[81alum]

A year ago at this time many of us were worried that our defense was very good but somewhat old fashioned, and that it had a hard time coping with the trend toward more and more spread offenses.  Oregon, after all, had been our stumbling block for a couple of years. 

Early last season these fears were somewhat inflamed by the success that SJSU and Arizona had at times against our defense.  Our defense, frankly, looked inept against Arizona.

But then we beat Oregon by holding their vaunted offense to 14 points, although we did give up 405 yards.  It was a great surprise after the Arizona debacle.  And since then I have heard very little about a supposed vulnerability of our defense to the spread--the Oregon game quieted those concerns.  But I am not so sure.  UCLA in the championship game put 461 yards on our defense and led us in most offensive categories.  And Wisconsin was as conventional an offense as we could reasonably hope for, and so of course our defense throttled them.

Looking at our schedule, I can now see that the majority of teams we will play this year are using the spread--it has become the new "normal" for offense, with even Cal joining those ranks.

So here are my questions:

1. What makes a defense well suited to stopping the spread, as opposed to being well suited to stop other offenses?  I would presume the depth of the secondary?  How deep is our secondary?

2. How do other Cardboarders think our defense will do against the spread this year?

[81alum]

A year ago at this time many of us were worried that our defense was very good but somewhat old fashioned, and that it had a hard time coping with the trend toward more and more spread offenses.  Oregon, after all, had been our stumbling block for a couple of years. 

Early last season these fears were somewhat inflamed by the success that SJSU and Arizona had at times against our defense.  Our defense, frankly, looked inept against Arizona.

But then we beat Oregon by holding their vaunted offense to 14 points, although we did give up 405 yards.  It was a great surprise after the Arizona debacle.  And since then I have heard very little about a supposed vulnerability of our defense to the spread--the Oregon game quieted those concerns.  But I am not so sure.  UCLA in the championship game put 461 yards on our defense and led us in most offensive categories.  And Wisconsin was as conventional an offense as we could reasonably hope for, and so of course our defense throttled them.

Looking at our schedule, I can now see that the majority of teams we will play this year are using the spread--it has become the new "normal" for offense, with even Cal joining those ranks.

So here are my questions:

1. What makes a defense well suited to stopping the spread, as opposed to being well suited to stop other offenses?  I would presume the depth of the secondary?  How deep is our secondary?

2. How do other Cardboarders think our defense will do against the spread this year?

[71Bear]

As I mentioned in another post, you guys are well suited to stop the spread because of your style of play.  IMO, the key is play "keep-away".  Obviously, by limiting the number of plays a spread O has at their disposal, you limit their opportunities.

Add to that a strong pass rush - force errors by putting pressure on the QB.  There you have it.

[71Bear]

As I mentioned in another post, you guys are well suited to stop the spread because of your style of play.  IMO, the key is play "keep-away".  Obviously, by limiting the number of plays a spread O has at their disposal, you limit their opportunities.

Add to that a strong pass rush - force errors by putting pressure on the QB.  There you have it.

[Farm93]

The SEC has demonstrated that the best way to beat the spread is to get into the backfield.  TFL and sacks are key because then the RBs need to stay back there too.  And in most cases, the teams need that drop off option AND the RBs are not that skilled at picking up rushers.

I think the most successful spread offense will be one that plays in a conference that features traditional offenses.  At this point, I suspect UCB would do pretty well in the BigTen, for example.  However, as a conference adds more and more spread offenses, I think at some point it becomes better to play a more traditional style.

We shall see, but I suspect UCB is too late on this trend and would have been better off going a different direction.

[Farm93]

The SEC has demonstrated that the best way to beat the spread is to get into the backfield.  TFL and sacks are key because then the RBs need to stay back there too.  And in most cases, the teams need that drop off option AND the RBs are not that skilled at picking up rushers.

I think the most successful spread offense will be one that plays in a conference that features traditional offenses.  At this point, I suspect UCB would do pretty well in the BigTen, for example.  However, as a conference adds more and more spread offenses, I think at some point it becomes better to play a more traditional style.

We shall see, but I suspect UCB is too late on this trend and would have been better off going a different direction.

[97fan]

The Arizona game last year definitely set off alarm bells about our ability to defend the spread.

But we showed significant improvement after that game (which I think has been attributed to Mason's decision to have our DBs give opposing WRs less cushion? and the fact that Matt Scott had the game of his life against us?). We gave up 14 points to Oregon, and 17 points in our first game against UCLA. Those were season lows for both the Ducks and the Bruins.

UCLA torched us in the first quarter of the rematch, but we made adjustments and gave up a total of 10 points in the final three quarters. I'm not concerned about the yardage totals against the Ducks and Bruins. Our defense was designed to prevent big plays, and opposing offenses usually struggled when they got into the red zone against us. Bend-but-don't-break was pretty effective last season.

[97fan]

The Arizona game last year definitely set off alarm bells about our ability to defend the spread.

But we showed significant improvement after that game (which I think has been attributed to Mason's decision to have our DBs give opposing WRs less cushion? and the fact that Matt Scott had the game of his life against us?). We gave up 14 points to Oregon, and 17 points in our first game against UCLA. Those were season lows for both the Ducks and the Bruins.

UCLA torched us in the first quarter of the rematch, but we made adjustments and gave up a total of 10 points in the final three quarters. I'm not concerned about the yardage totals against the Ducks and Bruins. Our defense was designed to prevent big plays, and opposing offenses usually struggled when they got into the red zone against us. Bend-but-don't-break was pretty effective last season.

[Griffins78]

I think there are many factors:

1. as has been said - limiting the time and number of possession of the opponent. It helps to give our defense time to rest and have the energy to run with the spread.
2. also as has been said - pressure on the QB but I think in a disciplined way - the spread generally makes quick decisions which neutralizes the rush to some extent - and there is often misdirection running plays - so knowing their assignments and role is important.
3. the spread seems to be about trying to isolate defenders and hope for a mistake - which leads to a big play. So the defense needs to be disciplined about not making mistakes and often that means making sure open field tackles where a miss could mean a touchdown. It also means giving up short yards and keeping the play in front of you.
4. the spread seems to also try to create confusion with multiple options available - the defense needs to be disciplined in playing their role and not trying to individually be the hero which can draw one out of position. That means an OLB needs to stay home and not try to crash down the line and protect the corner.
5. We've been upgrading the athleticism of our defense - we need to keep up with the numerous speedy receivers and running backs the spread employs - often in isolation - and they have to be able to chase down and make open field tackles, e.g., Carrington.

[Griffins78]

I think there are many factors:

1. as has been said - limiting the time and number of possession of the opponent. It helps to give our defense time to rest and have the energy to run with the spread.
2. also as has been said - pressure on the QB but I think in a disciplined way - the spread generally makes quick decisions which neutralizes the rush to some extent - and there is often misdirection running plays - so knowing their assignments and role is important.
3. the spread seems to be about trying to isolate defenders and hope for a mistake - which leads to a big play. So the defense needs to be disciplined about not making mistakes and often that means making sure open field tackles where a miss could mean a touchdown. It also means giving up short yards and keeping the play in front of you.
4. the spread seems to also try to create confusion with multiple options available - the defense needs to be disciplined in playing their role and not trying to individually be the hero which can draw one out of position. That means an OLB needs to stay home and not try to crash down the line and protect the corner.
5. We've been upgrading the athleticism of our defense - we need to keep up with the numerous speedy receivers and running backs the spread employs - often in isolation - and they have to be able to chase down and make open field tackles, e.g., Carrington.

[OutsiderFan]

Read the S.I. article on Mason teaching NFL defensive coordinators how to stop the spread.

If you don't have time, here's a quick summary.

Stanford spent all kinds of time last offseason before 2012 working on how to substitute its players, and getting them ready for Oregon and other spread teams.  Then the Arizona game happened and Mason decided to junk his entire strategy.  He went back to the drawing board and basically simplified the defense.  Rather than worrying about the pace and substitutions, he focused on what he could control, namely, getting his defense to line up correctly and really hammering on assignment defense.

Against Oregon this means really preparing for the option, which gains much of its success by fooling the defense.  Generally speaking, when players are tired, they make mistakes, so adding speed to the spread option is about as tough as it gets for a defense.  What Mason did was focus on getting his defenders lined up correctly, and making sure they strictly followed their assignments.  Nobody in the front seven deviates from their assignment.  You have responsibility for the RB, and it's a handoff (or looks like one), you tackle the RB.  Period. 

Another thing Mason realized was that though his defense couldn't slow down the speed at which the offense can get plays off, it could slow the  speed at which it can execute.  For example, the option wants to make quick decisions on what to do with the ball.  the longer the QB hesitates, the less advantage the option has, and the longer it takes to make a decision the more options evaporate.  So instead of angling an outside rusher at a diagonal route to the QB (the fastest route to him), you have the outside rusher run straight upfield, and squeeze down on the QB.  The whole key to the read option is reading the DE or OLB.  If he attacks the QB, pitch to the RB.  If he plays outside run, keep it and run with it.  What Mason did was effectively take the read away from the QB, by having the OLB make the QB wait longer to decide what to do. 

Of course, this is the plan to mitigate the effectiveness of the read option.  It has nothing to do with stopping a pass-oriented spread.  Generally speaking, the best way to stop a passing spread is to blitz the daylights out of the QB and pound him into submission, while keeping the Safeties deep to prevent long TDs.  You give up ground between the red zones, then tighten coverage and  rely on the compressed field and pass rush to make it difficult to complete passes.  Those teams generally struggle to run the ball, but Arizona with Carey, can. WSU looks a bit stronger on the OL and ran the ball OK in red zone against Auburn this weekend.

Anyway, it's a great article and well worth reading.
 

[OutsiderFan]

Read the S.I. article on Mason teaching NFL defensive coordinators how to stop the spread.

If you don't have time, here's a quick summary.

Stanford spent all kinds of time last offseason before 2012 working on how to substitute its players, and getting them ready for Oregon and other spread teams.  Then the Arizona game happened and Mason decided to junk his entire strategy.  He went back to the drawing board and basically simplified the defense.  Rather than worrying about the pace and substitutions, he focused on what he could control, namely, getting his defense to line up correctly and really hammering on assignment defense.

Against Oregon this means really preparing for the option, which gains much of its success by fooling the defense.  Generally speaking, when players are tired, they make mistakes, so adding speed to the spread option is about as tough as it gets for a defense.  What Mason did was focus on getting his defenders lined up correctly, and making sure they strictly followed their assignments.  Nobody in the front seven deviates from their assignment.  You have responsibility for the RB, and it's a handoff (or looks like one), you tackle the RB.  Period. 

Another thing Mason realized was that though his defense couldn't slow down the speed at which the offense can get plays off, it could slow the  speed at which it can execute.  For example, the option wants to make quick decisions on what to do with the ball.  the longer the QB hesitates, the less advantage the option has, and the longer it takes to make a decision the more options evaporate.  So instead of angling an outside rusher at a diagonal route to the QB (the fastest route to him), you have the outside rusher run straight upfield, and squeeze down on the QB.  The whole key to the read option is reading the DE or OLB.  If he attacks the QB, pitch to the RB.  If he plays outside run, keep it and run with it.  What Mason did was effectively take the read away from the QB, by having the OLB make the QB wait longer to decide what to do. 

Of course, this is the plan to mitigate the effectiveness of the read option.  It has nothing to do with stopping a pass-oriented spread.  Generally speaking, the best way to stop a passing spread is to blitz the daylights out of the QB and pound him into submission, while keeping the Safeties deep to prevent long TDs.  You give up ground between the red zones, then tighten coverage and  rely on the compressed field and pass rush to make it difficult to complete passes.  Those teams generally struggle to run the ball, but Arizona with Carey, can. WSU looks a bit stronger on the OL and ran the ball OK in red zone against Auburn this weekend.

Anyway, it's a great article and well worth reading.
 

[81alum]

Thank you, OutsiderFan!  I have found a number of articles and videos that all seemed to start with the SI article.  It is indeed illuminating.

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/07/26/derek-maso...ad-option/

[81alum]

Thank you, OutsiderFan!  I have found a number of articles and videos that all seemed to start with the SI article.  It is indeed illuminating.

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/07/26/derek-maso...ad-option/

[Farm93]

I suspect if UofA did not happen, Stanford would not have been ready for Oregon

I think Stanford's UofA experience is EXACTLY why UCB will not get on the quick path to wins.  Now the conference has Wazzu, UCB, Oregon, UofA utilizing the spread, and a few others utilizing key elements of the spread offense.  So by the time UCB comes to a program a Pac-12 school will have already prepared for several no huddle offenses, unlike Northwestern that really will not see the spread again.

Interestingly, many of these spread Pac-12 teams lack FBs and strong TEs, so it will be interesting to see how they prepare for Stanford.

Also, on a different UCB item.  Colorado looked pretty strong yesterday, and I think time will prove they hired the better WAC coach.

[Farm93]

I suspect if UofA did not happen, Stanford would not have been ready for Oregon

I think Stanford's UofA experience is EXACTLY why UCB will not get on the quick path to wins.  Now the conference has Wazzu, UCB, Oregon, UofA utilizing the spread, and a few others utilizing key elements of the spread offense.  So by the time UCB comes to a program a Pac-12 school will have already prepared for several no huddle offenses, unlike Northwestern that really will not see the spread again.

Interestingly, many of these spread Pac-12 teams lack FBs and strong TEs, so it will be interesting to see how they prepare for Stanford.

Also, on a different UCB item.  Colorado looked pretty strong yesterday, and I think time will prove they hired the better WAC coach.

[CowboyIndian]

NT

[CowboyIndian]

NT

[OutsiderFan]

I suspect if UofA did not happen, Stanford would not have been ready for Oregon

Based on what Mason says, this seems to be 100% correct.

Also, on a different UCB item.  Colorado looked pretty strong yesterday, and I think time will prove they hired the better WAC coach.

McIntyre was my third choice to replace Tedford, after Peterson and the guy from NIU who went to NC State.  I even wanted ND DC Bob Diaco over Dykes, but Dykes is a brobdingnagian improvement over who was there for 10 years before this year.

[OutsiderFan]

I suspect if UofA did not happen, Stanford would not have been ready for Oregon

Based on what Mason says, this seems to be 100% correct.

Also, on a different UCB item.  Colorado looked pretty strong yesterday, and I think time will prove they hired the better WAC coach.

McIntyre was my third choice to replace Tedford, after Peterson and the guy from NIU who went to NC State.  I even wanted ND DC Bob Diaco over Dykes, but Dykes is a brobdingnagian improvement over who was there for 10 years before this year.

[washingtonismoney]

There's a bit of terminological confusion in this thread. I don't think it's helpful to class all spread offenses too tightly together, just as it can be a bit obfuscatory to classify Bo Schembechler's power offense and Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense as "pro-style offenses." Yeah, sure, I-formation and all that but they're quite different.

Same for spread offenses. On one extreme you have the Oregons and Arizonas, who use the spread to run the ball; on the other hand, you have the Washington States who just want to throw the ball all day. D.ykes's offense is (typically) in between -- he had, I believe, a 50-50 split between running and throwing at Louisiana Tech. Against Northwestern, he curiously skewed heavily to the pass, though I had Jahvid Best flashbacks seeing Bigelow run. Additionally, unlike his mentor Leach, D.ykes likes to throw the ball deep more and stretch the field vertically as well as horizontally.

Anyway, what can be done. Your spread-to-run offenses typically test teams in option-like fashion, by reading them. That requires discipline. Teams must be highly disciplined to combat them -- especially since, being spread-out, they often only have one chance to make the tackle. Many spread-to-pass offenses like to throw the ball quickly, so quickly you neutralize the pass rush. It's helpful to have Henry Anderson types, who are tall and long enough to bat passes away at the line of scrimmage. Against both teams, hybrid-type defenders are really helpful -- players like Usua Amanam, who can cover, rush and defend the run at least somewhat proficiently. (See http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8251...otball-nfl).

[washingtonismoney]

There's a bit of terminological confusion in this thread. I don't think it's helpful to class all spread offenses too tightly together, just as it can be a bit obfuscatory to classify Bo Schembechler's power offense and Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense as "pro-style offenses." Yeah, sure, I-formation and all that but they're quite different.

Same for spread offenses. On one extreme you have the Oregons and Arizonas, who use the spread to run the ball; on the other hand, you have the Washington States who just want to throw the ball all day. D.ykes's offense is (typically) in between -- he had, I believe, a 50-50 split between running and throwing at Louisiana Tech. Against Northwestern, he curiously skewed heavily to the pass, though I had Jahvid Best flashbacks seeing Bigelow run. Additionally, unlike his mentor Leach, D.ykes likes to throw the ball deep more and stretch the field vertically as well as horizontally.

Anyway, what can be done. Your spread-to-run offenses typically test teams in option-like fashion, by reading them. That requires discipline. Teams must be highly disciplined to combat them -- especially since, being spread-out, they often only have one chance to make the tackle. Many spread-to-pass offenses like to throw the ball quickly, so quickly you neutralize the pass rush. It's helpful to have Henry Anderson types, who are tall and long enough to bat passes away at the line of scrimmage. Against both teams, hybrid-type defenders are really helpful -- players like Usua Amanam, who can cover, rush and defend the run at least somewhat proficiently. (See http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8251...otball-nfl).

[81alum]

The SI article was very illuminating about coping with the spread option.  We did so much better shutting it down compared with the previous two years against Oregon, that it is obvious that Mason figured out how to prepare our players for it.  Mason seems like a genius for figuring it out in time.  On the other hand, I imagine Oregon will have counter moves this year specifically designed to deal with Mason's tactics.  It is a constantly evolving chess game.

But SJSU, Arizona, and UCLA had a different style of spread (though perhaps Arizona was closest to Oregon)  and we did not consistently deal with it well last season.  Perhaps this is more what WIM is referring to when he calls our attention to the wide differences between different kinds of spread offenses.  I think we got pretty lucky to have beaten all three of them given how our defense played at times. 

To me, what they all had in common was very accurate use of bubble screens.  UCLA wore us down with bubble screens left and right, and when they got our linebackers running laterally all the time they then fed Jonathan Franklin up the middle, who averaged a whopping 10.2 yards per carry.  Hundley averaged 5.2 ypc which I guess means that we partially controlled him.  Still, that performance by our defense in a championship game worried me, and Wisconsin was just too conventional an offense to settle my fears. 

Those same bubble screens were used by SJSU and Arizona.  If you have an accurate passer the bubble screens themselves seem to work for a minimum of 4-5 yards and much better if someone misses a tackle.  But their greatest benefit seems to be to make the defense run laterally which wears it down, exhausts it, retards the pass rush, and opens interior holes.  I had the sense at the end of the Arizona game that every player on our defense was absolutely exhausted.  This is what we try to do with power running, but spreads seem to accomplish the same exhaustion of the defense in nearly the opposite manner.

Even in the Mason interview I got the sense that against spread offenses that defensive coordinators just have to hope that the QB become inaccurate at some point.  You stop the run and contain the pass and hope for an errant throw.  Given how accurate some QBs are becoming that fills me with dread.    I hope Mason has another stroke of genius.

[81alum]

The SI article was very illuminating about coping with the spread option.  We did so much better shutting it down compared with the previous two years against Oregon, that it is obvious that Mason figured out how to prepare our players for it.  Mason seems like a genius for figuring it out in time.  On the other hand, I imagine Oregon will have counter moves this year specifically designed to deal with Mason's tactics.  It is a constantly evolving chess game.

But SJSU, Arizona, and UCLA had a different style of spread (though perhaps Arizona was closest to Oregon)  and we did not consistently deal with it well last season.  Perhaps this is more what WIM is referring to when he calls our attention to the wide differences between different kinds of spread offenses.  I think we got pretty lucky to have beaten all three of them given how our defense played at times. 

To me, what they all had in common was very accurate use of bubble screens.  UCLA wore us down with bubble screens left and right, and when they got our linebackers running laterally all the time they then fed Jonathan Franklin up the middle, who averaged a whopping 10.2 yards per carry.  Hundley averaged 5.2 ypc which I guess means that we partially controlled him.  Still, that performance by our defense in a championship game worried me, and Wisconsin was just too conventional an offense to settle my fears. 

Those same bubble screens were used by SJSU and Arizona.  If you have an accurate passer the bubble screens themselves seem to work for a minimum of 4-5 yards and much better if someone misses a tackle.  But their greatest benefit seems to be to make the defense run laterally which wears it down, exhausts it, retards the pass rush, and opens interior holes.  I had the sense at the end of the Arizona game that every player on our defense was absolutely exhausted.  This is what we try to do with power running, but spreads seem to accomplish the same exhaustion of the defense in nearly the opposite manner.

Even in the Mason interview I got the sense that against spread offenses that defensive coordinators just have to hope that the QB become inaccurate at some point.  You stop the run and contain the pass and hope for an errant throw.  Given how accurate some QBs are becoming that fills me with dread.    I hope Mason has another stroke of genius.

[71Bear]

Farm...

It is far too early to suggest that the right coach was not hired.  Had UC played CSU instead of NU, they would have rolled up 50+ and had CU played the Wildcats instead of the Rams, they would have been hammered.  Colorado State is one of the worst teams in west and Northwestern is nationally ranked.

I was not a proponent of hiring SD but in hindsight I think it was an enlightened decision.  Choosing Goff to play QB sealed the deal for me.  Finally, playing time will be determined by merit rather than seniority.

Of course, it could turn out that MacIntyre is the better coach but we won't know that for quite a while...

P.S.  My first choice was James Franklin and my second choice was the Kent State coach who wound up at Purdue.

[71Bear]

Farm...

It is far too early to suggest that the right coach was not hired.  Had UC played CSU instead of NU, they would have rolled up 50+ and had CU played the Wildcats instead of the Rams, they would have been hammered.  Colorado State is one of the worst teams in west and Northwestern is nationally ranked.

I was not a proponent of hiring SD but in hindsight I think it was an enlightened decision.  Choosing Goff to play QB sealed the deal for me.  Finally, playing time will be determined by merit rather than seniority.

Of course, it could turn out that MacIntyre is the better coach but we won't know that for quite a while...

P.S.  My first choice was James Franklin and my second choice was the Kent State coach who wound up at Purdue.

[washingtonismoney]

Nothing curious about it to me. He threw because it was working -- Jared Goff had 445 yards through the air. And if you take out Bigelow's single 32-yard run, he averaged two yards on his other 15 carries.

Goff only averaged 7.1 YPA without considering sacks (he took 4 for 24 yards, meaning that called pass plays only yielded 6.2 YPA. That's poor.)

I'm not sure why Bigelow decreased so dramatically in effectiveness after that first drive, to be fair.

[washingtonismoney]

Nothing curious about it to me. He threw because it was working -- Jared Goff had 445 yards through the air. And if you take out Bigelow's single 32-yard run, he averaged two yards on his other 15 carries.

Goff only averaged 7.1 YPA without considering sacks (he took 4 for 24 yards, meaning that called pass plays only yielded 6.2 YPA. That's poor.)

I'm not sure why Bigelow decreased so dramatically in effectiveness after that first drive, to be fair.

[washingtonismoney]

I'll take meta-statistics over boutique-statistics. The 59ers had 548 yards, 30 first downs and 30 points. That's a successful offense any way you slice it. The only reasonable criticism that can be made is over the interceptions. And only one of those -- if even that -- can be even tenuously linked to over-reliance on the pass.

Well, except yards per play is the meta-statistic. Total yardage is meaningless without knowing how many attempts it took to get there. If you pump out 80 plays or whatever C.al had, you're just going to get more yardage, scores, and first downs -- everything. It's just simple math.

An extreme example. Let's say I threw 100 times in a game, for a total of 300 yards. That, by traditional reckoning, is a pretty successful game -- but of course at 3 yards per attempt it's entirely possible that my hypothetical passer and offense never converted a first down.

The correct way to think about offense is on a per-play or per-drive basis. Because possessions are typically equal between teams (excepting onside kicks), the team that more efficiently uses possessions (and plays) will be the winning team. The particular raw totals that you achieve in getting there are just aesthetics and shouldn't be confused with actual effectiveness.

[washingtonismoney]

I'll take meta-statistics over boutique-statistics. The 59ers had 548 yards, 30 first downs and 30 points. That's a successful offense any way you slice it. The only reasonable criticism that can be made is over the interceptions. And only one of those -- if even that -- can be even tenuously linked to over-reliance on the pass.

Well, except yards per play is the meta-statistic. Total yardage is meaningless without knowing how many attempts it took to get there. If you pump out 80 plays or whatever C.al had, you're just going to get more yardage, scores, and first downs -- everything. It's just simple math.

An extreme example. Let's say I threw 100 times in a game, for a total of 300 yards. That, by traditional reckoning, is a pretty successful game -- but of course at 3 yards per attempt it's entirely possible that my hypothetical passer and offense never converted a first down.

The correct way to think about offense is on a per-play or per-drive basis. Because possessions are typically equal between teams (excepting onside kicks), the team that more efficiently uses possessions (and plays) will be the winning team. The particular raw totals that you achieve in getting there are just aesthetics and shouldn't be confused with actual effectiveness.

[Farm93]

Farm...

It is far too early to suggest that the right coach was not hired.  Had UC played CSU instead of NU, they would have rolled up 50+ and had CU played the Wildcats instead of the Rams, they would have been hammered.  Colorado State is one of the worst teams in west and Northwestern is nationally ranked.

All will become clearer on November 16th.  MacIntyre already solved the Dykes scheme, and I suspect he will do it again on November 16th. 

Northwestern was thousands of miles away from home.  Northwestern has no experience playing spread teams (of any variety).  Northwestern lost their starting QB and had limited access to their starting RB.  And they still won by 14.  If Stanford lost Hogan on the second play, I would be VERY happy to learn that Stanford beat any team on the road by 14. 

Colorado played their rival at a neutral venue and won going away.

Take the win, that coach, and his familiarity with recruiting in California and the West.

But hey, no worries for me.  I am much happier knowing MacIntyre is in the Pac-12 South.

[Farm93]

Farm...

It is far too early to suggest that the right coach was not hired.  Had UC played CSU instead of NU, they would have rolled up 50+ and had CU played the Wildcats instead of the Rams, they would have been hammered.  Colorado State is one of the worst teams in west and Northwestern is nationally ranked.

All will become clearer on November 16th.  MacIntyre already solved the Dykes scheme, and I suspect he will do it again on November 16th. 

Northwestern was thousands of miles away from home.  Northwestern has no experience playing spread teams (of any variety).  Northwestern lost their starting QB and had limited access to their starting RB.  And they still won by 14.  If Stanford lost Hogan on the second play, I would be VERY happy to learn that Stanford beat any team on the road by 14. 

Colorado played their rival at a neutral venue and won going away.

Take the win, that coach, and his familiarity with recruiting in California and the West.

But hey, no worries for me.  I am much happier knowing MacIntyre is in the Pac-12 South.

[71Bear]

Fair enough...

The truth of the matter is that it will be a couple years before we can properly assess the performance of the two coaches.  MacIntyre walked into a horrible mess and SD is trying to turn the on-field performance around and address a terrible academic situation.

Bottom line:  I am very happy SD is in Berkeley.

[71Bear]

Fair enough...

The truth of the matter is that it will be a couple years before we can properly assess the performance of the two coaches.  MacIntyre walked into a horrible mess and SD is trying to turn the on-field performance around and address a terrible academic situation.

Bottom line:  I am very happy SD is in Berkeley.

[terry]

Well, except yards per play is the meta-statistic. Total yardage is meaningless without knowing how many attempts it took to get there. If you pump out 80 plays or whatever kal had, you're just going to get more yardage, scores, and first downs -- everything. It's just simple math.

An extreme example. Let's say I threw 100 times in a game, for a total of 300 yards. That, by traditional reckoning, is a pretty successful game -- but of course at 3 yards per attempt it's entirely possible that my hypothetical passer and offense never converted a first down.

The correct way to think about offense is on a per-play or per-drive basis. Because possessions are typically equal between teams (excepting onside kicks), the team that more efficiently uses possessions (and plays) will be the winning team. The particular raw totals that you achieve in getting there are just aesthetics and shouldn't be confused with actual effectiveness.

I agree with this. We are accustomed to evaluating offense by yards per game. But in the no-huddle spread offense era, yardage per game is becoming a poor metric. A team can increase its yardage simply by running plays quickly to increase the number of plays per game, rather than by being more effective.

D.ykes' offense is designed to run as many plays as possible. C'al ran 99 plays against Northwestern, compared to about 71 plays per game for the average team. So C'al ran about 40% more plays than average. Statistically, it's as though C'al played an extra 1.6 quarters of football compared to the average team. Just based on the sheer number of plays, you would expect C'al to have more of everything -- more possessions, more yards, more points, more punts, more turnovers. But C'al also is giving its opponents more possessions, thus more opportunities. The "per game" numbers for both C'al and its opponents should be considerably higher this year. But that does not mean C'al's offense is more effective.

C'al gained 5.5 yards per play. That's the same as Stanford's yards per play last season. C'al gained 7.1 yards per pass attempt, which is average. C'al gained 2.7 yards per rush attempt, which is well below average. That low figure is due partly to the four sacks C'al allowed. But even after taking out the sacks, C'al still ran for a mediocre 3.8 yards per attempt.

Goff threw for 445 yards, but his pass efficiency rating was 120.6, which is just so-so. As a point of reference, Hogan's pass efficiency rating last year was 147.9. Goff threw as many interceptions in one game as Hogan threw last season.

C'al scored 30 points, which is not all that impressive given the number of plays they ran (99). C'al scored .303 points per play, which would have ranked 95th in the nation last year. As a comparison, Stanford averaged about 28 points per game last year while running just 68 plays per game. Stanford scored .403 points per play last year, which was just slightly above average (52nd).

I expect them to get more comfortable with their offense. It will be interesting to see how they do over time.

[terry]

Well, except yards per play is the meta-statistic. Total yardage is meaningless without knowing how many attempts it took to get there. If you pump out 80 plays or whatever kal had, you're just going to get more yardage, scores, and first downs -- everything. It's just simple math.

An extreme example. Let's say I threw 100 times in a game, for a total of 300 yards. That, by traditional reckoning, is a pretty successful game -- but of course at 3 yards per attempt it's entirely possible that my hypothetical passer and offense never converted a first down.

The correct way to think about offense is on a per-play or per-drive basis. Because possessions are typically equal between teams (excepting onside kicks), the team that more efficiently uses possessions (and plays) will be the winning team. The particular raw totals that you achieve in getting there are just aesthetics and shouldn't be confused with actual effectiveness.

I agree with this. We are accustomed to evaluating offense by yards per game. But in the no-huddle spread offense era, yardage per game is becoming a poor metric. A team can increase its yardage simply by running plays quickly to increase the number of plays per game, rather than by being more effective.

D.ykes' offense is designed to run as many plays as possible. C'al ran 99 plays against Northwestern, compared to about 71 plays per game for the average team. So C'al ran about 40% more plays than average. Statistically, it's as though C'al played an extra 1.6 quarters of football compared to the average team. Just based on the sheer number of plays, you would expect C'al to have more of everything -- more possessions, more yards, more points, more punts, more turnovers. But C'al also is giving its opponents more possessions, thus more opportunities. The "per game" numbers for both C'al and its opponents should be considerably higher this year. But that does not mean C'al's offense is more effective.

C'al gained 5.5 yards per play. That's the same as Stanford's yards per play last season. C'al gained 7.1 yards per pass attempt, which is average. C'al gained 2.7 yards per rush attempt, which is well below average. That low figure is due partly to the four sacks C'al allowed. But even after taking out the sacks, C'al still ran for a mediocre 3.8 yards per attempt.

Goff threw for 445 yards, but his pass efficiency rating was 120.6, which is just so-so. As a point of reference, Hogan's pass efficiency rating last year was 147.9. Goff threw as many interceptions in one game as Hogan threw last season.

C'al scored 30 points, which is not all that impressive given the number of plays they ran (99). C'al scored .303 points per play, which would have ranked 95th in the nation last year. As a comparison, Stanford averaged about 28 points per game last year while running just 68 plays per game. Stanford scored .403 points per play last year, which was just slightly above average (52nd).

I expect them to get more comfortable with their offense. It will be interesting to see how they do over time.

[Roberton3]

Points per play isn't a good metric for an offense (or a defense).  Consider two different offensive styles: one that gains yards a few at a time, and one that relies on a few explosive plays.  Suppose each offense scores an average of exactly 4 points per possession, but the explosive-play offense averages 5 plays per drive and the a-few-at-a-time offense averages 15.  Is the explosive-play offense 3 times as good as the a-few-at-a-time offense?  Of course not.  Each offense is scoring the same number of points on average before giving the ball back to the opponent.  So they're roughly equally good (which is not to say that they're exactly equivalent -- for example, if you're behind late in the game, you'd rather have the explosive-play offense, and if you're ahead you'd rather have the a-few-at-a-time offense -- but they're roughly comparable).  Using points per play makes the explosive-play offense look artificially better than it really is.

Similarly, points per game isn't a good metric.  A hurry-up offense scores a lot of points per game, but also gives the opposing team a lot of possessions -- i.e., a lot of opportunities to score.  So using points per game makes a hurry-up offense look artificially good (and makes that team's defense look artificially bad).

If you want one points-related statistic, points per possession is the best single measure, because regardless of what style you play, for every possession your team gets, the other team gets a possession (with the exception of end-of-the-half drives).

[Roberton3]

Points per play isn't a good metric for an offense (or a defense).  Consider two different offensive styles: one that gains yards a few at a time, and one that relies on a few explosive plays.  Suppose each offense scores an average of exactly 4 points per possession, but the explosive-play offense averages 5 plays per drive and the a-few-at-a-time offense averages 15.  Is the explosive-play offense 3 times as good as the a-few-at-a-time offense?  Of course not.  Each offense is scoring the same number of points on average before giving the ball back to the opponent.  So they're roughly equally good (which is not to say that they're exactly equivalent -- for example, if you're behind late in the game, you'd rather have the explosive-play offense, and if you're ahead you'd rather have the a-few-at-a-time offense -- but they're roughly comparable).  Using points per play makes the explosive-play offense look artificially better than it really is.

Similarly, points per game isn't a good metric.  A hurry-up offense scores a lot of points per game, but also gives the opposing team a lot of possessions -- i.e., a lot of opportunities to score.  So using points per game makes a hurry-up offense look artificially good (and makes that team's defense look artificially bad).

If you want one points-related statistic, points per possession is the best single measure, because regardless of what style you play, for every possession your team gets, the other team gets a possession (with the exception of end-of-the-half drives).

[CompSci87]

C'al scored 30 points, which is not all that impressive given the number of plays they ran (99).

Terry, that's just silly. Games aren't decided by average points per play. They're decided on total points. Thirty is a good output in in a regulation game. It should have been enough to win. Whatever weakness the 59ers showed Saturday was on the defensive side, not the offensive.

No, games are decided by point differential. Much as with yards, a fast breaking offense may score more points by having more possessions but also allow more by giving the opponent more possessions. This phenomenon is familiar in basketball.

[CompSci87]

C'al scored 30 points, which is not all that impressive given the number of plays they ran (99).

Terry, that's just silly. Games aren't decided by average points per play. They're decided on total points. Thirty is a good output in in a regulation game. It should have been enough to win. Whatever weakness the 59ers showed Saturday was on the defensive side, not the offensive.

No, games are decided by point differential. Much as with yards, a fast breaking offense may score more points by having more possessions but also allow more by giving the opponent more possessions. This phenomenon is familiar in basketball.