[CowboyIndian]

And why, in the name of everything that we hold dear, can we NEVER pass out of the OGRE? Does anyone recall the 3rd down pass to Hewitt in the Oregon game a few years ago? He was on his way to TD-land when either he fell or the pass fell short. We haven't done it since.

Edit: I forgot the pass to (I think) Hooper at Colorado a couple of years ago. OK, that's one.

[CowboyIndian]

And why, in the name of everything that we hold dear, can we NEVER pass out of the OGRE? Does anyone recall the 3rd down pass to Hewitt in the Oregon game a few years ago? He was on his way to TD-land when either he fell or the pass fell short. We haven't done it since.

Edit: I forgot the pass to (I think) Hooper at Colorado a couple of years ago. OK, that's one.

[Phogge]

I think it was Schultz. Plus this year they threw a fourth down TD pass to Heimuli vs Wazzu.

[Phogge]

I think it was Schultz. Plus this year they threw a fourth down TD pass to Heimuli vs Wazzu.

[lex24]

I don’t think they have used OGRE much these last several games. If at all. Hate the formation in general.

And why, in the name of everything that we hold dear, can we NEVER pass out of the OGRE? Does anyone recall the 3rd down pass to Hewitt in the Oregon game a few years ago? He was on his way to TD-land when either he fell or the pass fell short. We haven't done it since.

Edit: I forgot the pass to (I think) Hooper at Colorado a couple of years ago. OK, that's one.

[lex24]

I don’t think they have used OGRE much these last several games. If at all. Hate the formation in general.

And why, in the name of everything that we hold dear, can we NEVER pass out of the OGRE? Does anyone recall the 3rd down pass to Hewitt in the Oregon game a few years ago? He was on his way to TD-land when either he fell or the pass fell short. We haven't done it since.

Edit: I forgot the pass to (I think) Hooper at Colorado a couple of years ago. OK, that's one.

[CTcard]

In fact, given the frequency of passing including the 9(?) straight passes to start the game, the UCLA game might be the least problematic game of the year as far as running against numbers.

Stanford has been throwing like that for some time now.

Against a couple of teams (UW, Utah) they did try to run for a series or two, but then went to a full pass offense.
[UW was the most extreme. Ran 4 of 6 plays on the first two drives, then passed 24 of the next 27. And note that in both UW and Utah games the passing game provided the big mistakes that lost the games.]

I know some find my thesis tiresome, but it takes a qualitative judgment so it's difficult to put into numbers.

I don't find it tiresome, and I agree that one needs to start with a qualitative judgement.
But it is also worth checking if numbers are consistent with your judgement. It is seductively easy to have an idea, and then only notice the individual cases that back that idea but not those that counter.

In this case I'd say there is a mix. There is no doubt that Stanford came into the season planning to run an offense they could not do effectively. It took some games to change tactics. The appropriate criticisms of the offense today are not quite the same as those from the first four games of the season.

The line of criticism that it took too long to change the offensive tactics is interesting.
I think that the coaching staff heavily messed up in evaluating what their offense could do heading into the season. It's clear they were simply wrong about what would be the strengths and weaknesses of this offense.
However, given the offense they designed for the season, I think they actually did a very good job of scrapping that plan and coming up with something more workable once the deficiencies became unmistakable.
So, a mixed evaluation.

PFF tries to but I don't always agree with their judgment.

There are some judgement calls in what PFF tries to do, but from what I have seen they simply are inaccurate much of the time. My impression is that they really do have a pro football focus, and simply haven't put as much care into college stats.
[I admit that for at least two reasons that impression may not be right. The first is that I haven't looked at their pro numbers enough to be sure they are better. The second is that PFF may be getting better; I only check them from time to time and then only on articles referring to their numbers as I am not going to pay these guys.]

Is Costello to blame?  Earlier in the year I wondered, but it's apparent now that he is not coached to change the play in most cases of running against numbers. 

That's an interesting issue.
Clearly Costello is changing something about the play at the line quite often. However, in situations where we see stacked boxes in likely run formations we still end up running, and vice versa. I suspect that means he is largely calling out changes in blocking assignments, though of course other details could also be at issue. I do wonder about the range of counters that Costello is empowered with.

We still have not figured how to block SDSU's scheme, but we effectively countered in the second half by attaching the man coverage on the outside.

I am not sure I would focus on SDSU with "still" having not figured them out. Last year the SDSU game was an extreme version of the run game much of the year: lots of stuffs and some home runs. This year the SDSU game was also a version of the run game from the whole year: nothing.

But more broadly, Stanford seems to have had a multi-year problem with small, quick, shifting defensive alignments. Our fundamental mode is simple enough that I am surprised that is such a problem. I have thought for a couple of years that we could do to WSU what UW has done to WSU - run right over them. That has not happened. [For three years in a row in games vs WSU, Stanford has had less than 1/2 the rush yards as UW. And in 2015 we were on that track until Hogan himself starting taking over in non-standard run plays.]
I know there have been some issues of relative health on both sides in those years, but overall I still don't quite get that.

But it is clear to me that for Coach Shaw commitment to the run means running against numbers on a regular basis.  It's closer to Bo Schembechler than Bill Walsh.  It's worked remarkably well for longer than I would have expected, and I hope we maintain our physical identity.  But I also hope we continue to spread the field with the passing game and empower the QB attack the more weakly defended areas of the field on run and pass plays.

I think any commitment to the run game means running against numbers on a regular basis. 

Walsh, at the 49ers, was more like Leach than most anyone in the Pac 12 now. The 49ers developed a ball-control pass game based on short passes looking for YAC and swing passes to RBs replacing much of the run game. The 49ers passed on more plays than they ran, back in the 1980s when teams didn't do that (though he did move away from that a bit, his last two years the run percentages went up).

While it's not necessarily incompatible, I fear that spreading the field makes a physical identity difficult. At any rate, right now the issue is not so much to maintain but rather to reestablish such an identity - right now Stanford simply doesn't have it.

[CTcard]

In fact, given the frequency of passing including the 9(?) straight passes to start the game, the UCLA game might be the least problematic game of the year as far as running against numbers.

Stanford has been throwing like that for some time now.

Against a couple of teams (UW, Utah) they did try to run for a series or two, but then went to a full pass offense.
[UW was the most extreme. Ran 4 of 6 plays on the first two drives, then passed 24 of the next 27. And note that in both UW and Utah games the passing game provided the big mistakes that lost the games.]

I know some find my thesis tiresome, but it takes a qualitative judgment so it's difficult to put into numbers.

I don't find it tiresome, and I agree that one needs to start with a qualitative judgement.
But it is also worth checking if numbers are consistent with your judgement. It is seductively easy to have an idea, and then only notice the individual cases that back that idea but not those that counter.

In this case I'd say there is a mix. There is no doubt that Stanford came into the season planning to run an offense they could not do effectively. It took some games to change tactics. The appropriate criticisms of the offense today are not quite the same as those from the first four games of the season.

The line of criticism that it took too long to change the offensive tactics is interesting.
I think that the coaching staff heavily messed up in evaluating what their offense could do heading into the season. It's clear they were simply wrong about what would be the strengths and weaknesses of this offense.
However, given the offense they designed for the season, I think they actually did a very good job of scrapping that plan and coming up with something more workable once the deficiencies became unmistakable.
So, a mixed evaluation.

PFF tries to but I don't always agree with their judgment.

There are some judgement calls in what PFF tries to do, but from what I have seen they simply are inaccurate much of the time. My impression is that they really do have a pro football focus, and simply haven't put as much care into college stats.
[I admit that for at least two reasons that impression may not be right. The first is that I haven't looked at their pro numbers enough to be sure they are better. The second is that PFF may be getting better; I only check them from time to time and then only on articles referring to their numbers as I am not going to pay these guys.]

Is Costello to blame?  Earlier in the year I wondered, but it's apparent now that he is not coached to change the play in most cases of running against numbers. 

That's an interesting issue.
Clearly Costello is changing something about the play at the line quite often. However, in situations where we see stacked boxes in likely run formations we still end up running, and vice versa. I suspect that means he is largely calling out changes in blocking assignments, though of course other details could also be at issue. I do wonder about the range of counters that Costello is empowered with.

We still have not figured how to block SDSU's scheme, but we effectively countered in the second half by attaching the man coverage on the outside.

I am not sure I would focus on SDSU with "still" having not figured them out. Last year the SDSU game was an extreme version of the run game much of the year: lots of stuffs and some home runs. This year the SDSU game was also a version of the run game from the whole year: nothing.

But more broadly, Stanford seems to have had a multi-year problem with small, quick, shifting defensive alignments. Our fundamental mode is simple enough that I am surprised that is such a problem. I have thought for a couple of years that we could do to WSU what UW has done to WSU - run right over them. That has not happened. [For three years in a row in games vs WSU, Stanford has had less than 1/2 the rush yards as UW. And in 2015 we were on that track until Hogan himself starting taking over in non-standard run plays.]
I know there have been some issues of relative health on both sides in those years, but overall I still don't quite get that.

But it is clear to me that for Coach Shaw commitment to the run means running against numbers on a regular basis.  It's closer to Bo Schembechler than Bill Walsh.  It's worked remarkably well for longer than I would have expected, and I hope we maintain our physical identity.  But I also hope we continue to spread the field with the passing game and empower the QB attack the more weakly defended areas of the field on run and pass plays.

I think any commitment to the run game means running against numbers on a regular basis. 

Walsh, at the 49ers, was more like Leach than most anyone in the Pac 12 now. The 49ers developed a ball-control pass game based on short passes looking for YAC and swing passes to RBs replacing much of the run game. The 49ers passed on more plays than they ran, back in the 1980s when teams didn't do that (though he did move away from that a bit, his last two years the run percentages went up).

While it's not necessarily incompatible, I fear that spreading the field makes a physical identity difficult. At any rate, right now the issue is not so much to maintain but rather to reestablish such an identity - right now Stanford simply doesn't have it.