Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 (/thread-7875.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 (/thread-7875.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - stupac2 - 09-28-2014
I'm starting to think that we need to give in to the dark side and start running some kind of spread. We did it briefly against USC and it seemed to work great, why not keep it up?
Then again, that final offensive series* did work pretty well, maybe we're figuring it out? I don't really know, but something clearly needs to change. If this offense could even be top-25-level, we'd be the #1 team in the country.
*I don't count that last three-and-out because that was probably the right play. Make them burn all their TOs, and if they make a mistake the game is over. Would it have been nice to run something ballsy and salt the game away right there? Sure, but we were on our own 15 or something, can you imagine if we ran something like that 4th down conversion at Oregon two years ago and Hogan had screwed up the throw, or worse, turned it over? People would be asking why Shaw didn't just do the conservative thing and let his all-world defense get the stop.
Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - washingtonismoney - 09-28-2014
(09-28-2014, 09:02 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I'm starting to think that we need to give in to the dark side and start running some kind of spread. We did it briefly against U$ and it seemed to work great, why not keep it up?
The distinctive part about the SC plan was the hurry-up, no-huddle.
I'd guess we used shotgun the majority of the snaps yesterday and used a fair number of zone-read and packaged plays. So it's not as if yesterday was untainted by spread principles.
I don't really think yesterday's problem was schematic or play-calling based as much as a bad game in terms of execution. Overall, perhaps the better route to better execution is simplification -- fewer personnel packages, fewer plays, greater confidence.
Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - StanfordMatt - 09-28-2014
martyup: The NCAA limits the number of full-time, on-field assistant coaches to 9 so if we were to bring someone else in mid-season, one of the current coaches would either have to be fired or demoted to an off-field position. I don't see this happening.
One of the reasons I have a hard time placing too much of the blame for the offense's struggles on Bloomgren is that we just don't know how much freedom he's getting to run the offense. Over the years we've gotten glimpses into the offensive play calling whether it was Luck being given three plays to choose from or Shaw taking over play calling from Bloomgren inside the red zone. I haven't heard any specifics on the issue this season so I think it's hard for anyone on the outside looking in to know how Shaw and Bloomgren are sharing responsibilities.
Shaw's oversight of the offense also raises other questions in my opinion. While there's absolutely no one else I would want leading our football program, I wonder if Shaw is guilty of surrounding himself with "yes men" on offense. Look at the years of experience of our defensive coaches and then compare it to offense:
Randy Hart: 45
Duane Akina: 36
Lance Anderson: 18
Peter Hansen: 11
Avg: 27.5
Mike Bloomgren: 16
Lance Taylor: 8
Morgan Turner: 6
Tavita Pritchard: 5
Avg: 8.75
"Yes men" is probably too harsh of a term because I don't mean to disparage any of those coaches, but it's hard for me to imagine a coach with 5 years of experience being able to question Shaw when something isn't working. On the other side of the ball, when something goes wrong on defense, Anderson can turn to Hart and Akina who have a combined 81 years of experience to draw upon for potential solutions.
Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - ChicagoCard - 09-28-2014
(09-28-2014, 10:32 AM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:"Yes men" is probably too harsh of a term because I don't mean to disparage any of those coaches, but it's hard for me to imagine a coach with 5 years of experience being able to question Shaw when something isn't working.
Interesting. Brings to mind the story from a few years ago of Shaw and Pep Hamilton getting into a heated disagreement over something in practice.
Re: Final: Stanford 20, Washington 13 - teejers1 - 09-29-2014
FWLIW, I heard Husak on 1050 earlier in the week say that Shaw is the Red Zone play caller and Bloomgren does the rest (pretty sure that's what he sadi). I don't know if that's true or not, but personally, I'd feel better if Shaw got rid of the play sheet and just "listened in" and commented on the play calls as he heard them being piped into the headset. One OC calling all the plays is the way to go - plus, it makes accountability much more functional.
The 1H offense, statistically, was at least good - yet Stanford finished with a pathetic 370 yads of total offense. What happened?
Of course, UW's was beyond pathetic . . . and that's a tribute to the Cardinal D.