[washingtonismoney]

The Merc has a write-up of Shaw's press luncheon, in which he mentions guys are "competition for starting jobs" -- which strikes me as unusually explicit for a Shaw in-season remark. He also says:

“I’m still getting there [as to whether the Rice or SC game was the "real" Stanford],” Shaw said at Tuesday’s press luncheon. “Part of my reason for always saying that is you kind of got to get punched in the gut sometimes before you really know what you have, because you see how the whole team responds. You see how individuals respond, you see how groups respond — groups of linebackers, defensive linemen, offensive linemen, tight ends, etcetera — and you see how we respond as a team.”

The examples here strike me as not random. Linemen, obvious; linebackers weren't great either against SC. Tight ends is maybe the only example of a position group that didn't make observers wince, at least a little bit. (NOTE: remember, Shaw never talks badly about QBs after a loss. Examples include the Chryst/Burns switchover, which IIRC, was never foreshadowed by Shaw; or, for that matter, the Nunes era, in which Shaw would be detailed and critical after wins but defensive after bad performances.)

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/12/pu...1505271194

[washingtonismoney]

The Merc has a write-up of Shaw's press luncheon, in which he mentions guys are "competition for starting jobs" -- which strikes me as unusually explicit for a Shaw in-season remark. He also says:

“I’m still getting there [as to whether the Rice or SC game was the "real" Stanford],” Shaw said at Tuesday’s press luncheon. “Part of my reason for always saying that is you kind of got to get punched in the gut sometimes before you really know what you have, because you see how the whole team responds. You see how individuals respond, you see how groups respond — groups of linebackers, defensive linemen, offensive linemen, tight ends, etcetera — and you see how we respond as a team.”

The examples here strike me as not random. Linemen, obvious; linebackers weren't great either against SC. Tight ends is maybe the only example of a position group that didn't make observers wince, at least a little bit. (NOTE: remember, Shaw never talks badly about QBs after a loss. Examples include the Chryst/Burns switchover, which IIRC, was never foreshadowed by Shaw; or, for that matter, the Nunes era, in which Shaw would be detailed and critical after wins but defensive after bad performances.)

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/12/pu...1505271194

[BostonCard]

Good thoughts WIM.  I suppose it is worth noting that Kaden Smith had 2 catches for 25 yards and Schultz had 2 for 7, so despite having a great game against Rice, the tight ends kind of fell asleep against USC.  They accounted for 19% of the passing offense and 9% of our total offense against USC after accounting for 142 yards and 3 touchdowns against Rice (38% of passing offense and 22% of total offense). Last year (kind of a down year for tight ends) the group accounted for 15% of the passing offense and 7% of total offense.

So yeah, I think lost in all the hubub is the fact that the tight ends had a down game against USC.

My guess is that we are probably looking to have 1/3 to 1/4 of the passing offense be directed to the tight ends.

BC

[BostonCard]

Good thoughts WIM.  I suppose it is worth noting that Kaden Smith had 2 catches for 25 yards and Schultz had 2 for 7, so despite having a great game against Rice, the tight ends kind of fell asleep against USC.  They accounted for 19% of the passing offense and 9% of our total offense against USC after accounting for 142 yards and 3 touchdowns against Rice (38% of passing offense and 22% of total offense). Last year (kind of a down year for tight ends) the group accounted for 15% of the passing offense and 7% of total offense.

So yeah, I think lost in all the hubub is the fact that the tight ends had a down game against USC.

My guess is that we are probably looking to have 1/3 to 1/4 of the passing offense be directed to the tight ends.

BC

[stupac2]

Were the TEs just not getting open? Of all the teams we face, I'd expect USC to have the based safeties and LBs to cover TEs. I was expecting to see them lined up wide more and taking quick throws across the middle, maybe they weren't finding the zones? I don't have the time or expertise to look into that, did anyone with better eyes notice anything?

[stupac2]

Were the TEs just not getting open? Of all the teams we face, I'd expect USC to have the based safeties and LBs to cover TEs. I was expecting to see them lined up wide more and taking quick throws across the middle, maybe they weren't finding the zones? I don't have the time or expertise to look into that, did anyone with better eyes notice anything?

[Treebound]

I felt like our play selection limited the use/effectiveness of the tight ends vs USC.  We didn't seem to leverage much play action with a fake dive and then a quick throw to the TE crossing the middle after the LB's froze on the fake. 

There were way too many plays with Love single set in the backfield taking a handoff or pitch with only one WR split out.  The entire stadium knew he was getting the ball and SC stacked the box.  We've seen this movie before and the ending isn't very good.  I felt sorry for Love in the end as he no doubt took a pounding. 

I hope we learned from this, but it didn't seem to me like we adjusted much, with the exception of the last touchdown drive where we opened it up and threw the ball.

[Treebound]

I felt like our play selection limited the use/effectiveness of the tight ends vs USC.  We didn't seem to leverage much play action with a fake dive and then a quick throw to the TE crossing the middle after the LB's froze on the fake. 

There were way too many plays with Love single set in the backfield taking a handoff or pitch with only one WR split out.  The entire stadium knew he was getting the ball and SC stacked the box.  We've seen this movie before and the ending isn't very good.  I felt sorry for Love in the end as he no doubt took a pounding. 

I hope we learned from this, but it didn't seem to me like we adjusted much, with the exception of the last touchdown drive where we opened it up and threw the ball.

[Farm93]

The Stanford team has an identity....Power football.

For years USC lost to Stanford because they were too quick to leave their run game and try their luck with big deep throws to WRs.  So it is hard to then blame Shaw for avoiding that path and electing to stay true to the scheme, especially in week #2.

USC might just be pretty good, and is likely the only Pac-12 school really capable of simulating the Stanford O in their practices. The other teams in the Pac-12 will be different.  The Stanford OL will be in a better position to dominate.  The Stanford DL will be big and strong enough for those OLs.  The TEs will run routes against teams that don't use TEs.  All should be OK.

However, using this logic USC will likely have a real easy path to the Pac-12 CG since they don't play UW and play all of the Pac-12 South teams in down years or struggling to find a 2017 identity.

[Farm93]

The Stanford team has an identity....Power football.

For years USC lost to Stanford because they were too quick to leave their run game and try their luck with big deep throws to WRs.  So it is hard to then blame Shaw for avoiding that path and electing to stay true to the scheme, especially in week #2.

USC might just be pretty good, and is likely the only Pac-12 school really capable of simulating the Stanford O in their practices. The other teams in the Pac-12 will be different.  The Stanford OL will be in a better position to dominate.  The Stanford DL will be big and strong enough for those OLs.  The TEs will run routes against teams that don't use TEs.  All should be OK.

However, using this logic USC will likely have a real easy path to the Pac-12 CG since they don't play UW and play all of the Pac-12 South teams in down years or struggling to find a 2017 identity.

[cardcrimson]

The Stanford team has an identity....Power football.

Does that mean we have to be hard headed about it? On almost every play, especially later in the game, SC stacked 8 or 9 in the box, all salivating to get to our running back. On the rare, play action, it was a 5 or 7 step drop with the D now after Chryst. He had no chance. The occasional quick throws to the TEs or a flare pattern doesn't negate power football. It enhances it. If I recall correctly, McCaffery was a pretty good receiver out of the back field, did we even try any of those routes last week? Were we not power football the last two years?

[cardcrimson]

The Stanford team has an identity....Power football.

Does that mean we have to be hard headed about it? On almost every play, especially later in the game, SC stacked 8 or 9 in the box, all salivating to get to our running back. On the rare, play action, it was a 5 or 7 step drop with the D now after Chryst. He had no chance. The occasional quick throws to the TEs or a flare pattern doesn't negate power football. It enhances it. If I recall correctly, McCaffery was a pretty good receiver out of the back field, did we even try any of those routes last week? Were we not power football the last two years?

[Mick]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=17386.msg200426#msg200426 date=1505322878]
The Stanford team has an identity....Power football.

Does that mean we have to be hard headed about it? On almost every play, especially later in the game, SC stacked 8 or 9 in the box, all salivating to get to our running back. On the rare, play action, it was a 5 or 7 step drop with the D now after Chryst. He had no chance. The occasional quick throws to the TEs or a flare pattern doesn't negate power football. It enhances it. If I recall correctly, McCaffery was a pretty good receiver out of the back field, did we even try any of those routes last week? Were we not power football the last two years?
[/quote]

Chryst is a very inaccurate passer.  Some of his passes sailed horribly.  No QB with an arm like that should be passing past ten yards.

[Mick]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=17386.msg200426#msg200426 date=1505322878]
The Stanford team has an identity....Power football.

Does that mean we have to be hard headed about it? On almost every play, especially later in the game, SC stacked 8 or 9 in the box, all salivating to get to our running back. On the rare, play action, it was a 5 or 7 step drop with the D now after Chryst. He had no chance. The occasional quick throws to the TEs or a flare pattern doesn't negate power football. It enhances it. If I recall correctly, McCaffery was a pretty good receiver out of the back field, did we even try any of those routes last week? Were we not power football the last two years?
[/quote]

Chryst is a very inaccurate passer.  Some of his passes sailed horribly.  No QB with an arm like that should be passing past ten yards.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=17386.msg200426#msg200426 date=1505322878]
The Stanford team has an identity....Power football.

Does that mean we have to be hard headed about it? On almost every play, especially later in the game, SC stacked 8 or 9 in the box, all salivating to get to our running back. On the rare, play action, it was a 5 or 7 step drop with the D now after Chryst. He had no chance. The occasional quick throws to the TEs or a flare pattern doesn't negate power football. It enhances it. If I recall correctly, McCaffery was a pretty good receiver out of the back field, did we even try any of those routes last week? Were we not power football the last two years?
[/quote]

If we would like to see Stanford continue to land top tier OL, RB & TEs?  Yes!  The game was close throughout the first 2.5 quarters, and then was quickly out of reach by the beginning of the 4th quarter.  So really, Stanford stayed true to the power plan while the game was close.  That is the Stanford identity.  CMac was an exception to the rule really. 

So yeah, power, power, power. 

Wouldn't expect Shaw to drop his power first approach just because the team is down by 4-11 points in the third quarter.  The real problem remained that USC's power was unstoppable.  Should Stanford be lucky enough to see USC in the Pac-12 CG I wouldn't worry at all about the O's playcalling, I would worry that Stanford's DL still won't stop (can't stop) USC's run game.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=17386.msg200426#msg200426 date=1505322878]
The Stanford team has an identity....Power football.

Does that mean we have to be hard headed about it? On almost every play, especially later in the game, SC stacked 8 or 9 in the box, all salivating to get to our running back. On the rare, play action, it was a 5 or 7 step drop with the D now after Chryst. He had no chance. The occasional quick throws to the TEs or a flare pattern doesn't negate power football. It enhances it. If I recall correctly, McCaffery was a pretty good receiver out of the back field, did we even try any of those routes last week? Were we not power football the last two years?
[/quote]

If we would like to see Stanford continue to land top tier OL, RB & TEs?  Yes!  The game was close throughout the first 2.5 quarters, and then was quickly out of reach by the beginning of the 4th quarter.  So really, Stanford stayed true to the power plan while the game was close.  That is the Stanford identity.  CMac was an exception to the rule really. 

So yeah, power, power, power. 

Wouldn't expect Shaw to drop his power first approach just because the team is down by 4-11 points in the third quarter.  The real problem remained that USC's power was unstoppable.  Should Stanford be lucky enough to see USC in the Pac-12 CG I wouldn't worry at all about the O's playcalling, I would worry that Stanford's DL still won't stop (can't stop) USC's run game.

[BostonCard]

We rushed for 6.5 yards per cary against USC.  We passed for 6.1 yards per attempt.  And somehow the conclusion was that we were too stubborn about rushing?

BC

[BostonCard]

We rushed for 6.5 yards per cary against USC.  We passed for 6.1 yards per attempt.  And somehow the conclusion was that we were too stubborn about rushing?

BC

[cardcrimson]

We rushed for 6.5 yards per cary against U$C.  We passed for 6.1 yards per attempt.  And somehow the conclusion was that we were too stubborn about rushing?

BC

You're correct Stanford finished with 6.5 yds per carry. But that doesn't tell the story. In the first 17 minutes (first three drives), Stanford ran 7 times for 126 yards, including runs by Love of 20, 75, and 21. The rest of the game, the team ran the ball 19 times for 44 yards. First three drives, 18 yards a carry. The rest of the game, 2.3 yards a carry. How do you account for the disparity? Did our guys just get tired? Or perhaps SC adjusted and we stuck to what we do. Most times, that seems to work out okay. This time, not so much.

[cardcrimson]

We rushed for 6.5 yards per cary against U$C.  We passed for 6.1 yards per attempt.  And somehow the conclusion was that we were too stubborn about rushing?

BC

You're correct Stanford finished with 6.5 yds per carry. But that doesn't tell the story. In the first 17 minutes (first three drives), Stanford ran 7 times for 126 yards, including runs by Love of 20, 75, and 21. The rest of the game, the team ran the ball 19 times for 44 yards. First three drives, 18 yards a carry. The rest of the game, 2.3 yards a carry. How do you account for the disparity? Did our guys just get tired? Or perhaps SC adjusted and we stuck to what we do. Most times, that seems to work out okay. This time, not so much.

[Goose]

We rushed for 6.5 yards per cary against U$C.  We passed for 6.1 yards per attempt.  And somehow the conclusion was that we were too stubborn about rushing?

BC

I think Shaw really said it best. U$C played great. We didn't. Offensively, we played pretty well, but not well enough to beat a team that our defense didn't stop. USC punted once and was intercepted twice. Otherwise, they scored. We punted 4 times. We scored 24, which last year was more than enough. It wasn't this year.

[Goose]

We rushed for 6.5 yards per cary against U$C.  We passed for 6.1 yards per attempt.  And somehow the conclusion was that we were too stubborn about rushing?

BC

I think Shaw really said it best. U$C played great. We didn't. Offensively, we played pretty well, but not well enough to beat a team that our defense didn't stop. USC punted once and was intercepted twice. Otherwise, they scored. We punted 4 times. We scored 24, which last year was more than enough. It wasn't this year.

[Goose]

Or perhaps SC adjusted and we stuck to what we do.

I don't think they adjusted. Their line just outplayed our line by a whole lot. We weren't tired. U$C was ahead in TOP. I would conjecture that it was partially psychological. When the OL realized that the defense basically couldn't stop U$C, it undoubtedly affected their play. It shouldn't, but I think it did. Otherwise, I can't explain the difference in results.

[Goose]

Or perhaps SC adjusted and we stuck to what we do.

I don't think they adjusted. Their line just outplayed our line by a whole lot. We weren't tired. U$C was ahead in TOP. I would conjecture that it was partially psychological. When the OL realized that the defense basically couldn't stop U$C, it undoubtedly affected their play. It shouldn't, but I think it did. Otherwise, I can't explain the difference in results.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17386.msg200454#msg200454 date=1505335330]
We rushed for 6.5 yards per cary against U$C.  We passed for 6.1 yards per attempt.  And somehow the conclusion was that we were too stubborn about rushing?

BC

You're correct Stanford finished with 6.5 yds per carry. But that doesn't tell the story. In the first 17 minutes (first three drives), Stanford ran 7 times for 126 yards, including runs by Love of 20, 75, and 21. The rest of the game, the team ran the ball 19 times for 44 yards. First three drives, 18 yards a carry. The rest of the game, 2.3 yards a carry. How do you account for the disparity? Did our guys just get tired? Or perhaps SC adjusted and we stuck to what we do. Most times, that seems to work out okay. This time, not so much.
[/quote]

Maybe you missed the drive where Chryst threw 5 times for 67 yards and a touchdown late in the game.  That doesn't sound like we "stuck to what we do".  Of course, the following (our last) drive, we had 6 passes and 1 run (officially 2 runs because 1 sack counts as a run in college football).  We had 8 meaningful drives in the game.  Presumably you were happy that we ran a lot during the first three drives.  We pretty much passed the last two drives as you would expect a team trailing by double digits.  That leaves three drives (plus the end of the first half) that you think we should have passed more.  Here are the results of those drives:

Drive #4 (7 plays, 41 yards field goal)
2 runs, 5 passes

Drive #5 (3 plays, end of half so I am not including it)

Drive #6 (5 plays, 7 yards, punt)
2 runs, 3 passes (one pass was a sack and counts as a run for the NCAA purposes)

Drive #6 (6 plays, 16 yards, punt)
4 runs, 2 passes plus 2 penalties during dropbacks (one on each side)

Overall, there were 8 designed runs, 10 dropbacks (one of which resulted in a sack) plus 2 pass plays that didn't count due to penalties.  I would venture to guess that the problem was not that we our running game wasn't getting anything and we were too stubborn, but rather that neither the running game nor the passing game generated enough offense.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17386.msg200454#msg200454 date=1505335330]
We rushed for 6.5 yards per cary against U$C.  We passed for 6.1 yards per attempt.  And somehow the conclusion was that we were too stubborn about rushing?

BC

You're correct Stanford finished with 6.5 yds per carry. But that doesn't tell the story. In the first 17 minutes (first three drives), Stanford ran 7 times for 126 yards, including runs by Love of 20, 75, and 21. The rest of the game, the team ran the ball 19 times for 44 yards. First three drives, 18 yards a carry. The rest of the game, 2.3 yards a carry. How do you account for the disparity? Did our guys just get tired? Or perhaps SC adjusted and we stuck to what we do. Most times, that seems to work out okay. This time, not so much.
[/quote]

Maybe you missed the drive where Chryst threw 5 times for 67 yards and a touchdown late in the game.  That doesn't sound like we "stuck to what we do".  Of course, the following (our last) drive, we had 6 passes and 1 run (officially 2 runs because 1 sack counts as a run in college football).  We had 8 meaningful drives in the game.  Presumably you were happy that we ran a lot during the first three drives.  We pretty much passed the last two drives as you would expect a team trailing by double digits.  That leaves three drives (plus the end of the first half) that you think we should have passed more.  Here are the results of those drives:

Drive #4 (7 plays, 41 yards field goal)
2 runs, 5 passes

Drive #5 (3 plays, end of half so I am not including it)

Drive #6 (5 plays, 7 yards, punt)
2 runs, 3 passes (one pass was a sack and counts as a run for the NCAA purposes)

Drive #6 (6 plays, 16 yards, punt)
4 runs, 2 passes plus 2 penalties during dropbacks (one on each side)

Overall, there were 8 designed runs, 10 dropbacks (one of which resulted in a sack) plus 2 pass plays that didn't count due to penalties.  I would venture to guess that the problem was not that we our running game wasn't getting anything and we were too stubborn, but rather that neither the running game nor the passing game generated enough offense.

BC

[fullmetal]

Passes to TEs in the flat might need a little more touch than Chryst can put on the ball.  We certainly saw a lot of batted passes...and any underneath defender might have had a shot to intercept such a pass.  I presume U$C would have defenders quick enough to go step-for-step with our TEs.

[fullmetal]

Passes to TEs in the flat might need a little more touch than Chryst can put on the ball.  We certainly saw a lot of batted passes...and any underneath defender might have had a shot to intercept such a pass.  I presume U$C would have defenders quick enough to go step-for-step with our TEs.

[CTcard]

I think Shaw really said it best. U$C played great. We didn't.

I have been travelling and working so haven't yet run down the board to get a sense of the response to the game here.

This part is important. U$C did play really well. I've watched most of it twice, and U$C made some superb plays, of both strength and athleticism. They are always very talented, but often don't perform at what would appear to be their best. Whether that was a one-off against us or a sign of better coaching and approach is unclear this early.

So, $C playing very well and Stanford not doing so was one part of the situation. That part didn't bother me so much. Teams play up and down during a season. At some level it always happens. If it becomes a trend, that indicates one kind of problem, but in a single game early in the season it could simply be the low end of the spectrum (see Northwestern 2015).

On the other hand, the other part of the loss was that U$C simply whipped us on both lines. That sort of thing doesn't get fixed in a short period of time. It reminds me of our two games vs ASU in 2013. In the first game we whipped them on both lines. After a great season, they headed into the conference championship game with all sorts of discussion about how they had figured out the mistakes they had made in the first game, that they had cleaned those up, and had all sorts of improved strategies to attack us. Then we proceeded to whip them again along both lines. I have no idea if they had better strategies or not, it just didn't matter.

[CTcard]

I think Shaw really said it best. U$C played great. We didn't.

I have been travelling and working so haven't yet run down the board to get a sense of the response to the game here.

This part is important. U$C did play really well. I've watched most of it twice, and U$C made some superb plays, of both strength and athleticism. They are always very talented, but often don't perform at what would appear to be their best. Whether that was a one-off against us or a sign of better coaching and approach is unclear this early.

So, $C playing very well and Stanford not doing so was one part of the situation. That part didn't bother me so much. Teams play up and down during a season. At some level it always happens. If it becomes a trend, that indicates one kind of problem, but in a single game early in the season it could simply be the low end of the spectrum (see Northwestern 2015).

On the other hand, the other part of the loss was that U$C simply whipped us on both lines. That sort of thing doesn't get fixed in a short period of time. It reminds me of our two games vs ASU in 2013. In the first game we whipped them on both lines. After a great season, they headed into the conference championship game with all sorts of discussion about how they had figured out the mistakes they had made in the first game, that they had cleaned those up, and had all sorts of improved strategies to attack us. Then we proceeded to whip them again along both lines. I have no idea if they had better strategies or not, it just didn't matter.

[cardcrimson]

Simple question. Our running game and by extension, our offensive line, looked very good to great during the first three drives. Big holes, nice running lanes for the most part. What happened during the rest of the game?

[cardcrimson]

Simple question. Our running game and by extension, our offensive line, looked very good to great during the first three drives. Big holes, nice running lanes for the most part. What happened during the rest of the game?

[ChicagoCard]

Simple question. Our running game and by extension, our offensive line, looked very good to great during the first three drives. Big holes, nice running lanes for the most part. What happened during the rest of the game?

I think Shaw basically answered this saying they had to go away from the run more than they wanted.

[ChicagoCard]

Simple question. Our running game and by extension, our offensive line, looked very good to great during the first three drives. Big holes, nice running lanes for the most part. What happened during the rest of the game?

I think Shaw basically answered this saying they had to go away from the run more than they wanted.