09-19-2016, 08:45 AM
Shaw is also close to the record books. I put his wins in this thread so as not to start a whole other one.
BC
BC
McCaffrey's assault on the record books
Shaw is also close to the record books. I put his wins in this thread so as not to start a whole other one.
BC
BC
09-19-2016, 08:51 AM
(09-19-2016, 08:26 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15706.msg171855#msg171855 date=1474288460]
Shaw suffers in public perception for a few reasons:
1) People don't credit sustaining success the same way they credit a turnaround, which is foolish.
2) He's not an offensive "genius" -- though Stanford offenses have been reasonably successful, they aren't flashy in a schematic sense.
3) His gameday coaching has its foibles (too many 4th down punts, etc.), and people overrate what coaches do on gameday while underrating literally everything else.
4) Personality-wise, he's just kind of calm: he doesn't offer entertainment in the same way a Harbaugh does.
B) As for why he suffers, I think it is largely #4. He is just not into self-promotion and takes an understated approach to everything. You don't get the antics of Harbaugh or the drama of Under Stanford Control (again); Shaw appears to be permanently in "coachspeak" mode, so you could never imagine him in a million years having a "what's your deal" moment like Harbaugh does.
[/quote]
I'd go with a healthy dose of #2, though probably #4 carries more weight.
As much as old time football folks like tough smash-mouth offense, strong don't-give-up-the-big-play defense, and risk-averse approach to decisions - most of fandom doesn't.
Even when Stanford has a fantastic offense, they don't put up the biggest numbers in yards and points. It's easy to talk about total yards and points, and it's easy to make highlight reels from teams throwing the ball 40+ times per game.
Case in point last year. Stanford ranked #40 in the country in offense by the commonly quoted yards per game (see Teejers). However, on a per drive basis, Stanford was #1 in the country in yards gained.* Less extreme, Stanford was #18 in scoring offense based upon points per game. In points per possession, Stanford was #2 behind only Group of Five Western Kentucky.
Right at the moment, for example, Stanford has the fewest pass attempts per game in the country of any team NOT running an option offense. The next fewest pass attempts by a notable team is Michigan State - and they are 5 throws per game higher than Stanford. Even many Stanford fans hate this. Whether this has led to winning, or simply happening at the same time as winning is not completely clear, but it doesn't promote Shaw as the hot thing.
* The stat is from cfbtoys and is called OAY for Offense: Available Yards (percentage). That means taking each drive and calculating the fraction of the distance towards a touchdown that the offense manages to cover, i.e. if you start at your own 25 and end up kicking a FG from the opponent's 5 yard line you got 70/75 = 93% of available yards. On the season last year, Stanford got 65% of all available yards.)
http://www.bcftoys.com/2015-ofei/
(09-19-2016, 08:26 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15706.msg171855#msg171855 date=1474288460]
Shaw suffers in public perception for a few reasons:
1) People don't credit sustaining success the same way they credit a turnaround, which is foolish.
2) He's not an offensive "genius" -- though Stanford offenses have been reasonably successful, they aren't flashy in a schematic sense.
3) His gameday coaching has its foibles (too many 4th down punts, etc.), and people overrate what coaches do on gameday while underrating literally everything else.
4) Personality-wise, he's just kind of calm: he doesn't offer entertainment in the same way a Harbaugh does.
B) As for why he suffers, I think it is largely #4. He is just not into self-promotion and takes an understated approach to everything. You don't get the antics of Harbaugh or the drama of Under Stanford Control (again); Shaw appears to be permanently in "coachspeak" mode, so you could never imagine him in a million years having a "what's your deal" moment like Harbaugh does.
[/quote]
I'd go with a healthy dose of #2, though probably #4 carries more weight.
As much as old time football folks like tough smash-mouth offense, strong don't-give-up-the-big-play defense, and risk-averse approach to decisions - most of fandom doesn't.
Even when Stanford has a fantastic offense, they don't put up the biggest numbers in yards and points. It's easy to talk about total yards and points, and it's easy to make highlight reels from teams throwing the ball 40+ times per game.
Case in point last year. Stanford ranked #40 in the country in offense by the commonly quoted yards per game (see Teejers). However, on a per drive basis, Stanford was #1 in the country in yards gained.* Less extreme, Stanford was #18 in scoring offense based upon points per game. In points per possession, Stanford was #2 behind only Group of Five Western Kentucky.
Right at the moment, for example, Stanford has the fewest pass attempts per game in the country of any team NOT running an option offense. The next fewest pass attempts by a notable team is Michigan State - and they are 5 throws per game higher than Stanford. Even many Stanford fans hate this. Whether this has led to winning, or simply happening at the same time as winning is not completely clear, but it doesn't promote Shaw as the hot thing.
* The stat is from cfbtoys and is called OAY for Offense: Available Yards (percentage). That means taking each drive and calculating the fraction of the distance towards a touchdown that the offense manages to cover, i.e. if you start at your own 25 and end up kicking a FG from the opponent's 5 yard line you got 70/75 = 93% of available yards. On the season last year, Stanford got 65% of all available yards.)
http://www.bcftoys.com/2015-ofei/
09-19-2016, 09:38 AM
Shaw has certain advantages in recruiting that Harbaugh and even Walsh lacked. Shaw is an alum of our university and of our football program. He is also now one of the most successful African-American head coaches in history.Â
http://www.afro.com/black-head-coaches-c...-frontier/
Stanford's rise to the top could only happen with a head coach who used Stanford's academic reputation as a positive recruiting tool rather than as a barrier to overcome. David Shaw, by his own personal example, is in a far better position to exemplify the merits of Stanford's emphasis on the "student athlete." As much as I loved Harbaugh and Walsh, and as much as they had the right values--they were never in a position to personally exemplify the advantages of a Stanford education. Nor were Tyrone nor Denny Green--both from the Midwest.
Furthermore, the fact that Shaw is an African American lends credibility to the "student athlete" message when he speaks to African American students and parents. It is also a constant reminder that Stanford has made a much stronger effort to diversify its coaching staff than many other schools--at a time when 52% of college players are African American, and 8% of head coaches are African American, Stanford has had three African American head coaches in the last generation. But Ty and Denny had not personally navigated through Stanford as undergraduates, and so their praise of Stanford's academics was learned and not lived.
In short, I cannot imagine, any more, a more ideal fit of a head coach to an institution than David Shaw to Stanford. I hope we keep him for decades. When I bumped into him while he was picking up take-out food the other day, he had his two young sons in tow--one in soccer gear coming from practice. My guess is that this consummate family man (and soccer-Dad!) will be here as long as he is raising his family. I hope so.
http://www.afro.com/black-head-coaches-c...-frontier/
Stanford's rise to the top could only happen with a head coach who used Stanford's academic reputation as a positive recruiting tool rather than as a barrier to overcome. David Shaw, by his own personal example, is in a far better position to exemplify the merits of Stanford's emphasis on the "student athlete." As much as I loved Harbaugh and Walsh, and as much as they had the right values--they were never in a position to personally exemplify the advantages of a Stanford education. Nor were Tyrone nor Denny Green--both from the Midwest.
Furthermore, the fact that Shaw is an African American lends credibility to the "student athlete" message when he speaks to African American students and parents. It is also a constant reminder that Stanford has made a much stronger effort to diversify its coaching staff than many other schools--at a time when 52% of college players are African American, and 8% of head coaches are African American, Stanford has had three African American head coaches in the last generation. But Ty and Denny had not personally navigated through Stanford as undergraduates, and so their praise of Stanford's academics was learned and not lived.
In short, I cannot imagine, any more, a more ideal fit of a head coach to an institution than David Shaw to Stanford. I hope we keep him for decades. When I bumped into him while he was picking up take-out food the other day, he had his two young sons in tow--one in soccer gear coming from practice. My guess is that this consummate family man (and soccer-Dad!) will be here as long as he is raising his family. I hope so.
Shaw has certain advantages in recruiting that Harbaugh and even Walsh lacked. Shaw is an alum of our university and of our football program. He is also now one of the most successful African-American head coaches in history.Â
http://www.afro.com/black-head-coaches-c...-frontier/
Stanford's rise to the top could only happen with a head coach who used Stanford's academic reputation as a positive recruiting tool rather than as a barrier to overcome. David Shaw, by his own personal example, is in a far better position to exemplify the merits of Stanford's emphasis on the "student athlete." As much as I loved Harbaugh and Walsh, and as much as they had the right values--they were never in a position to personally exemplify the advantages of a Stanford education. Nor were Tyrone nor Denny Green--both from the Midwest.
Furthermore, the fact that Shaw is an African American lends credibility to the "student athlete" message when he speaks to African American students and parents. It is also a constant reminder that Stanford has made a much stronger effort to diversify its coaching staff than many other schools--at a time when 52% of college players are African American, and 8% of head coaches are African American, Stanford has had three African American head coaches in the last generation. But Ty and Denny had not personally navigated through Stanford as undergraduates, and so their praise of Stanford's academics was learned and not lived.
In short, I cannot imagine, any more, a more ideal fit of a head coach to an institution than David Shaw to Stanford. I hope we keep him for decades. When I bumped into him while he was picking up take-out food the other day, he had his two young sons in tow--one in soccer gear coming from practice. My guess is that this consummate family man (and soccer-Dad!) will be here as long as he is raising his family. I hope so.
http://www.afro.com/black-head-coaches-c...-frontier/
Stanford's rise to the top could only happen with a head coach who used Stanford's academic reputation as a positive recruiting tool rather than as a barrier to overcome. David Shaw, by his own personal example, is in a far better position to exemplify the merits of Stanford's emphasis on the "student athlete." As much as I loved Harbaugh and Walsh, and as much as they had the right values--they were never in a position to personally exemplify the advantages of a Stanford education. Nor were Tyrone nor Denny Green--both from the Midwest.
Furthermore, the fact that Shaw is an African American lends credibility to the "student athlete" message when he speaks to African American students and parents. It is also a constant reminder that Stanford has made a much stronger effort to diversify its coaching staff than many other schools--at a time when 52% of college players are African American, and 8% of head coaches are African American, Stanford has had three African American head coaches in the last generation. But Ty and Denny had not personally navigated through Stanford as undergraduates, and so their praise of Stanford's academics was learned and not lived.
In short, I cannot imagine, any more, a more ideal fit of a head coach to an institution than David Shaw to Stanford. I hope we keep him for decades. When I bumped into him while he was picking up take-out food the other day, he had his two young sons in tow--one in soccer gear coming from practice. My guess is that this consummate family man (and soccer-Dad!) will be here as long as he is raising his family. I hope so.
09-19-2016, 09:46 AM
Just back from a weekend of golf in County Mayo, As the Irish would say, Shaw is himself, as is Harbaugh. But, without Harbaugh there would have been no Shaw (as he now is).
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
09-19-2016, 10:49 AM
(09-19-2016, 05:34 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Shaw suffers in public perception for a few reasons:
4) Personality-wise, he's just kind of calm: he doesn't offer entertainment in the same way a Harbaugh does.
Of course the real answer to most of these concerns is, "who cares?" But we're just describing rather than endorsing.
Just a wild, out of left field guess, but I suspect that's A-OK with management...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(09-19-2016, 05:34 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Shaw suffers in public perception for a few reasons:
4) Personality-wise, he's just kind of calm: he doesn't offer entertainment in the same way a Harbaugh does.
Of course the real answer to most of these concerns is, "who cares?" But we're just describing rather than endorsing.
Just a wild, out of left field guess, but I suspect that's A-OK with management...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
09-19-2016, 11:00 AM
Shaw IS an excellent manager, which sets him up for long-term success. He manages his team, his relationship with the AD, and the team's relationship with the media. He keeps the guys focused on performance and not emotions. Shaw may not have been able to spark a 1-11 discontented doormat into relevance, but how many programs have had sustained success like he's brought?
Long live Shaw, the Stanford man who plays winning chess with young Stanford men.
Long live Shaw, the Stanford man who plays winning chess with young Stanford men.
Shaw IS an excellent manager, which sets him up for long-term success. He manages his team, his relationship with the AD, and the team's relationship with the media. He keeps the guys focused on performance and not emotions. Shaw may not have been able to spark a 1-11 discontented doormat into relevance, but how many programs have had sustained success like he's brought?
Long live Shaw, the Stanford man who plays winning chess with young Stanford men.
Long live Shaw, the Stanford man who plays winning chess with young Stanford men.
09-19-2016, 11:24 AM
Quote:I'd go with a healthy dose of #2, though probably #4 carries more weight.
As much as old time football folks like tough smash-mouth offense, strong don't-give-up-the-big-play defense, and risk-averse approach to decisions - most of fandom doesn't.
That may have carried the day through the aftermath of the Northwestern game last year. You could make a case that offense in Shaw's first year was all due to having Andrew Luck (that even Buddy Teevens would have been able to average 30 pts with Luck under center), and that after Luck left, Shaw's mediocre offensive mind was exposed with Nunes and even with Hogan, where the teams were nothing special offensively. Then in 2014, we reverted to mediocrity once our defense was no longer elite. That seemed to carry through the Northwestern game (and even the first half of UCF) when people here openly wondered if Shawgren's offense could only be executed with an All-American QB, OL and RB.
And then that same offense figured it out and went on one of the most remarkable offensive runs in Stanford history, and the idea that Shaw really wasn't much of an offensive mind sort of went away. No, we didn't have a pinball [fill in the blank] raid offense, nor did we employ "tempo" that everyone else seemed to relish. But the results spoke for themselves, and even without advanced stats it was clear to anyone who looked that the Stanford offense was elite. McCaffrey's record breaking run was the cherry on top, as was the third Rose Bowl in four years, this time without relying on an elite defense. By the end of the year, there was a feeling that we probably would have fared better in the playoffs than a couple of the teams that got invites.
The fandom may not love all those qualities, but after last year, all but the most epistemically closed individual would have had to concede that Shaw could produce an offensive juggernaut. And for all his reputation, Shaw is exceptional at pulling the trick play at just the right time, whether it is a play action pass to the tight end out of the jumbo formation, or the halfback toss to an uncovered QB receiving, or the reverse flea flicker that produces a highlight reel touchdown catch "...pinned against the receiver's back!!!" or the fake fumble, or even last week's two 56 yard plays. He doesn't do it overly frequently, but when he does, our trick plays are deadly.
I really think at this point it is just that Shaw just doesn't have the outsized personality.
BC
Quote:I'd go with a healthy dose of #2, though probably #4 carries more weight.
As much as old time football folks like tough smash-mouth offense, strong don't-give-up-the-big-play defense, and risk-averse approach to decisions - most of fandom doesn't.
That may have carried the day through the aftermath of the Northwestern game last year. You could make a case that offense in Shaw's first year was all due to having Andrew Luck (that even Buddy Teevens would have been able to average 30 pts with Luck under center), and that after Luck left, Shaw's mediocre offensive mind was exposed with Nunes and even with Hogan, where the teams were nothing special offensively. Then in 2014, we reverted to mediocrity once our defense was no longer elite. That seemed to carry through the Northwestern game (and even the first half of UCF) when people here openly wondered if Shawgren's offense could only be executed with an All-American QB, OL and RB.
And then that same offense figured it out and went on one of the most remarkable offensive runs in Stanford history, and the idea that Shaw really wasn't much of an offensive mind sort of went away. No, we didn't have a pinball [fill in the blank] raid offense, nor did we employ "tempo" that everyone else seemed to relish. But the results spoke for themselves, and even without advanced stats it was clear to anyone who looked that the Stanford offense was elite. McCaffrey's record breaking run was the cherry on top, as was the third Rose Bowl in four years, this time without relying on an elite defense. By the end of the year, there was a feeling that we probably would have fared better in the playoffs than a couple of the teams that got invites.
The fandom may not love all those qualities, but after last year, all but the most epistemically closed individual would have had to concede that Shaw could produce an offensive juggernaut. And for all his reputation, Shaw is exceptional at pulling the trick play at just the right time, whether it is a play action pass to the tight end out of the jumbo formation, or the halfback toss to an uncovered QB receiving, or the reverse flea flicker that produces a highlight reel touchdown catch "...pinned against the receiver's back!!!" or the fake fumble, or even last week's two 56 yard plays. He doesn't do it overly frequently, but when he does, our trick plays are deadly.
I really think at this point it is just that Shaw just doesn't have the outsized personality.
BC
09-19-2016, 11:31 AM
(09-19-2016, 11:24 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Then in 2014, we reverted to mediocrity once our defense was no longer elite.
Wait, wasn't the defense in 2014 the best unit of Shaw's tenure?
09-19-2016, 11:36 AM
Funny how the mind plays tricks. I was convinced that the best defenses occurred in 2012/2013, but you are right, based on total defense and scoring defense 2014 was our best defense. Too bad we couldn't have paired 2015's offense with it.
BC
BC
Funny how the mind plays tricks. I was convinced that the best defenses occurred in 2012/2013, but you are right, based on total defense and scoring defense 2014 was our best defense. Too bad we couldn't have paired 2015's offense with it.
BC
BC
09-19-2016, 11:57 AM
(09-19-2016, 11:36 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Funny how the mind plays tricks. I was convinced that the best defenses occurred in 2012/2013, but you are right, based on total defense and scoring defense 2014 was our best defense. Too bad we couldn't have paired 2015's offense with it.
BC
IIRC last year WiM talked a lot about how we can never seem to sync up offensive and defensive success. 2011's offense with 2012's defense or 2014's d with 2015's o would've been a top-2 team each year (hell in the good offense years the teams nearly were anyway). I think that's why so many were optimistic about this year, the pieces were there to finally have both at the same time.
(09-19-2016, 11:36 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Funny how the mind plays tricks. I was convinced that the best defenses occurred in 2012/2013, but you are right, based on total defense and scoring defense 2014 was our best defense. Too bad we couldn't have paired 2015's offense with it.
BC
IIRC last year WiM talked a lot about how we can never seem to sync up offensive and defensive success. 2011's offense with 2012's defense or 2014's d with 2015's o would've been a top-2 team each year (hell in the good offense years the teams nearly were anyway). I think that's why so many were optimistic about this year, the pieces were there to finally have both at the same time.
09-19-2016, 12:03 PM
(09-19-2016, 09:38 AM)81alum link Wrote:Nor were Tyrone nor Denny Green--both from the Midwest.
Tyrone Willingham graduated from Michigan State, but he was born and raised in the South until he left for college.
09-19-2016, 12:12 PM
McCaffrey's "assault" is going to be hampered by the cowardice of the opposition in kicking away from him. Not that I blame them. But I predict kickoff and punt returns will be few and far between.
09-19-2016, 12:18 PM
(09-19-2016, 11:00 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:Shaw IS an excellent manager, which sets him up for long-term success. He manages his team, his relationship with the AD, and the team's relationship with the media. He keeps the guys focused on performance and not emotions. Shaw may not have been able to spark a 1-11 discontented doormat into relevance, but how many programs have had sustained success like he's brought?
Speaking as a retired tech entrepreneur, the Harbaugh/Shaw dynamic is a classic model for sustainable institutional success. Harbaugh has all the qualities of a successful founder (or turnaround artist), able to energize and evangelize while rapidly implementing fundamental cultural change. Shaw has all the qualities of a successful CEO, able to steadily manage the enterprise while continuing to build on the foundation in place and reach new heights.
I don't think Shaw could have turned around the program with the alacrity that Harbaugh did (meaning that he may have run out of time), and I'm positive that Harbaugh would have been unable to optimally manage the program once it reached maturity.
I also think Shaw gets shortchanged in terms of credit for his time as "COO" under Harbaugh. When you have a leader as mercurial and outsized as Harbaugh you need a partner to manage all of the inevitable conflicts that arise with players, faculty and administration, and it's clear that Shaw was very helpful when that function was needed.
Fitting and fortunate for us that the Harbaugh/Shaw package both turned around the program and has built a sustainable model for the long term as well.
(09-19-2016, 11:00 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:Shaw IS an excellent manager, which sets him up for long-term success. He manages his team, his relationship with the AD, and the team's relationship with the media. He keeps the guys focused on performance and not emotions. Shaw may not have been able to spark a 1-11 discontented doormat into relevance, but how many programs have had sustained success like he's brought?
Speaking as a retired tech entrepreneur, the Harbaugh/Shaw dynamic is a classic model for sustainable institutional success. Harbaugh has all the qualities of a successful founder (or turnaround artist), able to energize and evangelize while rapidly implementing fundamental cultural change. Shaw has all the qualities of a successful CEO, able to steadily manage the enterprise while continuing to build on the foundation in place and reach new heights.
I don't think Shaw could have turned around the program with the alacrity that Harbaugh did (meaning that he may have run out of time), and I'm positive that Harbaugh would have been unable to optimally manage the program once it reached maturity.
I also think Shaw gets shortchanged in terms of credit for his time as "COO" under Harbaugh. When you have a leader as mercurial and outsized as Harbaugh you need a partner to manage all of the inevitable conflicts that arise with players, faculty and administration, and it's clear that Shaw was very helpful when that function was needed.
Fitting and fortunate for us that the Harbaugh/Shaw package both turned around the program and has built a sustainable model for the long term as well.
09-19-2016, 12:27 PM
Absolutely, and his experience as a former Stanford player serves him well in this regard. His status as an alum probably gives him leeway on the other side of the intra-university relations.
09-19-2016, 12:32 PM
(09-19-2016, 12:12 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:McCaffrey's "assault" is going to be hampered by the cowardice of the opposition in kicking away from him. Not that I blame them. But I predict kickoff and punt returns will be few and far between.
I was wondering what the numbers are on that this year. USC, for example, didn't seem to try any squib kicks on him IIRC; they were helped more by getting deep kicks that were touchbacks from what I remember. Now, that may be helped by their kicker's talent, and other teams may not be able to do that as often. In which case, I welcome the squib kicks and getting the ball at the 30-35 each time.
(09-19-2016, 12:12 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:McCaffrey's "assault" is going to be hampered by the cowardice of the opposition in kicking away from him. Not that I blame them. But I predict kickoff and punt returns will be few and far between.
I was wondering what the numbers are on that this year. USC, for example, didn't seem to try any squib kicks on him IIRC; they were helped more by getting deep kicks that were touchbacks from what I remember. Now, that may be helped by their kicker's talent, and other teams may not be able to do that as often. In which case, I welcome the squib kicks and getting the ball at the 30-35 each time.
09-19-2016, 12:34 PM
Getting back to McCaffrey -- Looking at the box score for the U*S*C game, I just noticed that McCaffrey's stats were revised. Apparently, there was a 7-yard gain by McCaffrey that was originally recorded as a reception but was reclassified as a rushing attempt. McCaffrey now is credited with 31 carries for 172 yards and 3 catches for 66 yards. Stanford as a team now is credited with 302 rushing yards against U*S*C.
Getting back to McCaffrey -- Looking at the box score for the U*S*C game, I just noticed that McCaffrey's stats were revised. Apparently, there was a 7-yard gain by McCaffrey that was originally recorded as a reception but was reclassified as a rushing attempt. McCaffrey now is credited with 31 carries for 172 yards and 3 catches for 66 yards. Stanford as a team now is credited with 302 rushing yards against U*S*C.
09-19-2016, 12:39 PM
(09-19-2016, 11:57 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15706.msg171916#msg171916 date=1474310214]
Funny how the mind plays tricks. I was convinced that the best defenses occurred in 2012/2013, but you are right, based on total defense and scoring defense 2014 was our best defense. Too bad we couldn't have paired 2015's offense with it.
BC
IIRC last year WiM talked a lot about how we can never seem to sync up offensive and defensive success. 2011's offense with 2012's defense or 2014's d with 2015's o would've been a top-2 team each year (hell in the good offense years the teams nearly were anyway). I think that's why so many were optimistic about this year, the pieces were there to finally have both at the same time.
[/quote]
Next year always felt like that year to me, but only if we could convince Christian to come back for his senior year. We're still a fairly young team, so next year, with the more favorable schedule and a more experienced roster, including a QB with a year under his belt as the starter? Yes, please.Â
(09-19-2016, 11:57 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15706.msg171916#msg171916 date=1474310214]
Funny how the mind plays tricks. I was convinced that the best defenses occurred in 2012/2013, but you are right, based on total defense and scoring defense 2014 was our best defense. Too bad we couldn't have paired 2015's offense with it.
BC
IIRC last year WiM talked a lot about how we can never seem to sync up offensive and defensive success. 2011's offense with 2012's defense or 2014's d with 2015's o would've been a top-2 team each year (hell in the good offense years the teams nearly were anyway). I think that's why so many were optimistic about this year, the pieces were there to finally have both at the same time.
[/quote]
Next year always felt like that year to me, but only if we could convince Christian to come back for his senior year. We're still a fairly young team, so next year, with the more favorable schedule and a more experienced roster, including a QB with a year under his belt as the starter? Yes, please.Â
09-19-2016, 12:44 PM
Last year I tracked McCaffrey's yardage as he pursued and then obliterated Sanders's record. This year I'm comparing him to last year. Here's where he sits so far. (You'll remember, of course, that he didn't get much yardage through the first two games in 2015.)
2015 McCaffrey vs. 2016 McCaffrey
Through Game 2:
Rushing: 124 vs. 298: +174 yards
Receiving: 82 vs. 106: +24 yards
Punt Ret: 24 vs. 16: -8 yards
Kick Ret: 107 vs. 50: -57 yards
Total: 337 vs. 470: +133 yards
2015 McCaffrey vs. 2016 McCaffrey
Through Game 2:
Rushing: 124 vs. 298: +174 yards
Receiving: 82 vs. 106: +24 yards
Punt Ret: 24 vs. 16: -8 yards
Kick Ret: 107 vs. 50: -57 yards
Total: 337 vs. 470: +133 yards
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
Last year I tracked McCaffrey's yardage as he pursued and then obliterated Sanders's record. This year I'm comparing him to last year. Here's where he sits so far. (You'll remember, of course, that he didn't get much yardage through the first two games in 2015.)
2015 McCaffrey vs. 2016 McCaffrey
Through Game 2:
Rushing: 124 vs. 298: +174 yards
Receiving: 82 vs. 106: +24 yards
Punt Ret: 24 vs. 16: -8 yards
Kick Ret: 107 vs. 50: -57 yards
Total: 337 vs. 470: +133 yards
2015 McCaffrey vs. 2016 McCaffrey
Through Game 2:
Rushing: 124 vs. 298: +174 yards
Receiving: 82 vs. 106: +24 yards
Punt Ret: 24 vs. 16: -8 yards
Kick Ret: 107 vs. 50: -57 yards
Total: 337 vs. 470: +133 yards
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
09-19-2016, 01:07 PM
(09-19-2016, 12:34 PM)terry link Wrote:Getting back to McCaffrey -- Looking at the box score for the U*S*C game, I just noticed that McCaffrey's stats were revised. Apparently, there was a 7-yard gain by McCaffrey that was originally recorded as a reception but was reclassified as a rushing attempt. McCaffrey now is credited with 31 carries for 172 yards and 3 catches for 66 yards. Stanford as a team now is credited with 302 rushing yards against U*S*C.
Could it be the high snap that bounced forward off Burns' hand and ended up in Christian's? Maybe originally considered a forward pass and later changed to a run.
(09-19-2016, 12:34 PM)terry link Wrote:Getting back to McCaffrey -- Looking at the box score for the U*S*C game, I just noticed that McCaffrey's stats were revised. Apparently, there was a 7-yard gain by McCaffrey that was originally recorded as a reception but was reclassified as a rushing attempt. McCaffrey now is credited with 31 carries for 172 yards and 3 catches for 66 yards. Stanford as a team now is credited with 302 rushing yards against U*S*C.
Could it be the high snap that bounced forward off Burns' hand and ended up in Christian's? Maybe originally considered a forward pass and later changed to a run.
09-19-2016, 01:37 PM
(09-19-2016, 12:34 PM)terry link Wrote:Getting back to McCaffrey -- Looking at the box score for the U*S*C game, I just noticed that McCaffrey's stats were revised. Apparently, there was a 7-yard gain by McCaffrey that was originally recorded as a reception but was reclassified as a rushing attempt. McCaffrey now is credited with 31 carries for 172 yards and 3 catches for 66 yards. Stanford as a team now is credited with 302 rushing yards against U*S*C.
Regardless, he is still the top rusher and top receiver in the game, for either team!
BC
(09-19-2016, 12:34 PM)terry link Wrote:Getting back to McCaffrey -- Looking at the box score for the U*S*C game, I just noticed that McCaffrey's stats were revised. Apparently, there was a 7-yard gain by McCaffrey that was originally recorded as a reception but was reclassified as a rushing attempt. McCaffrey now is credited with 31 carries for 172 yards and 3 catches for 66 yards. Stanford as a team now is credited with 302 rushing yards against U*S*C.
Regardless, he is still the top rusher and top receiver in the game, for either team!
BC
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »