[lex24]

Agree.

I chalk it up to the size of the playbook and giving the QB 2 sometimes three plays. JH had the same issue. It probably cost him a SB. (Not sure he still does. Haven’t followed Mich that closely)

Cut down the playbook and perhaps this becomes less of a problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. 

On DOG penalties, Matt Squeri on TOS did an exhaustive review of every Pac 12 team.  The conclusions comport with what your eyes told you:  Stanford ran fewer plays than any other conference team and had more DOG penalties.  [And this analysis did not include the number of timeouts  taken to avoid DOG penalties].  It's a pretty obvious red flag of ineptitude on the O side of the ball . . . isn't it?  [There are few things more inept than not even being able to get a play called and run within the time allotted].

[lex24]

Agree.

I chalk it up to the size of the playbook and giving the QB 2 sometimes three plays. JH had the same issue. It probably cost him a SB. (Not sure he still does. Haven’t followed Mich that closely)

Cut down the playbook and perhaps this becomes less of a problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. 

On DOG penalties, Matt Squeri on TOS did an exhaustive review of every Pac 12 team.  The conclusions comport with what your eyes told you:  Stanford ran fewer plays than any other conference team and had more DOG penalties.  [And this analysis did not include the number of timeouts  taken to avoid DOG penalties].  It's a pretty obvious red flag of ineptitude on the O side of the ball . . . isn't it?  [There are few things more inept than not even being able to get a play called and run within the time allotted].

[lex24]

Agree.

I chalk it up to the size of the playbook and giving the QB 2 sometimes three plays. JH had the same issue. It probably cost him a SB. (Not sure he still does. Haven’t followed Mich that closely)

Cut down the playbook and perhaps this becomes less of a problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. 

On DOG penalties, Matt Squeri on TOS did an exhaustive review of every Pac 12 team.  The conclusions comport with what your eyes told you:  Stanford ran fewer plays than any other conference team and had more DOG penalties.  [And this analysis did not include the number of timeouts  taken to avoid DOG penalties].  It's a pretty obvious red flag of ineptitude on the O side of the ball . . . isn't it?  [There are few things more inept than not even being able to get a play called and run within the time allotted].

[lex24]

Agree.

I chalk it up to the size of the playbook and giving the QB 2 sometimes three plays. JH had the same issue. It probably cost him a SB. (Not sure he still does. Haven’t followed Mich that closely)

Cut down the playbook and perhaps this becomes less of a problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. 

On DOG penalties, Matt Squeri on TOS did an exhaustive review of every Pac 12 team.  The conclusions comport with what your eyes told you:  Stanford ran fewer plays than any other conference team and had more DOG penalties.  [And this analysis did not include the number of timeouts  taken to avoid DOG penalties].  It's a pretty obvious red flag of ineptitude on the O side of the ball . . . isn't it?  [There are few things more inept than not even being able to get a play called and run within the time allotted].

[JohnR34231]

For all those who want to blame the offense for the loss, you'll be happy to know that KJ (at least somewhat) agrees with you.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports...461096.php

[JohnR34231]

For all those who want to blame the offense for the loss, you'll be happy to know that KJ (at least somewhat) agrees with you.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports...461096.php

[JohnR34231]

For all those who want to blame the offense for the loss, you'll be happy to know that KJ (at least somewhat) agrees with you.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports...461096.php

[JohnR34231]

For all those who want to blame the offense for the loss, you'll be happy to know that KJ (at least somewhat) agrees with you.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports...461096.php

[Goose]

Agree.

I chalk it up to the size of the playbook and giving the QB 2 sometimes three plays. JH had the same issue. It probably cost him a SB. (Not sure he still does. Haven’t followed Mich that closely)

Cut down the playbook and perhaps this becomes less of a problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. 

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18450.msg219836#msg219836 date=1514656088]
On DOG penalties, Matt Squeri on TOS did an exhaustive review of every Pac 12 team.  The conclusions comport with what your eyes told you:  Stanford ran fewer plays than any other conference team and had more DOG penalties.  [And this analysis did not include the number of timeouts  taken to avoid DOG penalties].  It's a pretty obvious red flag of ineptitude on the O side of the ball . . . isn't it?  [There are few things more inept than not even being able to get a play called and run within the time allotted].

[/quote]
I agree the issue needs to be addressed. I suspect that the QBs are graded on how well they select the correct play. Sometimes, when the clock is running down, it is too late to change the play, bad though it may be. For some reason, the QBs just keep trying to change the play/blocking/etc when there isn't enough time left to do that. There should be a hard threshold, like 4 seconds, where you live with what you have. I think that would eliminate a whole lot of the DOGs. It may be that the coaches think first and 15 is better than second and 12, and therefore would prefer to attempt to always run the "right" play, knowing that sometimes we will get a DOG in the attempt. If that is the case, we need to read the defense faster, and that needs to be a priority. Let's face it, most PAC-12 defenses aren't that complex. It shouldn't take 10 seconds to figure out what they are in. Teams like WSU who shift a lot may be a problem in that regard, but if we can force them to guess when we will snap the ball, that should help. Right now, they can pretty much count on us not playing "fast".

[Goose]

Agree.

I chalk it up to the size of the playbook and giving the QB 2 sometimes three plays. JH had the same issue. It probably cost him a SB. (Not sure he still does. Haven’t followed Mich that closely)

Cut down the playbook and perhaps this becomes less of a problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. 

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18450.msg219836#msg219836 date=1514656088]
On DOG penalties, Matt Squeri on TOS did an exhaustive review of every Pac 12 team.  The conclusions comport with what your eyes told you:  Stanford ran fewer plays than any other conference team and had more DOG penalties.  [And this analysis did not include the number of timeouts  taken to avoid DOG penalties].  It's a pretty obvious red flag of ineptitude on the O side of the ball . . . isn't it?  [There are few things more inept than not even being able to get a play called and run within the time allotted].

[/quote]
I agree the issue needs to be addressed. I suspect that the QBs are graded on how well they select the correct play. Sometimes, when the clock is running down, it is too late to change the play, bad though it may be. For some reason, the QBs just keep trying to change the play/blocking/etc when there isn't enough time left to do that. There should be a hard threshold, like 4 seconds, where you live with what you have. I think that would eliminate a whole lot of the DOGs. It may be that the coaches think first and 15 is better than second and 12, and therefore would prefer to attempt to always run the "right" play, knowing that sometimes we will get a DOG in the attempt. If that is the case, we need to read the defense faster, and that needs to be a priority. Let's face it, most PAC-12 defenses aren't that complex. It shouldn't take 10 seconds to figure out what they are in. Teams like WSU who shift a lot may be a problem in that regard, but if we can force them to guess when we will snap the ball, that should help. Right now, they can pretty much count on us not playing "fast".

[Goose]

Agree.

I chalk it up to the size of the playbook and giving the QB 2 sometimes three plays. JH had the same issue. It probably cost him a SB. (Not sure he still does. Haven’t followed Mich that closely)

Cut down the playbook and perhaps this becomes less of a problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. 

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18450.msg219836#msg219836 date=1514656088]
On DOG penalties, Matt Squeri on TOS did an exhaustive review of every Pac 12 team.  The conclusions comport with what your eyes told you:  Stanford ran fewer plays than any other conference team and had more DOG penalties.  [And this analysis did not include the number of timeouts  taken to avoid DOG penalties].  It's a pretty obvious red flag of ineptitude on the O side of the ball . . . isn't it?  [There are few things more inept than not even being able to get a play called and run within the time allotted].

[/quote]
I agree the issue needs to be addressed. I suspect that the QBs are graded on how well they select the correct play. Sometimes, when the clock is running down, it is too late to change the play, bad though it may be. For some reason, the QBs just keep trying to change the play/blocking/etc when there isn't enough time left to do that. There should be a hard threshold, like 4 seconds, where you live with what you have. I think that would eliminate a whole lot of the DOGs. It may be that the coaches think first and 15 is better than second and 12, and therefore would prefer to attempt to always run the "right" play, knowing that sometimes we will get a DOG in the attempt. If that is the case, we need to read the defense faster, and that needs to be a priority. Let's face it, most PAC-12 defenses aren't that complex. It shouldn't take 10 seconds to figure out what they are in. Teams like WSU who shift a lot may be a problem in that regard, but if we can force them to guess when we will snap the ball, that should help. Right now, they can pretty much count on us not playing "fast".

[Goose]

Agree.

I chalk it up to the size of the playbook and giving the QB 2 sometimes three plays. JH had the same issue. It probably cost him a SB. (Not sure he still does. Haven’t followed Mich that closely)

Cut down the playbook and perhaps this becomes less of a problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. 

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18450.msg219836#msg219836 date=1514656088]
On DOG penalties, Matt Squeri on TOS did an exhaustive review of every Pac 12 team.  The conclusions comport with what your eyes told you:  Stanford ran fewer plays than any other conference team and had more DOG penalties.  [And this analysis did not include the number of timeouts  taken to avoid DOG penalties].  It's a pretty obvious red flag of ineptitude on the O side of the ball . . . isn't it?  [There are few things more inept than not even being able to get a play called and run within the time allotted].

[/quote]
I agree the issue needs to be addressed. I suspect that the QBs are graded on how well they select the correct play. Sometimes, when the clock is running down, it is too late to change the play, bad though it may be. For some reason, the QBs just keep trying to change the play/blocking/etc when there isn't enough time left to do that. There should be a hard threshold, like 4 seconds, where you live with what you have. I think that would eliminate a whole lot of the DOGs. It may be that the coaches think first and 15 is better than second and 12, and therefore would prefer to attempt to always run the "right" play, knowing that sometimes we will get a DOG in the attempt. If that is the case, we need to read the defense faster, and that needs to be a priority. Let's face it, most PAC-12 defenses aren't that complex. It shouldn't take 10 seconds to figure out what they are in. Teams like WSU who shift a lot may be a problem in that regard, but if we can force them to guess when we will snap the ball, that should help. Right now, they can pretty much count on us not playing "fast".

[washingtonismoney]

For all those who want to blame the offense for the loss, you'll be happy to know that KJ (at least somewhat) agrees with you.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports...461096.php

But "blame" is too zero-sum. If you want to know "what events made the marginal difference between winning and losing," then all three units of the team could be blamed -- if Toner hits the 52 yard field goal (and perhaps also if the punt return unit doesn't surrender a TD), then Stanford probably wins. Does it follow that the special teams deserve exclusive or predominant fault for losing the game? No, of course. It's probably best to compare the Stanford performance to reasonable expectations of how they might perform pre-game, and ask whether that made the difference in the game. With that analysis, the most natural conclusion is that the offense didn't play perfect, but acquitted itself well against a tough opponent; that the defense gave up more points than expected, even given a tough opponent; and that the special teams played an underrated, but perhaps not decisive role, in losing.

[washingtonismoney]

For all those who want to blame the offense for the loss, you'll be happy to know that KJ (at least somewhat) agrees with you.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports...461096.php

But "blame" is too zero-sum. If you want to know "what events made the marginal difference between winning and losing," then all three units of the team could be blamed -- if Toner hits the 52 yard field goal (and perhaps also if the punt return unit doesn't surrender a TD), then Stanford probably wins. Does it follow that the special teams deserve exclusive or predominant fault for losing the game? No, of course. It's probably best to compare the Stanford performance to reasonable expectations of how they might perform pre-game, and ask whether that made the difference in the game. With that analysis, the most natural conclusion is that the offense didn't play perfect, but acquitted itself well against a tough opponent; that the defense gave up more points than expected, even given a tough opponent; and that the special teams played an underrated, but perhaps not decisive role, in losing.

[washingtonismoney]

For all those who want to blame the offense for the loss, you'll be happy to know that KJ (at least somewhat) agrees with you.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports...461096.php

But "blame" is too zero-sum. If you want to know "what events made the marginal difference between winning and losing," then all three units of the team could be blamed -- if Toner hits the 52 yard field goal (and perhaps also if the punt return unit doesn't surrender a TD), then Stanford probably wins. Does it follow that the special teams deserve exclusive or predominant fault for losing the game? No, of course. It's probably best to compare the Stanford performance to reasonable expectations of how they might perform pre-game, and ask whether that made the difference in the game. With that analysis, the most natural conclusion is that the offense didn't play perfect, but acquitted itself well against a tough opponent; that the defense gave up more points than expected, even given a tough opponent; and that the special teams played an underrated, but perhaps not decisive role, in losing.

[washingtonismoney]

For all those who want to blame the offense for the loss, you'll be happy to know that KJ (at least somewhat) agrees with you.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports...461096.php

But "blame" is too zero-sum. If you want to know "what events made the marginal difference between winning and losing," then all three units of the team could be blamed -- if Toner hits the 52 yard field goal (and perhaps also if the punt return unit doesn't surrender a TD), then Stanford probably wins. Does it follow that the special teams deserve exclusive or predominant fault for losing the game? No, of course. It's probably best to compare the Stanford performance to reasonable expectations of how they might perform pre-game, and ask whether that made the difference in the game. With that analysis, the most natural conclusion is that the offense didn't play perfect, but acquitted itself well against a tough opponent; that the defense gave up more points than expected, even given a tough opponent; and that the special teams played an underrated, but perhaps not decisive role, in losing.

[washingtonismoney]

One more note about the game. ESPN's FPI gives every game a "game score" grade, presumably adjusting each team's performance to the opponent, venue, etc. to describe how well a team played in each game. Against TCU, Stanford's game score was 67, which is the best of any loss so far this year. The score (unsurprisingly) is better than the Oregon State win, and only slightly worse than the Rice and 59er wins this year. In other words, this was a pretty well-played game for Stanford all things considered, and while it's never fun to lose, probably doesn't indicate anything terribly amiss for Shaw or the program.

[washingtonismoney]

One more note about the game. ESPN's FPI gives every game a "game score" grade, presumably adjusting each team's performance to the opponent, venue, etc. to describe how well a team played in each game. Against TCU, Stanford's game score was 67, which is the best of any loss so far this year. The score (unsurprisingly) is better than the Oregon State win, and only slightly worse than the Rice and 59er wins this year. In other words, this was a pretty well-played game for Stanford all things considered, and while it's never fun to lose, probably doesn't indicate anything terribly amiss for Shaw or the program.

[washingtonismoney]

One more note about the game. ESPN's FPI gives every game a "game score" grade, presumably adjusting each team's performance to the opponent, venue, etc. to describe how well a team played in each game. Against TCU, Stanford's game score was 67, which is the best of any loss so far this year. The score (unsurprisingly) is better than the Oregon State win, and only slightly worse than the Rice and 59er wins this year. In other words, this was a pretty well-played game for Stanford all things considered, and while it's never fun to lose, probably doesn't indicate anything terribly amiss for Shaw or the program.

[washingtonismoney]

One more note about the game. ESPN's FPI gives every game a "game score" grade, presumably adjusting each team's performance to the opponent, venue, etc. to describe how well a team played in each game. Against TCU, Stanford's game score was 67, which is the best of any loss so far this year. The score (unsurprisingly) is better than the Oregon State win, and only slightly worse than the Rice and 59er wins this year. In other words, this was a pretty well-played game for Stanford all things considered, and while it's never fun to lose, probably doesn't indicate anything terribly amiss for Shaw or the program.

[stupac2]

One more note about the game. ESPN's FPI gives every game a "game score" grade, presumably adjusting each team's performance to the opponent, venue, etc. to describe how well a team played in each game. Against TCU, Stanford's game score was 67, which is the best of any loss so far this year. The score (unsurprisingly) is better than the Oregon State win, and only slightly worse than the Rice and 59er wins this year. In other words, this was a pretty well-played game for Stanford all things considered, and while it's never fun to lose, probably doesn't indicate anything terribly amiss for Shaw or the program.

Right, people around here seem remarkably unwilling to admit that the other team is sometimes just better than we are. There's a reason TCU was favored going in...

[stupac2]

One more note about the game. ESPN's FPI gives every game a "game score" grade, presumably adjusting each team's performance to the opponent, venue, etc. to describe how well a team played in each game. Against TCU, Stanford's game score was 67, which is the best of any loss so far this year. The score (unsurprisingly) is better than the Oregon State win, and only slightly worse than the Rice and 59er wins this year. In other words, this was a pretty well-played game for Stanford all things considered, and while it's never fun to lose, probably doesn't indicate anything terribly amiss for Shaw or the program.

Right, people around here seem remarkably unwilling to admit that the other team is sometimes just better than we are. There's a reason TCU was favored going in...

[stupac2]

One more note about the game. ESPN's FPI gives every game a "game score" grade, presumably adjusting each team's performance to the opponent, venue, etc. to describe how well a team played in each game. Against TCU, Stanford's game score was 67, which is the best of any loss so far this year. The score (unsurprisingly) is better than the Oregon State win, and only slightly worse than the Rice and 59er wins this year. In other words, this was a pretty well-played game for Stanford all things considered, and while it's never fun to lose, probably doesn't indicate anything terribly amiss for Shaw or the program.

Right, people around here seem remarkably unwilling to admit that the other team is sometimes just better than we are. There's a reason TCU was favored going in...

[stupac2]

One more note about the game. ESPN's FPI gives every game a "game score" grade, presumably adjusting each team's performance to the opponent, venue, etc. to describe how well a team played in each game. Against TCU, Stanford's game score was 67, which is the best of any loss so far this year. The score (unsurprisingly) is better than the Oregon State win, and only slightly worse than the Rice and 59er wins this year. In other words, this was a pretty well-played game for Stanford all things considered, and while it's never fun to lose, probably doesn't indicate anything terribly amiss for Shaw or the program.

Right, people around here seem remarkably unwilling to admit that the other team is sometimes just better than we are. There's a reason TCU was favored going in...

[phxfan]

Forgive me if I don't rely on ESPN's "game score" to determine the health of the program.  If we didn't want to play in TCU's backyard then perhaps we should have won on of the three close loses.

[phxfan]

Forgive me if I don't rely on ESPN's "game score" to determine the health of the program.  If we didn't want to play in TCU's backyard then perhaps we should have won on of the three close loses.

[phxfan]

Forgive me if I don't rely on ESPN's "game score" to determine the health of the program.  If we didn't want to play in TCU's backyard then perhaps we should have won on of the three close loses.

[phxfan]

Forgive me if I don't rely on ESPN's "game score" to determine the health of the program.  If we didn't want to play in TCU's backyard then perhaps we should have won on of the three close loses.

[Mick]

Agree.

I chalk it up to the size of the playbook and giving the QB 2 sometimes three plays. JH had the same issue. It probably cost him a SB. (Not sure he still does. Haven’t followed Mich that closely)

Cut down the playbook and perhaps this becomes less of a problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. 

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18450.msg219836#msg219836 date=1514656088]
On DOG penalties, Matt Squeri on TOS did an exhaustive review of every Pac 12 team.  The conclusions comport with what your eyes told you:  Stanford ran fewer plays than any other conference team and had more DOG penalties.  [And this analysis did not include the number of timeouts  taken to avoid DOG penalties].  It's a pretty obvious red flag of ineptitude on the O side of the ball . . . isn't it?  [There are few things more inept than not even being able to get a play called and run within the time allotted].

[/quote]


I think this is the slightly illogical outcome of depending on measurably smarter players to integrate and execute on sideline calls much more effectively and quickly than other players.  Sometimes it just doesn't happen.

[Mick]

Agree.

I chalk it up to the size of the playbook and giving the QB 2 sometimes three plays. JH had the same issue. It probably cost him a SB. (Not sure he still does. Haven’t followed Mich that closely)

Cut down the playbook and perhaps this becomes less of a problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. 

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18450.msg219836#msg219836 date=1514656088]
On DOG penalties, Matt Squeri on TOS did an exhaustive review of every Pac 12 team.  The conclusions comport with what your eyes told you:  Stanford ran fewer plays than any other conference team and had more DOG penalties.  [And this analysis did not include the number of timeouts  taken to avoid DOG penalties].  It's a pretty obvious red flag of ineptitude on the O side of the ball . . . isn't it?  [There are few things more inept than not even being able to get a play called and run within the time allotted].

[/quote]


I think this is the slightly illogical outcome of depending on measurably smarter players to integrate and execute on sideline calls much more effectively and quickly than other players.  Sometimes it just doesn't happen.