The CardBoard
Jumping off the bandwagon? - 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: Jumping off the bandwagon? (/thread-7983.html)

Pages: 1 2

Jumping off the bandwagon? - StanFan88 - 10-09-2014

http://blog.sfgate.com/stanfordsports/2014/10/07/fortunately-shaw-says-his-players-arent-hopping-off-the-bandwagon/

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm certainly not jumping off the bandwagon - I haven't for 30 years since I was a freshman.

Just because I can be highly critical when things don't go right doesn't mean I've jumped off the bandwagon.  In fact, I think the true fans are the ones who are not only dedicated to the team they root for, but they are willing to look at it through non-rose-colored glasses.

The wagon has a broken wheel.  I remain hopeful and optimistic that it will be at least partially repaired by tomorrow night.

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - OutsiderFan - 10-09-2014

Here's the more important piece:

http://blog.sfgate.com/stanfordsports/2014/10/07/tailback-by-committee-is-holding-stanford-back/

Just give Sanders a quarter and see what happens.  Run the whole offense with him in the game. What is there to lose?

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - washingtonismoney - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 06:00 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:http://blog.sfgate.com/stanfordsports/2014/10/07/tailback-by-committee-is-holding-stanford-back/

Just give Sanders a quarter and see what happens.  Run the whole offense with him in the game. What is there to lose?

That's a poor piece:
1) Why do we know tailback by committee is holding the team back? It cites little to no evidence to believe that's the case. Do tailbacks by committee perform worse, or better, in general? If they do, why would that change in Stanford's case? The article merely appeals to intuition, which seems like a faulty guide.
2) It also cites little evidence to believe Sanders is the best back rather than the alternatives. Yeah, there's yards per carry...but that's heavily influenced by Sanders's Army game, and specifically his 44 yard run.* Take that run out and you're left with a back that isn't much different that the rest, statistically.

Of course, teams with one dominant back probably do perform well. But that's because you have *one really good back,* not because you've given him all the carries. It gets the causality exactly backwards. Given that the Stanford backs seem to be OK-at-best, it's not clear that anointing one or the other will help much.

* (and in fact I'd argue that 44 yard run was a sign of poor, rather than good, quality. A good back finishes that run and scores a touchdown. Not being able to outrace Army DBs is disturbing.)

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - slide - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 07:36 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=10838.msg101466#msg101466 date=1412859634]
http://blog.sfgate.com/stanfordsports/2014/10/07/tailback-by-committee-is-holding-stanford-back/

Just give Sanders a quarter and see what happens.  Run the whole offense with him in the game. What is there to lose?

That's a poor piece:
1) Why do we know tailback by committee is holding the team back? It cites little to no evidence to believe that's the case. Do tailbacks by committee perform worse, or better, in general? If they do, why would that change in Stanford's case? The article merely appeals to intuition, which seems like a faulty guide.
2) It also cites little evidence to believe Sanders is the best back rather than the alternatives. Yeah, there's yards per carry...but that's heavily influenced by Sanders's Army game, and specifically his 44 yard run.* Take that run out and you're left with a back that isn't much different that the rest, statistically.

Of course, teams with one dominant back probably do perform well. But that's because you have *one really good back,* not because you've given him all the carries. It gets the causality exactly backwards. Given that the Stanford backs seem to be OK-at-best, it's not clear that anointing one or the other will help much.

* (and in fact I'd argue that 44 yard run was a sign of poor, rather than good, quality. A good back finishes that run and scores a touchdown. Not being able to outrace Army DBs is disturbing.)
[/quote]

do you have an example of a non-option team where a 3 RB by Committee works?  tandems yes, but 3 or more?

Sanders being run down from behind by Army showed the lack of a top gear.  it really surprised me.


Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - washingtonismoney - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 07:44 AM)slide link Wrote:do you have an example of a non-option team where a 3 RB by Committee works?  tandems yes, but 3 or more?

Well, Alabama and Wisconsin have done it -- maybe not this year, but certainly in the past. But that's not the point. It's not whether the committee and success can coexist. It's whether the committee is the best option among the ones you have -- it may be that no configuration of backs will be successful with Stanford.

Anyway, might there be something to the idea that getting a lot of touches puts you into a rhythm or whatever. Sure -- I don't think that's crazy. But if there were, I'd think people would have more compelling evidence than what was offered in that FitzGerald article.

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - needle - 10-09-2014

This year's Arkansas team has three quality running backs. But it's not exactly an equal distribution:

RUSHING STATISTICS
NAME CAR YDS AVG LONG TD
Alex Collins 86 621 7.2 84 (TD) 6
Jonathan Williams 66 486 7.4 90 (TD) 8
Korliss Marshall 22 117 5.3 27 (TD) 1

http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/stats/_/id/8/arkansas-razorbacks


Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - OutsiderFan - 10-09-2014

WIM, not everything can be explained by numbers.  There is a qualitative side of things that can't ever be measured.  And we can't dismiss what hasn't been tried out of hand, just because it doesn't "seem" like it will work.

Some of the greatest discoveries are made by accident, or otherwise as a result of things happening that weren't expected based on previous understanding.  Sometimes ingredients combine to be better than the sum of their parts. 

Nobody can guarantee giving Sanders a full quarter as the RB will yield better offensive performance, but we don't know that it won't either.  We do know the offense is struggling and needs to change.  We do know Kelsey Young isn't as productive on a YPC basis and can't catch, so when he is in the game the RB as a receiver is taken off the table for defenses.  At least if Sanders is in the game, he is a dual threat and keeps defenses a little honest.

Reasons for playing Sanders more:

1. The offense is struggling with the status quo
2. We don't know how he will do when he knows he's going to stay in the game and gets "lathered" up
3. He is a dual threat who can keep defenses guessing more

Sanders would be 27th in the country in YPC if he had a few more carries.  He had a 4.7 YPC against ND on 3 carries.  Young had 7 for 2.6.  It's difficult to have more evidence that Sanders should be playing more, given how productive he's been and the fact he can catch passes.

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - slide - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 07:53 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=slide link=topic=10838.msg101482#msg101482 date=1412865882]
do you have an example of a non-option team where a 3 RB by Committee works?  tandems yes, but 3 or more?

Well, Alabama and Wisconsin have done it -- maybe not this year, but certainly in the past. But that's not the point. It's not whether the committee and success can coexist. It's whether the committee is the best option among the ones you have -- it may be that no configuration of backs will be successful with Stanford.

Anyway, might there be something to the idea that getting a lot of touches puts you into a rhythm or whatever. Sure -- I don't think that's crazy. But if there were, I'd think people would have more compelling evidence than what was offered in that FitzGerald article.
[/quote]

Alabama and Wisconsin largely rely on tandems of backs with a primary and then a secondary back, not a 3- or 4- or 5 headed RB by Committee approach.  even needle's Arkansas example bears the same relationship.  the absence of multiple triple headed RB by Committee success story is I think the answer FitzGerald was pointing to. 

Remound Wright commented about the lack of rhythm a couple of weeks.  he and you are onto something along these lines.

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - washingtonismoney - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 08:05 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:WIM, not everything can be explained by numbers.  There is a qualitative side of things that can't ever be measured.  And we can't dismiss what hasn't been tried out of hand, just because it doesn't "seem" like it will work.

Some of the greatest discoveries are made by accident, or otherwise as a result of things happening that weren't expected based on previous understanding.  Sometimes ingredients combine to be better than the sum of their parts. 
...
Sanders would be 27th in the country in YPC if he had a few more carries.  He had a 4.7 YPC against ND on 3 carries.  Young had 7 for 2.6.  It's difficult to have more evidence that Sanders should be playing more, given how productive he's been and the fact he can catch passes.

I enjoy that you say not everything can be based on numbers...and then give a totally deceptive case based on numbers. Sanders would be 27th in the country if he had more carries, but that assumes that his past carries predict his future ones. There's good reason to believe he doesn't. Against SC, UW, and N.D. Sanders is averaging 4 yards per carry. Young is at 4.2 and Wright at 4.6 against the same opponents.

I have little idea where you get the idea that Sanders is a better pass-catcher either. Wright has 3 catches for 42 yards; Young has nothing; Sanders 2 for 13.

But, look, if your logic is that we should just try things out on the basis that it can't be much worse, sure, that's fine. I respect that logic. Just don't pretend it's anything other than a faith-based case.

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - washingtonismoney - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 08:25 AM)slide link Wrote:Alabama and Wisconsin largely rely on tandems of backs with a primary and then a secondary back, not a 3- or 4- or 5 headed RB by Committee approach.  even needle's Arkansas example 59ers the same relationship.  the absence of multiple triple headed RB by Committee success story is I think the answer FitzGerald was pointing to. 

Remound Wright commented about the lack of rhythm a couple of weeks.  he and you are onto something along these lines.

Sure, except it's a silly case. The question is, "which way does the causality run?" That is, are running backs good because they get a lot of carries? Or do good running backs naturally get a lot of carries? I'm not sure the question has even occurred to FitzGerald. Yes, obviously, offenses with dominant running backs who get a lot of carries do well. That doesn't at all establish that Stanford would be better served with arbitrarily selecting one of its currently-OK-ish running backs and making him the lead guy.

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - washingtonismoney - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 08:38 AM)garvin link Wrote:Stanford had plenty of success with splitting the running back role when it did so with Kerry Carter and Anthony Bookman, and again with Carter and Brian Allen. ...

Or, for that matter, Kimble and Gerhart in 2008.



Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - slide - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 08:38 AM)garvin link Wrote:Stanford had plenty of success with splitting the running back role when it did so with Kerry Carter and Anthony Bookman, and again with Carter and Brian Allen. If it works okay with two, then I don't see why three would somehow lead to a great reversal of form.

And if two is the magic number, then you could just as easily argue for benching Sanders completely.

Garvin -- I like tandems and it has worked well for a long time at Stanford.  I just haven't successful examples of what we are trying to do with 3+ backs. 

if we are narrowing, I'd go with McCaffrey as one of the backs -- he has the extra gear, he has shown good hands, and he has 3+ years left to develop.

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - oman - 10-09-2014

Do we really need lots of analysis to be pissed that Sanders hasn't had a chance to get in the groove?


Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - 76lsjumb - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 08:25 AM)slide link Wrote:Remound Wright commented about the lack of rhythm a couple of weeks.  he and you are onto something along these lines.

I'm not sure Mr. Chop Block is in the best position to comment about this.  As for Tom FitzGerald, it sure looks to me like he's trying to stir up some dissension.  Also, the assertion that you only get better at blocking by doing it in a game strikes me as questionable when, during the rest of the week, you get to practice blocking against the top defense in the country...

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - CowboyIndian - 10-09-2014

Offensive line, offensive line, offensive line. Once more...offensive line.

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - stupac2 - 10-09-2014

Personally I want to see the offensive personnel stay the same for a set of downs or two just to see what happens. I don't think we need to do a full HUNH but presenting different looks with the same personnel and not letting defenses adjust has been used to great effect elsewhere. Plus we've looked the best to me when we've been moving somewhat quickly (that one series against USC, late TD-scoring drives against UW and ND). So I'd like to see it, but I don't really care which back we use.

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - OutsiderFan - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 08:35 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=10838.msg101485#msg101485 date=1412867119]
WIM, not everything can be explained by numbers.  There is a qualitative side of things that can't ever be measured.  And we can't dismiss what hasn't been tried out of hand, just because it doesn't "seem" like it will work.

Some of the greatest discoveries are made by accident, or otherwise as a result of things happening that weren't expected based on previous understanding.  Sometimes ingredients combine to be better than the sum of their parts. 
...
Sanders would be 27th in the country in YPC if he had a few more carries.  He had a 4.7 YPC against ND on 3 carries.  Young had 7 for 2.6.  It's difficult to have more evidence that Sanders should be playing more, given how productive he's been and the fact he can catch passes.

I enjoy that you say not everything can be based on numbers...and then give a totally deceptive case based on numbers. Sanders would be 27th in the country if he had more carries, but that assumes that his past carries predict his future ones. There's good reason to believe he doesn't. Against SC, UW, and N.D. Sanders is averaging 4 yards per carry. Young is at 4.2 and Wright at 4.6 against the same opponents.

I have little idea where you get the idea that Sanders is a better pass-catcher either. Wright has 3 catches for 42 yards; Young has nothing; Sanders 2 for 13.

But, look, if your logic is that we should just try things out on the basis that it can't be much worse, sure, that's fine. I respect that logic. Just don't pretend it's anything other than a faith-based case.
[/quote]

I've seen all the RBs play and it is clear from my observations that Sanders is the most talented receiver and ball carrier of all the RBs.  He's got the best hands and body control of any of them.  The fact his season YPC is the best among all of them is just anecdotal evidence to this reality, not a statistically provable reality.  But when you factor in that he has had the fewest carries, and that he hasn't had nearly as many chances to "get in a rhythm by playing so many consecutive snaps," and the offense is struggling, it is the combination of an educated guess and a "let's see if this works because nothing else is" that makes advocating more carries for Sanders a justifiable position.

I worried from the get go that Sanders was not a fit for Stanford's power running system.  He's really much more of a zone type runner, where he can read the defense, pick a hole and go.  If Stanford's coaches are looking for that guy who can run power and break tackles, he is not it.  So if that is why he doesn't get more carries, it makes sense.  But then Young and Wright don't break many either.  So you go back to trying to force personnel into a scheme instead of adapting your scheme to your personnel. 

Sanders is the most talented RB Stanford has other than maybe McCaffrey, but he doesn't seem to likely to play much as a True Frosh, so Sanders is the guy on which the offense should build around, IMO.  If they can't run power as preferred because they don't have that power RB, then don't run power or go with jumbo sets.  The coaches should have realized this in the Spring, but it seems they really felt the OL would be so good that they could even run power effectively without a true power RB. 

It's got to suck for the coaches because they are basically two plays away from being 5-0 and ranked in the Top 10, even with the deficiencies they have to overcome.  It's tough to justify change when so close, but given the team is 3-3 in its last six games, it does seem some kind of evolution in offensive thinking is warranted.

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - GoodGrief - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 09:53 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I've seen all the RBs play and it is clear from my observations that Sanders is the most talented receiver and ball carrier of all the RBs.

One thing frustrating about the RBbC is that I rarely recall instances of Sanders coming into the game when he didn't get the ball. I'd prefer not to basically shout out to the opposing defense, "WE'RE GIVING THE BALL TO BARRY ON THIS ONE"

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - BostonCard - 10-09-2014

The problem is that we have a chicken and egg situation here.  Do we have a running back by committee because our running game has been underwhelming and no single back has had a great performance, or do we have an underwhelming running game because we are using a running back by committee.  Since this is the first season in four that Shaw has gone with a running back by committee, I don't think it's because Shaw is indecisive and is hampering all the backs.  Rather, I think its that he wants to give all three of the backs a chance to have a breakout game and earn the top spot.

But the bottom line is CI is right.  Our offensive line, especially our interior line, has to step up.

BC

Re: Jumping off the bandwagon? - jayasena - 10-09-2014

(10-09-2014, 10:10 AM)GoodGrief link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=10838.msg101509#msg101509 date=1412873622]

I've seen all the RBs play and it is clear from my observations that Sanders is the most talented receiver and ball carrier of all the RBs.

One thing frustrating about the RBbC is that I rarely recall instances of Sanders coming into the game when he didn't get the ball. I'd prefer not to basically shout out to the opposing defense, "WE'RE GIVING THE BALL TO BARRY ON THIS ONE"
[/quote]

Has anyone being paying attention to Barry's blocking? I haven't and don't know if there is/was anything to the rumors that that was a reason for him not getting more carries. However, if that is the case, that may explain why he hasn't been used more and is usually not on the field when he isn't getting the ball.