and the complaints on the board were primarily about the offense and in particular offensive play calling.

This year it's not so crazy, as the situation is roughly reversed. There was lots of reason to think the defense would struggle, yet it has at least occasionally risen to the occasion....

I agree that, in isolation, the offense performing below expectations and the defense performing roughly at par (perhaps) means that the offense should receive more scrutiny. 

But I'm thinking about trends here. Anderson started in 2014 and immediately piloted an excellent defense, as you note elsewhere in your post. (#6 on ESPN's FPI, which sounds about right). Since then he's put out the #43, #10, #54 and (currently) #43 defenses. That seems like a decent enough record, I suppose -- averaging around the #31 defense -- but for me is marred by the way it was achieved: reliance on two superstar defensive linemen in Solly and Horrible Harry, with some odd conceptual problems listed above. 

I think stupac raised the point above that the defense may be less talented than the offense, but at a certain point a lack of talent becomes less of an excuse and more of an indictment: namely, you'd think Stanford, given its record, should be able to recruit talented defensive players. Certainly there are enough NFL role models to point to; Stanford also has a pretty long record of putting up sacks, TFLs, etc., which again you'd think is appealing. 

I don't want to get into a discussion of "what's worse, the defense or the offense," but just say that I think there are enough problems on defense that that side of the ball shouldn't be exempt from discussion.

Maybe things are just relative.  I wonder if there's a bit of a vicious cycle in that our front seven tends to get pushed around a bit against the run, and our OL practices against them.  So what might look good in practice might end up being ineffectual on the playing field.

I also wonder how much Costello's hand injury affected Shaw's decision to go full turtle.  It sure looked to me like the underthrow to OSB was a product of that injury, which occurred just before.

[BostonCard]

Well, we do have four wins in which we’ve held our opponent to fewer than 14 points, while we have two losses where our opponent has scored 38 and 40 points.  The ASU and USC wins were both despite the fact that the offense scored 20 and 17 points respectively, so those were defensive led wins.  The Oregon game was won despite te defense giving up 31, but it scored 7 itself (so net 24).

My main point is that we won twice when our defense overcame a poor offensive performance and maybe one time where our offense overcame a shaky defensive performances (though that’s debatable in the Oregon game).  Our two losses have involved both offensive and defensive breakdowns.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, we do have four wins in which we’ve held our opponent to fewer than 14 points, while we have two losses where our opponent has scored 38 and 40 points.  The ASU and USC wins were both despite the fact that the offense scored 20 and 17 points respectively, so those were defensive led wins.  The Oregon game was won despite te defense giving up 31, but it scored 7 itself (so net 24).

My main point is that we won twice when our defense overcame a poor offensive performance and maybe one time where our offense overcame a shaky defensive performances (though that’s debatable in the Oregon game).  Our two losses have involved both offensive and defensive breakdowns.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Well, we do have four wins in which we’ve held our opponent to fewer than 14 points, while we have two losses where our opponent has scored 38 and 40 points.  The ASU and USC wins were both despite the fact that the offense scored 20 and 17 points respectively, so those were defensive led wins.  The Oregon game was won despite te defense giving up 31, but it scored 7 itself (so net 24).

My main point is that we won twice when our defense overcame a poor offensive performance and maybe one time where our offense overcame a shaky defensive performances (though that’s debatable in the Oregon game).  Our two losses have involved both offensive and defensive breakdowns.

Well, it's an open question (to me at least) whether the defense "overcame" a poor offensive performance in the SC and ASU games, or whether poor coaching (SC) and turnovers (SC, ASU) did it for them.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, we do have four wins in which we’ve held our opponent to fewer than 14 points, while we have two losses where our opponent has scored 38 and 40 points.  The ASU and USC wins were both despite the fact that the offense scored 20 and 17 points respectively, so those were defensive led wins.  The Oregon game was won despite te defense giving up 31, but it scored 7 itself (so net 24).

My main point is that we won twice when our defense overcame a poor offensive performance and maybe one time where our offense overcame a shaky defensive performances (though that’s debatable in the Oregon game).  Our two losses have involved both offensive and defensive breakdowns.

Well, it's an open question (to me at least) whether the defense "overcame" a poor offensive performance in the SC and ASU games, or whether poor coaching (SC) and turnovers (SC, ASU) did it for them.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, it’s always tough to determine how much of turnovers is good defense and how much is just luck.  In the ASU game, I think we earned all the turnovers, especially the two interceptions.  The first interception was on a trick play, but the defense didn’t bite and kept to its assignments.  And when you ave a defense that can be disciplined against a trick play, you wind up with a wide receiver attempting a pass to a covered receiver, and you like your chances for an interception in that circumstance.  The second interception came with quarterback pressure resulting in a bad throw, and those are always going to be poor, high risk throws when the Qb is rushing, off-balance, and in the process of being hit.

The fumble too was the result of a heady play by Okereke rather than just an accident.  Yeah fumble recoveries have some degree of luck involved based on how the ball bounces.  But still, reading through the chat, it sounds like we almost had another turnover that wasn’t counted (I didn’t get a chance to see the play), 

Against USC the two interceptions at the end came with the SC offense in desperation mode, and that’s when you will often force opponent turnovers,

The place where we were truly lucky was the Oregon game.  You can’t count on a bad snap at the goal line being recovered for a length of the field scoop and score or a freshman mistake by a running back who should have known that holding onto the ball was much more important than stretching for a first down.

And yes, opponent coaching will always play a role in every win or loss, but part of the game is knowing when and how to capitalize on opponent coaching mistakes.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, it’s always tough to determine how much of turnovers is good defense and how much is just luck.  In the ASU game, I think we earned all the turnovers, especially the two interceptions.  The first interception was on a trick play, but the defense didn’t bite and kept to its assignments.  And when you ave a defense that can be disciplined against a trick play, you wind up with a wide receiver attempting a pass to a covered receiver, and you like your chances for an interception in that circumstance.  The second interception came with quarterback pressure resulting in a bad throw, and those are always going to be poor, high risk throws when the Qb is rushing, off-balance, and in the process of being hit.

The fumble too was the result of a heady play by Okereke rather than just an accident.  Yeah fumble recoveries have some degree of luck involved based on how the ball bounces.  But still, reading through the chat, it sounds like we almost had another turnover that wasn’t counted (I didn’t get a chance to see the play), 

Against USC the two interceptions at the end came with the SC offense in desperation mode, and that’s when you will often force opponent turnovers,

The place where we were truly lucky was the Oregon game.  You can’t count on a bad snap at the goal line being recovered for a length of the field scoop and score or a freshman mistake by a running back who should have known that holding onto the ball was much more important than stretching for a first down.

And yes, opponent coaching will always play a role in every win or loss, but part of the game is knowing when and how to capitalize on opponent coaching mistakes.

BC

[CTcard]

In the ASU game, I think we earned all the turnovers, especially the two interceptions.

The ones we really earned were the two strip-fumbles that the refs didn't give us.

[CTcard]

In the ASU game, I think we earned all the turnovers, especially the two interceptions.

The ones we really earned were the two strip-fumbles that the refs didn't give us.

[stupac2]

I think stupac raised the point above that the defense may be less talented than the offense, but at a certain point a lack of talent becomes less of an excuse and more of an indictment: namely, you'd think Stanford, given its record, should be able to recruit talented defensive players. Certainly there are enough NFL role models to point to; Stanford also has a pretty long record of putting up sacks, TFLs, etc., which again you'd think is appealing.

That's what I said, but I think there's a more subtle point as well, which is that we seem to be a lot worse at recruiting talent across all positions on defense. For a while it was the DL, now it seems to be ILB/safety. Part of this is the natural fluctuations in "who's talented and can get into Stanford?" but then you have the odd medical retirement or injuries during a season or early exits to the draft (how much better would the defense look with Meeks and Reid?) and things can get dire quickly.

We seem to have a bit less trouble with that on the offensive side of the ball.

[stupac2]

I think stupac raised the point above that the defense may be less talented than the offense, but at a certain point a lack of talent becomes less of an excuse and more of an indictment: namely, you'd think Stanford, given its record, should be able to recruit talented defensive players. Certainly there are enough NFL role models to point to; Stanford also has a pretty long record of putting up sacks, TFLs, etc., which again you'd think is appealing.

That's what I said, but I think there's a more subtle point as well, which is that we seem to be a lot worse at recruiting talent across all positions on defense. For a while it was the DL, now it seems to be ILB/safety. Part of this is the natural fluctuations in "who's talented and can get into Stanford?" but then you have the odd medical retirement or injuries during a season or early exits to the draft (how much better would the defense look with Meeks and Reid?) and things can get dire quickly.

We seem to have a bit less trouble with that on the offensive side of the ball.