I have been away from the internet for a few days - partly because of a busy weekend out of reach and partly for my own mental health after a terribly disappointing game. So, my apologies if this comment misses the character of things said so far.
On the topic of this thread, I have to say I am amazed that anyone could pin the proximate cause of this most recent debacle on details of play calling or offensive strategy. First of all, we got pounded in so many aspects of the game (i.e. all aspects) focusing on any one seems pointless. Secondly, there is no strategy that produces positive results when your line is getting beaten that badly and the whole team is constantly screwing around on the details (among other things see penalty yardage in that one game equaling the rest of the season combined). Thirdly, what Shaw is typically roasted for, stubbornly sticking to a power-type running game when it is not working, is not what happened here. Stanford called at least 35 pass plays to 22 runs (assumes all non-sack QB carries were called runs), which is a lot of passing. Of course he did that because the run game wasn't working and we were losing, but that is rather the point.
That in no way gives an excuse to the coaching staff. The team didn't show up to play, and the staff's #1 obligation is to have the team ready to play. That's a big failing, I just don't see the failing to be one of offensive approach.
-------------
Of course that leads a much larger question as to whether overall, Stanford's offensive approach is either optimal or even good. I would argue that Stanford's overall approach is at least a good way to proceed, with the caveat of wondering whether there is a better adjustment when key offensive personnel are inexperienced.
There are a bunch of obvious positives that we all remember in the good times. The identity helps with recruiting, helps with consistency of training, helps with presenting opponents something different from what they normally see. These things matter if it is a system that can be successful.
Well, the Stanford offense clearly can be good, but has strong year to year variation. For example, in 2015 Stanford had at least one of the handful of best offenses in the country. Other years it has ranged from quite good to pretty rough.
I think the best overall statistics are per drive, that cancels out most issues of pace and style. So, for the years under Shaw we find:
points per drive
2011 - 3.56Â (2nd, Wisc #1)
2012 - 2.08Â (71st)
2013 - 2.67Â (30th)
2014 - 2.30Â (50th)
2015 - 3.58Â (2nd, 1st Power 5)
[2016 - 2.03Â (73rd)Â - but incomplete and not comparable straight up.]
Available Yards gained per drive
2011 - 63%Â (4th)
2012 - 45%Â (68th)
2013 - 54%Â (23rd)
2014 - 49%Â (40th)
2015 - 65%Â (1st)
[2016 - not available]
In 2011 and 2015 the offense was great. Both years it featured experienced OL and QB.
In 2012 the offense was poor. The OL and moreso the QB were inexperienced.
In 2013 the offense was ... good. OL much more experienced, QB developing.
In 2014, the offense took a step back. The OL inexperienced, QB had tough issues to deal with.
In 2016, we have an inexperienced OL and QB. That seems to be a tough situation for us. I think the offense will prove to be better than 2012, though that isn't clear at the moment.
So, is there a strategy adjustment for the years when the OL and QB are inexperienced that would allow for a more productive offense but still develop the traits that make it great with experience?
There are lots of plays and strategies that I can fantasize about working great, but I have to admit I just don't know. That's a hard mix to attain.
One thing I am somewhat concerned about is that it appears to me as if the staff often takes a while to identify their own team's strengths and weaknesses. It's quite possible that these things are only obvious in hindsight, but still at least a few of them seem glaring now.
Examples:
In 2012, could Hogan have come in earlier?
In 2013, could we have had a better intermediate/short passing game? I think it was within Hogan's skill set.
In 2014 we tried to turn Hogan into a high volume passer. Not his strength.
In 2014/early 2015 we seemed to take a long time to figure out just how good McCaffrey really is.Â
In 2014/early 2015 taking awhile to figure out OL and McCaffrey did well with zone blocking.
In 2016, maybe 2015, taking awhile to figure out Irwin best receiver.
On the topic of this thread, I have to say I am amazed that anyone could pin the proximate cause of this most recent debacle on details of play calling or offensive strategy. First of all, we got pounded in so many aspects of the game (i.e. all aspects) focusing on any one seems pointless. Secondly, there is no strategy that produces positive results when your line is getting beaten that badly and the whole team is constantly screwing around on the details (among other things see penalty yardage in that one game equaling the rest of the season combined). Thirdly, what Shaw is typically roasted for, stubbornly sticking to a power-type running game when it is not working, is not what happened here. Stanford called at least 35 pass plays to 22 runs (assumes all non-sack QB carries were called runs), which is a lot of passing. Of course he did that because the run game wasn't working and we were losing, but that is rather the point.
That in no way gives an excuse to the coaching staff. The team didn't show up to play, and the staff's #1 obligation is to have the team ready to play. That's a big failing, I just don't see the failing to be one of offensive approach.
-------------
Of course that leads a much larger question as to whether overall, Stanford's offensive approach is either optimal or even good. I would argue that Stanford's overall approach is at least a good way to proceed, with the caveat of wondering whether there is a better adjustment when key offensive personnel are inexperienced.
There are a bunch of obvious positives that we all remember in the good times. The identity helps with recruiting, helps with consistency of training, helps with presenting opponents something different from what they normally see. These things matter if it is a system that can be successful.
Well, the Stanford offense clearly can be good, but has strong year to year variation. For example, in 2015 Stanford had at least one of the handful of best offenses in the country. Other years it has ranged from quite good to pretty rough.
I think the best overall statistics are per drive, that cancels out most issues of pace and style. So, for the years under Shaw we find:
points per drive
2011 - 3.56Â (2nd, Wisc #1)
2012 - 2.08Â (71st)
2013 - 2.67Â (30th)
2014 - 2.30Â (50th)
2015 - 3.58Â (2nd, 1st Power 5)
[2016 - 2.03Â (73rd)Â - but incomplete and not comparable straight up.]
Available Yards gained per drive
2011 - 63%Â (4th)
2012 - 45%Â (68th)
2013 - 54%Â (23rd)
2014 - 49%Â (40th)
2015 - 65%Â (1st)
[2016 - not available]
In 2011 and 2015 the offense was great. Both years it featured experienced OL and QB.
In 2012 the offense was poor. The OL and moreso the QB were inexperienced.
In 2013 the offense was ... good. OL much more experienced, QB developing.
In 2014, the offense took a step back. The OL inexperienced, QB had tough issues to deal with.
In 2016, we have an inexperienced OL and QB. That seems to be a tough situation for us. I think the offense will prove to be better than 2012, though that isn't clear at the moment.
So, is there a strategy adjustment for the years when the OL and QB are inexperienced that would allow for a more productive offense but still develop the traits that make it great with experience?
There are lots of plays and strategies that I can fantasize about working great, but I have to admit I just don't know. That's a hard mix to attain.
One thing I am somewhat concerned about is that it appears to me as if the staff often takes a while to identify their own team's strengths and weaknesses. It's quite possible that these things are only obvious in hindsight, but still at least a few of them seem glaring now.
Examples:
In 2012, could Hogan have come in earlier?
In 2013, could we have had a better intermediate/short passing game? I think it was within Hogan's skill set.
In 2014 we tried to turn Hogan into a high volume passer. Not his strength.
In 2014/early 2015 we seemed to take a long time to figure out just how good McCaffrey really is.Â
In 2014/early 2015 taking awhile to figure out OL and McCaffrey did well with zone blocking.
In 2016, maybe 2015, taking awhile to figure out Irwin best receiver.