[Hank 91]

Here's a great piece from Grantland on Chip Kelly's offense. Must read before Saturday.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8631...liar-seems

[Hank 91]

Here's a great piece from Grantland on Chip Kelly's offense. Must read before Saturday.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8631...liar-seems

[OutsiderFan]

That was a great article.

Chip Kelly kinds of makes it clear that if you are to err on the side of taking out the Oregon QB as a run threat, that's the best way to stop the Ducks.  He does not want his QB running very much, because he doesn't want him to take a pounding.

The other thing is, if Oregon is making its play calls based pretty much exclusively on where the defense lines up pre-snap, it seems defenses have to be ready to do a lot of shifting and disguising their coverages.

As for Stanford in particular, I would play a lot of nickel defense (take one ILB off the field) and spy Amanam (and Harris) on Mariota.  Don't make Thomas and Murphy make decisions between taking the QB and the RB on the option.  Tell them to hit the RB all the time, and Amanam to hit the QB hard every time.  Stanford's DL seems to be good enough that losing one ILB isn't going to dramatically hurt Stanford's defense against the run. 

It will be quite interesting to see what Mason has schemed and strategized for this game.  I mean my guess is a butt-load of focus was put on defending Oregon this past offseason.

[OutsiderFan]

That was a great article.

Chip Kelly kinds of makes it clear that if you are to err on the side of taking out the Oregon QB as a run threat, that's the best way to stop the Ducks.  He does not want his QB running very much, because he doesn't want him to take a pounding.

The other thing is, if Oregon is making its play calls based pretty much exclusively on where the defense lines up pre-snap, it seems defenses have to be ready to do a lot of shifting and disguising their coverages.

As for Stanford in particular, I would play a lot of nickel defense (take one ILB off the field) and spy Amanam (and Harris) on Mariota.  Don't make Thomas and Murphy make decisions between taking the QB and the RB on the option.  Tell them to hit the RB all the time, and Amanam to hit the QB hard every time.  Stanford's DL seems to be good enough that losing one ILB isn't going to dramatically hurt Stanford's defense against the run. 

It will be quite interesting to see what Mason has schemed and strategized for this game.  I mean my guess is a butt-load of focus was put on defending Oregon this past offseason.

[81alum]

That was indeed a superb article.

I remember well when Walsh began the trend toward situational defensive substitutions.  The no huddle is the logical countermove.  But what I did not know was that Oregon uses three paces--the red-yellow-green thing was fascinating, especially the way in which the pace itself (and not just the play) is situationally adjusted according to the defense! 

The X's and O's part of the article was also well done.  The way in which Oregon defeats gap-coverage was revealing. 

Mason has had a year and new personnel to get ready for Oregon.  I think it is important that he gives his defense a way to at least occasionally stop the Oregon offense.  Even if we should lose, I do hope to see progress on the defensive side.  However, given our poor defensive play against Arizona, I am somewhat fearful of what will happen.

[81alum]

That was indeed a superb article.

I remember well when Walsh began the trend toward situational defensive substitutions.  The no huddle is the logical countermove.  But what I did not know was that Oregon uses three paces--the red-yellow-green thing was fascinating, especially the way in which the pace itself (and not just the play) is situationally adjusted according to the defense! 

The X's and O's part of the article was also well done.  The way in which Oregon defeats gap-coverage was revealing. 

Mason has had a year and new personnel to get ready for Oregon.  I think it is important that he gives his defense a way to at least occasionally stop the Oregon offense.  Even if we should lose, I do hope to see progress on the defensive side.  However, given our poor defensive play against Arizona, I am somewhat fearful of what will happen.

[ATLCard]

The more I learn about Kelly's offensive philosophy the more impressed I am.  It appears that there are two aspects to his philosophy:

1) His version of the no-huddle spread outlined, including multiple speeds.  There are lots of spread offenses out there, but looks like Kelly has designed, executed, and staffed the best one.  Not that I have spread envy -- I think the Harbs/Shaw offense is a better fit for us, and the more spreads proliferate the bigger the advantage to presenting a different look.  Unfortunately it appears to me that the Pac-12 has now adjusted to our offense and I'm not seeing enough counter-adjustments/innovation to keep us ahead of the curve.

2) Kelly's w-t-f attitude towards risk (which is not crazy but simply a willingness to play the odds when others are afraid).  Some aspects of this are a great fit with his offense -- he's going to have higher success on 4th down with the no huddle while defenses are still celebrating their 3rd down stop.  Others, like 2pt conversions and onside kicks anyone can do and have the same success if they practice it enough and call it at the right time. I didn't like our AZ and OSU 2pt attempts but at least Shaw is practicing it.  I think I recall an earlier game where Shaw was trying a surprise 2pt conversion and was livid at the officials for not spotting the ball in a timely manner (he ended up kicking instead).  I loved the idea even if it didn't happen.

So what does this mean for Saturday's game?  People are asking if Shaw knows that he needs to go for it on 4th down, do fake kicks, onside kicks, go for 2pts, etc.  I expect you will see him go for it on 4th down in Oregon territory, but that's about it on the risk decision side unless he has seen something specific from Oregon's special teams that he thinks he can exploit.  Shaw going to be who he is.

The bigger question for me is whether we are prepared for Kelly's risk decisions.  The past two years the results have been characterized by some as blow-outs created by Kelly's offense, but that's not the way I see it.  In each case I think we were playing his offense even and lost to Kelly's attitude.  Two years ago we were up 11 points in the first half when he surprised us with an onside kick.  Last year he broke our back scoring on 4th and 7 from our 40, and against our confused and un-set defense that was still celebrating the 3rd down stop (I recall screaming 'take a time-out' at the time).

So, we get broken because we are surprised that Kelly is trying an early onside kick, or going for it on 4th and 7 from our territory?  Hello?

I would like us to have Kelly’s attitude, but I think we can win this game the way Shaw is likely to call it (and I think/hope that he will be more aggressive than we have seen so far this year).  However, no way we win if we act surprised when Kelly is Kelly.

[ATLCard]

The more I learn about Kelly's offensive philosophy the more impressed I am.  It appears that there are two aspects to his philosophy:

1) His version of the no-huddle spread outlined, including multiple speeds.  There are lots of spread offenses out there, but looks like Kelly has designed, executed, and staffed the best one.  Not that I have spread envy -- I think the Harbs/Shaw offense is a better fit for us, and the more spreads proliferate the bigger the advantage to presenting a different look.  Unfortunately it appears to me that the Pac-12 has now adjusted to our offense and I'm not seeing enough counter-adjustments/innovation to keep us ahead of the curve.

2) Kelly's w-t-f attitude towards risk (which is not crazy but simply a willingness to play the odds when others are afraid).  Some aspects of this are a great fit with his offense -- he's going to have higher success on 4th down with the no huddle while defenses are still celebrating their 3rd down stop.  Others, like 2pt conversions and onside kicks anyone can do and have the same success if they practice it enough and call it at the right time. I didn't like our AZ and OSU 2pt attempts but at least Shaw is practicing it.  I think I recall an earlier game where Shaw was trying a surprise 2pt conversion and was livid at the officials for not spotting the ball in a timely manner (he ended up kicking instead).  I loved the idea even if it didn't happen.

So what does this mean for Saturday's game?  People are asking if Shaw knows that he needs to go for it on 4th down, do fake kicks, onside kicks, go for 2pts, etc.  I expect you will see him go for it on 4th down in Oregon territory, but that's about it on the risk decision side unless he has seen something specific from Oregon's special teams that he thinks he can exploit.  Shaw going to be who he is.

The bigger question for me is whether we are prepared for Kelly's risk decisions.  The past two years the results have been characterized by some as blow-outs created by Kelly's offense, but that's not the way I see it.  In each case I think we were playing his offense even and lost to Kelly's attitude.  Two years ago we were up 11 points in the first half when he surprised us with an onside kick.  Last year he broke our back scoring on 4th and 7 from our 40, and against our confused and un-set defense that was still celebrating the 3rd down stop (I recall screaming 'take a time-out' at the time).

So, we get broken because we are surprised that Kelly is trying an early onside kick, or going for it on 4th and 7 from our territory?  Hello?

I would like us to have Kelly’s attitude, but I think we can win this game the way Shaw is likely to call it (and I think/hope that he will be more aggressive than we have seen so far this year).  However, no way we win if we act surprised when Kelly is Kelly.

[JohnR34231]

The article certainly supports what I have thought for some time. Kelley is an outstanding coach and a great football mind. He is able to dominate other teams with talent that really isn't all that much better than the opposition. He will be a success in the NFL because if what he's doing now doesn't work he'll figure out something that does.

It will be interesting to see who the Ducks get to replace him when he does leave. I would bet on the current offensive coordinator.

I have obviously not studied the Oregon offense the way the author of the article has, but my general impression is to beat them you absolutely have to stop the run, even if it means leaving yourself vulnerable to the pass. You have to hope that either their QB has an off day throwing the ball, ot you can put enough points on the board to win even if they get 50 or so.

[JohnR34231]

The article certainly supports what I have thought for some time. Kelley is an outstanding coach and a great football mind. He is able to dominate other teams with talent that really isn't all that much better than the opposition. He will be a success in the NFL because if what he's doing now doesn't work he'll figure out something that does.

It will be interesting to see who the Ducks get to replace him when he does leave. I would bet on the current offensive coordinator.

I have obviously not studied the Oregon offense the way the author of the article has, but my general impression is to beat them you absolutely have to stop the run, even if it means leaving yourself vulnerable to the pass. You have to hope that either their QB has an off day throwing the ball, ot you can put enough points on the board to win even if they get 50 or so.

[Roberton3]

Two years ago we were up 11 points in the first half when he surprised us with an onside kick. 

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I'm going to nitpick on this one example.  The key on that play wasn't that the Stanford team was surprised -- it was that the referees were surprised.  There was a Stanford player in great position to field that kick, but Oregon took him out with an illegal block before the ball got there.  The referees totally missed it.  Even this reinforces your general point, though.  An extra benefit of Oregon's approach is that by taking the referees by surprise, they can get away with stuff like that.

[Roberton3]

Two years ago we were up 11 points in the first half when he surprised us with an onside kick. 

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I'm going to nitpick on this one example.  The key on that play wasn't that the Stanford team was surprised -- it was that the referees were surprised.  There was a Stanford player in great position to field that kick, but Oregon took him out with an illegal block before the ball got there.  The referees totally missed it.  Even this reinforces your general point, though.  An extra benefit of Oregon's approach is that by taking the referees by surprise, they can get away with stuff like that.

[Griffins78]

An extra benefit of Oregon's approach is that by taking the referees by surprise, they can get away with stuff like that.

Agreed. I also think their "smaller" OL players are experts at holding onto DL jerseys without getting called.

[Griffins78]

An extra benefit of Oregon's approach is that by taking the referees by surprise, they can get away with stuff like that.

Agreed. I also think their "smaller" OL players are experts at holding onto DL jerseys without getting called.

[Viking_Guy]

Griffin--

Not just their OL; their receivers on bubble screens and similar spread plays also are pretty darned good at not getting flagged for grabbing and hooking DBs to prevent them from making a break on the ball and the receiver.  I'm interested to see if there's one call against the Oregon wideouts for holding, offensive PI or a pick play during the game.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Griffin--

Not just their OL; their receivers on bubble screens and similar spread plays also are pretty darned good at not getting flagged for grabbing and hooking DBs to prevent them from making a break on the ball and the receiver.  I'm interested to see if there's one call against the Oregon wideouts for holding, offensive PI or a pick play during the game.

VG

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=6882.msg52181#msg52181 date=1353001339]An extra benefit of Oregon's approach is that by taking the referees by surprise, they can get away with stuff like that.

Agreed. I also think their "smaller" OL players are experts at holding onto DL jerseys without getting called.
[/quote]

Interestingly, Oregon got called for holding a few times against Cal last week, and I didn't see any blatant non-calls through the 3 quarters I watched.  But, Stanford has been the victim of many Oregon holdings not called in the last three games.  I remember one TD run in each of the last three games where Oregon flagrantly held, the hold was instrumental in giving the runner the room to score, and it was not called.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=6882.msg52181#msg52181 date=1353001339]An extra benefit of Oregon's approach is that by taking the referees by surprise, they can get away with stuff like that.

Agreed. I also think their "smaller" OL players are experts at holding onto DL jerseys without getting called.
[/quote]

Interestingly, Oregon got called for holding a few times against Cal last week, and I didn't see any blatant non-calls through the 3 quarters I watched.  But, Stanford has been the victim of many Oregon holdings not called in the last three games.  I remember one TD run in each of the last three games where Oregon flagrantly held, the hold was instrumental in giving the runner the room to score, and it was not called.

[needle]

Looking at the drive chart for the Ducks-Kal game, the Ducks had three "three-and-out" drives in the first half (well, one was "four-and-out"). Yet Oregon still finished the first half with 24 points. They are scary good, but maybe if Kal's offense hadn't been so anemic (they also had three "three-and-out" drives in the first half), they would have had a shot at the lead in the first half.

I'm confident that the Stanford defense can force Oregon to punt after similar short drives in the first half, but I believe it's what Hogan and Taylor are going to able to do (or not do) early that will determine if Stanford has a real shot at the upset.

[needle]

Looking at the drive chart for the Ducks-Kal game, the Ducks had three "three-and-out" drives in the first half (well, one was "four-and-out"). Yet Oregon still finished the first half with 24 points. They are scary good, but maybe if Kal's offense hadn't been so anemic (they also had three "three-and-out" drives in the first half), they would have had a shot at the lead in the first half.

I'm confident that the Stanford defense can force Oregon to punt after similar short drives in the first half, but I believe it's what Hogan and Taylor are going to able to do (or not do) early that will determine if Stanford has a real shot at the upset.

[ATLCard]

Yes, Oregon's clear-out of the Stanford player on the onside kick was illegal and frustrating, but doesn't change my conclusion -- we weren't ready as he was the only man in the front who wasn't retreating when the Ducks kicked.  And, yes they surprised the refs too but it's our responsibility to know Kelly's tendancies, can't rely on the refs for that.  Aggression sometimes makes its own luck.

And if we are going to focus on rule-bending and what the Ducks get away with, having Lane Kiffin in the Pac-12 sets a pretty low bar for everyone else...  Mike Riley is what I would consider a pretty clean coach, but that was a totally illegal pick OSU got away with on one of their scores.  Grab a tissue if you don't like it -- every coach is going to look for advantages.

[ATLCard]

Yes, Oregon's clear-out of the Stanford player on the onside kick was illegal and frustrating, but doesn't change my conclusion -- we weren't ready as he was the only man in the front who wasn't retreating when the Ducks kicked.  And, yes they surprised the refs too but it's our responsibility to know Kelly's tendancies, can't rely on the refs for that.  Aggression sometimes makes its own luck.

And if we are going to focus on rule-bending and what the Ducks get away with, having Lane Kiffin in the Pac-12 sets a pretty low bar for everyone else...  Mike Riley is what I would consider a pretty clean coach, but that was a totally illegal pick OSU got away with on one of their scores.  Grab a tissue if you don't like it -- every coach is going to look for advantages.

[g1313]

The other thing is, if Oregon is making its play calls based pretty much exclusively on where the defense lines up pre-snap, it seems defenses have to be ready to do a lot of shifting and disguising their coverages.

As for Stanford in particular, I would play a lot of nickel defense (take one ILB off the field) and spy Amanam (and Harris) on Mariota.  Don't make Thomas and Murphy make decisions between taking the QB and the RB on the option.  Tell them to hit the RB all the time, and Amanam to hit the QB hard every time.  Stanford's DL seems to be good enough that losing one ILB isn't going to dramatically hurt Stanford's defense against the run. 

I have some questions about this approach:

It seems like it would be hard to disguise the number of guys you have in deep coverage, which was the primary pre-snap read called out in the article. I was reading another article yesterday about why spread might not be as successful in the NFL, and one of the theories is that you do have freaks of nature like Ed Reed on the Ravens who can line up in the box and then drop into deep coverage on the other side of the field. Unfortunately very few teams in college have that kind of talent. I wonder if the cure might be worse than the disease here - we try too hard to disguise our defense, and it just plays into Oregon's hands by making it more complicated for us and more out of position, while Oregon will just continue to do what they always do.

I would also be concerned about your assertion that "one less ILB won't hurt our run defense". Oregon's whole strategy is built around getting an man-on-man advantage at the LOS, and while our DL has been great at getting sacks against the pass, we've shown some vulnerability in giving up running lanes even with our base defense, particularly vs Arizona.

[g1313]

The other thing is, if Oregon is making its play calls based pretty much exclusively on where the defense lines up pre-snap, it seems defenses have to be ready to do a lot of shifting and disguising their coverages.

As for Stanford in particular, I would play a lot of nickel defense (take one ILB off the field) and spy Amanam (and Harris) on Mariota.  Don't make Thomas and Murphy make decisions between taking the QB and the RB on the option.  Tell them to hit the RB all the time, and Amanam to hit the QB hard every time.  Stanford's DL seems to be good enough that losing one ILB isn't going to dramatically hurt Stanford's defense against the run. 

I have some questions about this approach:

It seems like it would be hard to disguise the number of guys you have in deep coverage, which was the primary pre-snap read called out in the article. I was reading another article yesterday about why spread might not be as successful in the NFL, and one of the theories is that you do have freaks of nature like Ed Reed on the Ravens who can line up in the box and then drop into deep coverage on the other side of the field. Unfortunately very few teams in college have that kind of talent. I wonder if the cure might be worse than the disease here - we try too hard to disguise our defense, and it just plays into Oregon's hands by making it more complicated for us and more out of position, while Oregon will just continue to do what they always do.

I would also be concerned about your assertion that "one less ILB won't hurt our run defense". Oregon's whole strategy is built around getting an man-on-man advantage at the LOS, and while our DL has been great at getting sacks against the pass, we've shown some vulnerability in giving up running lanes even with our base defense, particularly vs Arizona.

[Bruce Wang]

Can we get Ray Lewis for one of his "pissed off for greatness" pre-game speeches?

[Bruce Wang]

Can we get Ray Lewis for one of his "pissed off for greatness" pre-game speeches?

[stanfan]

i'd rather get Ray Lewis to play on our team Saturday.

[stanfan]

i'd rather get Ray Lewis to play on our team Saturday.

[fullmetal]

Oregon holds to great effect.  The refs seem less likely to call holding when the result is a brobdingnagian play if it happens so often that people think the officiating is getting in the way of exciting (but illegal) football.

[fullmetal]

Oregon holds to great effect.  The refs seem less likely to call holding when the result is a brobdingnagian play if it happens so often that people think the officiating is getting in the way of exciting (but illegal) football.