Does this theory hold water? - Printable Version

Does this theory hold water? - 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: Does this theory hold water? (/thread-14099.html)

Does this theory hold water? - OutsiderFan - 08-22-2017

There seems to be a lot of trepidation about the prospects for the Stanford football offense in 2017.Â If you look at 2016 as a reason, that certainly seems warranted, based on poor pass protection and inconsistent QB play that season.Â

However, David Shaw interviews have suggested the offense will be spreading the ball around more than the last couple years, and that he feels the team will be better in 2017 than 2016 overall.Â Hard to see significant defensive improvement with the DL situation, so the only place much improvement can come would seem to be the offense.Â

On a related note, usually when a particular unit struggles one year, and the coaching staff prioritizes improving something specific about its performance, there is significant improvement the next season.Â Specifically, the OL pass protection was awful in 2016 and has been a point of emphasis from the first Spring practice of 2017.Â If you assume there will be better pass protection, the ball will be spread around more, and Keller Chryst is coming into his own as a QB now, might Stanford's offense be poised to be better than most people seem to be expecting in 2017?Â

Re: Does this theory hold water? - stupac2 - 08-22-2017

I think people are pessimistic about our offense because (Hulk aside) Stanford fans seem to be congenitally pessimistic. Not sure why. Last year was by far the most injuries we've ever had, and Shaw said it was the most injured he'd ever seen any team. There's no reason to expect that to happen again, so our results should be significantly better from that alone.

Re: Does this theory hold water? - JohnR34231 - 08-22-2017

I think that how optimistic/pessimistic you tend to be about Stanford football is correlated with how long you have been associated with it. If your first exposure to it was the Harbaugh era you tend to be optimistic. If you lived through the 80's (when we had two winning seasons in ten years) and the Buddy/Wlat era you tend to be a bit of a Missouri resident, believing Stanford is going to be good when they demonstrate it.

Re: Does this theory hold water? - Row80Critic - 08-22-2017

(08-22-2017, 09:00 AM)JPRI link Wrote:I think that how optimistic/pessimistic you tend to be about Stanford football is correlated with how long you have been associated with it. If your first exposure to it was the Harbaugh era you tend to be optimistic. If you lived through the 80's (when we had two winning seasons in ten years) and the Buddy/Wlat era you tend to be a bit of a Missouri resident, believing Stanford is going to be good when they demonstrate it.

Bingo, give this man a cigar!Â

Re: Does this theory hold water? - Papa John - 08-22-2017

Interesting discussion. For me, based perhaps on my limited knowledge as a football fan but never a player or coach, my preseason optimism or pessimism has always been tied to my confidence in the QB. My first year at Stanford was 1980, and because of John Elway my preseason expectations were sky-high for the next three years. Ditto with Steve Stenstrom (having Bill Walsh as head coach didn't hurt), Andrew Luck and a few others.

Re: Does this theory hold water? - CTcard - 08-22-2017

I am not quite sure what is the theory you are asking us about. Is it that a unit that is poor one year usually improves the next because of focus?

(08-22-2017, 07:53 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:There seems to be a lot of trepidation about the prospects for the Stanford football offense in 2017.Â If you look at 2016 as a reason, that certainly seems warranted, based on poor pass protection and inconsistent QB play that season.Â

I would put myself into the cautiously optimistic camp, perhaps with an excess of caution however.Â

While poor pass protection and QB play are some reasons for concern about the offense, they are actually both reasons for expecting improvement. The OL returns four starters and presumably is unlikely to face more injury trouble than last year. The QBs are all back, and whomever ends up playing ought to be improved - as Chryst clearly was over the latter stretch last year. So, at least as far as trend goes, I see both of those units as a positive.

A big question mark is replacing McCaffrey. In general, I fall into the NFL-ish camp that says the quality of the run game is more dependent upon the OL than the RB - or at least that is where the variation usually arises. However, McCaffrey was not a typical RB. He really was a transcendent talent, and I fear he created positive plays where a merely good back will not. And as of yet, we don't know if Love (or anyone) is more than a good back.

Quote:However, David Shaw interviews have suggested the offense will be spreading the ball around more than the last couple years,

I haven't seen that. Can you point us to some examples?

Essentially by default we are going to spread the ball around to more players than we did with McCaffrey on the team. Other than that, I am not necessarily convinced that development is a positive - it could just mean there are no particularly great weapons on offense.

Quote:and that he feels the team will be better in 2017 than 2016 overall.

This ought to be true. We had exceedingly few departures of key personnel for a college team, and players from well regarded recruiting classes who will start contributing.

Quote:Hard to see significant defensive improvement with the DL situation,

The DL is a worry, but I absolutely expect significant defensive improvement. First of all, we have ... eight and a half starters back* and most every contributor. There shouldn't be many personnel holes. The injury to Holder was a big impact, as were lesser injuries all around. My instinct is to really like the move of Alfieri inside, though of course the proof will be in the pudding. And more generally, Stanford's defense was only "good" last year (though FEI really liked us, #11 overall), not the dominant unit it has been recently. I see no reason it cannot be dominant again.

Quote: so the only place much improvement can come would seem to be the offense.Â

Given that the offense was considerably worse than the defense last year, despite what I said above there is clearly more room for improvement on that side of the ball.

Re: Does this theory hold water? - OutsiderFan - 08-22-2017

The theory is Stanford's offense will be better than people are expecting because the OL, scheme, and QB will all be better than 2016, despite not having CMac.

I don't recall specifically the interview, but I may have heard David Shaw talking about spreading the ball around more this year on the Rich Eisen show last week?

Re: Does this theory hold water? - BostonCard - 08-22-2017

In recent history, the best predictor of our offensive output has been the number of returning offensive linemen.Â During down years we were usually replacing 3 or more linemen.Â In up years, we get 4 or more back.Â This is the latter case.

BC

Re: Does this theory hold water? - CTcard - 08-22-2017

(08-22-2017, 10:53 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:In recent history, the best predictor of our offensive output has been the number of returning offensive linemen.Â During down years we were usually replacing 3 or more linemen.Â In up years, we get 4 or more back.Â This is the latter case.

BC

Well, the simplest correlation would simply be "odd year = offense good", "even year = offense bad".
One would guess that isn't actually predictive, however.

[The following uses points per drive as an overall measure of quality of offense ... because I like it.]

Under Shaw
2011 - 3.56 ppd/#2Â Â Â Â Â 2 OL return
2012 - 2.08 ppd/#71Â Â Â Â 3 OL return (Yankey switches to LT)
2013 - 2.67 ppd/#30Â Â Â Â 4 OL return
2014 - 2.30 ppd/#50Â Â Â Â 1 OL return
2015 - 3.58 ppd/#2Â Â Â Â Â 4 OL return
2016 - 2.22 ppd/#62Â Â Â Â 2 OL return
2017 - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Â Â Â Â 4 OL return

2011 would be an outlier with respect to the importance of the number of returning OL. Of course that was Luck's final year, and it is possible he had an impact on the overall quality of the offense.

Re: Does this theory hold water? - Goose - 08-22-2017

I have been following Stanford football since 1967. Before JH, even when Stanford had a "good" team, there were often holes (71 and 72 probably the only exceptions, and the 72 team was a bit shaky at times). Our definition of "high expectations" were that we would be competitive and interesting. After JH, we now consider "high expectations" to be a conference championship or better. So it is apples and oranges. All that said, I had concerns about 2016 that were more a feeling than reasoned. Since CMAC didn't play in the spring, you couldn't tell what we had, but it just didn't pass the eye test. The defense was clearly better than the offense, and it stayed that way all spring. That is unusual for Stanford. We didn't know who the QB was going to be, which could be OK if they were both visibly great, but that wasn't the case. It just didn't "feel" right, although I couldn't really point out issues that would kill us.
That said, and despite having a few really bad losses, we had what most teams would consider to be a good year. How much of that was CMAC and how much was others improving is difficult to know.
This year, we should be better, but we still have some of the same issues as last year. We could be 10-3. Is that a disaster? No, but with this defense, particularly the back 4, I would hope for better. The OL is still the key. Others have talked about pass blocking, which is certainly important, but for a Shaw team, we need to be able to pound the ball. If we can't do that, 10-3 is the ceiling.This spring, I think the OL looked better at both pass blocking and run blocking, but it didn't look dominant. That worries me a bit. The statement that "it is because our defense is so good" or "Love didn't play" sounds too much like 2016. OTOH, the line did open up a few nice holes. We shall see.

Re: Does this theory hold water? - CrazedZooChimp - 08-22-2017

(08-22-2017, 07:53 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:There seems to be a lot of trepidation about the prospects for the Stanford football offense in 2017.Â If you look at 2016 as a reason, that certainly seems warranted, based on poor pass protection and inconsistent QB play that season.Â

However, David Shaw interviews have suggested the offense will be spreading the ball around more than the last couple years, and that he feels the team will be better in 2017 than 2016 overall.Â Hard to see significant defensive improvement with the DL situation, so the only place much improvement can come would seem to be the offense.Â

On a related note, usually when a particular unit struggles one year, and the coaching staff prioritizes improving something specific about its performance, there is significant improvement the next season.Â Specifically, the OL pass protection was awful in 2016 and has been a point of emphasis from the first Spring practice of 2017.Â If you assume there will be better pass protection, the ball will be spread around more, and Keller Chryst is coming into his own as a QB now, might Stanford's offense be poised to be better than most people seem to be expecting in 2017?

I guess it's hard to see SIGNIFICANT improvement on D, but we return, what, 9 of 11 starters or something from last years D? That kind of return, including multiple stud DBs (and some pretty good LBs) who I don't think have peaked, implies there is definitely a chance for an even better defense.

And the same story is why I'm more optimistic for the O, returning starters. We lost CMac, Rector, and Caspers, right? Returning 8/11 starters, including several guys who were first year starters (or even first year players) implies a very likely increase in potential. Most football players get better, not worse. Like BC said, returning OL (and starters in general) often correlates to how good a team will be.

Also as CTCard said, it's an odd year. Money in the bank.

And for what it's worth, I started watching Stanford as a kid in the Willingham era and went to school during the Buddy/Wlat era. So you know my penchant isn't for unbridled optimism :)

Re: Does this theory hold water? - Phogge - 08-22-2017

I've been following since 1953. Ups and downs. This is by far the longest stretch of success (much of it at the highest level short of an NC). Ah, last year was 10-3. Not too bad. But anybody can lay an egg except Rockey Marciano and Personal Ensign.

I watch the games to be entertained and Harshaw has done a pretty good job sustaining excellence. Ten wins are in the bag. Don't worry, be hoppy as Bobby McFerrin put it. After all it's not nuclear war.