[teejers1]

Forget Tedford, I'm MUCH more concerned about the parallels between the offenses under Coach Shaw and Coach Teevens.  They both were/are atrociously bad.  Admittedly, Shaw is not there yet, but the trend line is not good.  (205 yards against ND?  Did Teevens ever have as paltry an offensive performance?  I assume he must have, but that is ridiculously bad - even if the conditions were hideous).

[teejers1]

Forget Tedford, I'm MUCH more concerned about the parallels between the offenses under Coach Shaw and Coach Teevens.  They both were/are atrociously bad.  Admittedly, Shaw is not there yet, but the trend line is not good.  (205 yards against ND?  Did Teevens ever have as paltry an offensive performance?  I assume he must have, but that is ridiculously bad - even if the conditions were hideous).

[BostonCard]

Forget Tedford, I'm MUCH more concerned about the parallels between the offenses under Coach Shaw and Coach Teevens.  They both were/are atrociously bad.  Admittedly, Shaw is not there yet, but the trend line is not good.  (205 yards against ND?  Did Teevens ever have as paltry an offensive performance?  I assume he must have, but that is ridiculously bad - even if the conditions were hideous).

Notre Dame 57, Stanford 7
(11/29/03 at Stanford, CA)
  Score by Quarters    1  2  3  4  Score
  -----------------    -- -- -- --  -----
  Notre Dame.......... 21 13 23  0  - 57
  Stanford............  0  0  7  0  -  7


Enough said.  But just in case that's not enough, we had 35 rushes for 20 yards, and a grand total of 251 yards.  But wait, there's more.  That year we had 133 yards of total offense against Oregon State (30 rushes for -12 yards; 44 pass attempts, 16 completions, for 145 yards).  Suffice it to say, we were held to 3 points.  We also had exactly 200 yards of total offense against BYU (including an 11/24, 56 yard, 2 interception passing day), a 206 yard total offense game against UCLA (another sub-100 yard passing day), and a 242 yard total offense game against USC.  That year our median game had 259 yards of total offense.  We were shut out by Oregon, and held to a field goal against Oregon State.

I appreciate that we sometimes sometimes we get caught up in the "cardinal colored glasses" phenomenon, and some amount of balance is warranted.  But you lose all credibility when you make comparisons between Shaw and Teevens.  Even after the fiasco in Notre Dame, we are averaging 90 yards per game more this year (372 yards total offense) than we did in 2003 (283 yards total offense) or even the 2004 season when we averaged 327 yards per game, or 2002 when we averaged 311 yards per game. Teevens' teams scored fewer than 10 points 7 times in three years; the 10 points we scored against USC were the fewest we've scored in Shaw's three-plus seasons.  In fact, Shaw's teams have scored fewer than 20 points only 6 times.  I'm not saying we have a great, or even good, offense.  But your comparison is ridiculous.

BC

[BostonCard]

Forget Tedford, I'm MUCH more concerned about the parallels between the offenses under Coach Shaw and Coach Teevens.  They both were/are atrociously bad.  Admittedly, Shaw is not there yet, but the trend line is not good.  (205 yards against ND?  Did Teevens ever have as paltry an offensive performance?  I assume he must have, but that is ridiculously bad - even if the conditions were hideous).

Notre Dame 57, Stanford 7
(11/29/03 at Stanford, CA)
  Score by Quarters    1  2  3  4  Score
  -----------------    -- -- -- --  -----
  Notre Dame.......... 21 13 23  0  - 57
  Stanford............  0  0  7  0  -  7


Enough said.  But just in case that's not enough, we had 35 rushes for 20 yards, and a grand total of 251 yards.  But wait, there's more.  That year we had 133 yards of total offense against Oregon State (30 rushes for -12 yards; 44 pass attempts, 16 completions, for 145 yards).  Suffice it to say, we were held to 3 points.  We also had exactly 200 yards of total offense against BYU (including an 11/24, 56 yard, 2 interception passing day), a 206 yard total offense game against UCLA (another sub-100 yard passing day), and a 242 yard total offense game against USC.  That year our median game had 259 yards of total offense.  We were shut out by Oregon, and held to a field goal against Oregon State.

I appreciate that we sometimes sometimes we get caught up in the "cardinal colored glasses" phenomenon, and some amount of balance is warranted.  But you lose all credibility when you make comparisons between Shaw and Teevens.  Even after the fiasco in Notre Dame, we are averaging 90 yards per game more this year (372 yards total offense) than we did in 2003 (283 yards total offense) or even the 2004 season when we averaged 327 yards per game, or 2002 when we averaged 311 yards per game. Teevens' teams scored fewer than 10 points 7 times in three years; the 10 points we scored against USC were the fewest we've scored in Shaw's three-plus seasons.  In fact, Shaw's teams have scored fewer than 20 points only 6 times.  I'm not saying we have a great, or even good, offense.  But your comparison is ridiculous.

BC

[Mick]

Forget Tedford, I'm MUCH more concerned about the parallels between the offenses under Coach Shaw and Coach Teevens.  They both were/are ever have as paltry an offensive performance?  I assume he must have, but that is ridiculously bad - even if the conditions were hideous).

2002 offense got 262 yards (9-31 loss)
2003 offense got 251 yards (7-57 loss)
2004 offense got 334 yards in a 15-13 win.  That year, Teevens' team started 4-2 and one of the losses was by three points to #1 ranked USC.  They then lost the next five, blowouts to C.al and UCLA but five or fewer points to Oregon, Oregon State and #23 Arizona State.  Both Oregon and Oregon State were home losses.  If he had won two of those games, they are in a small bowl.

First four games were really interesting.  CRUSHED BYU, SJSU and Washington, barely lose to USC, and apparently he makes no adjustments the entire rest of the season.

But Teevens' teams never gained fewer than 251 yards against ND, even though he had Chris Lewis for two years and soph Trent Edwards his final year.  In other words, no studs like Luck and Hogan.  Maybe Coach Shaw should hire him as OC... ;D :P

[Mick]

Forget Tedford, I'm MUCH more concerned about the parallels between the offenses under Coach Shaw and Coach Teevens.  They both were/are ever have as paltry an offensive performance?  I assume he must have, but that is ridiculously bad - even if the conditions were hideous).

2002 offense got 262 yards (9-31 loss)
2003 offense got 251 yards (7-57 loss)
2004 offense got 334 yards in a 15-13 win.  That year, Teevens' team started 4-2 and one of the losses was by three points to #1 ranked USC.  They then lost the next five, blowouts to C.al and UCLA but five or fewer points to Oregon, Oregon State and #23 Arizona State.  Both Oregon and Oregon State were home losses.  If he had won two of those games, they are in a small bowl.

First four games were really interesting.  CRUSHED BYU, SJSU and Washington, barely lose to USC, and apparently he makes no adjustments the entire rest of the season.

But Teevens' teams never gained fewer than 251 yards against ND, even though he had Chris Lewis for two years and soph Trent Edwards his final year.  In other words, no studs like Luck and Hogan.  Maybe Coach Shaw should hire him as OC... ;D :P

[scorecard]

I watched the game again (sad, I know) and Hogan was not good, but his receivers did not help him much either.  Perhaps it was the weather, but Montgomery had 3 drops that would have gotten us close to or converted 1st downs.  Cajuste also had 2 drops (they were tougher catches but catchable) that similarly would have been 1st downs.  Hogan actually put those balls on the money, but the only one really catching the ball that day was Trojan.  After the game, I was ready to pin it all on Hogan, but after re-watching it, he wasn't as bad as I initially thought.  There is plenty of blame to be shared, and the run game was horrendous, but I just don't think we'll turn in another performance like this.

[scorecard]

I watched the game again (sad, I know) and Hogan was not good, but his receivers did not help him much either.  Perhaps it was the weather, but Montgomery had 3 drops that would have gotten us close to or converted 1st downs.  Cajuste also had 2 drops (they were tougher catches but catchable) that similarly would have been 1st downs.  Hogan actually put those balls on the money, but the only one really catching the ball that day was Trojan.  After the game, I was ready to pin it all on Hogan, but after re-watching it, he wasn't as bad as I initially thought.  There is plenty of blame to be shared, and the run game was horrendous, but I just don't think we'll turn in another performance like this.

[OutsiderFan]

Hogan was the last place I put blame for the loss, after

1. The scheme and offensive game plan yet again (including personnel decisions)
2. The OL
3. Lyons
4. Montgomery (the least productive superstar performance I've ever seen - 5 catches for 16 yards was it?)
5. Three-man rush on biggest play of game (why wasn't Kalambayi rushing Golson?)

[OutsiderFan]

Hogan was the last place I put blame for the loss, after

1. The scheme and offensive game plan yet again (including personnel decisions)
2. The OL
3. Lyons
4. Montgomery (the least productive superstar performance I've ever seen - 5 catches for 16 yards was it?)
5. Three-man rush on biggest play of game (why wasn't Kalambayi rushing Golson?)

[PrinceLightfoot]

Hogan was the last place I put blame for the loss, after

1. The scheme and offensive game plan yet again (including personnel decisions)
2. The OL
3. Lyons
4. Montgomery (the least productive superstar performance I've ever seen - 5 catches for 16 yards was it?)
5. Three-man rush on biggest play of game (why wasn't Kalambayi rushing Golson?)

1) Yes.
2) The OL performed quite well save the penalities. (watched the game live and then again at home)
3) Yes, multiple times but the last PI call he received was completely bogus.
4) They shut him down and our TE pass routes really well which makes me wonder if our passing routes are simply not creating enough confusion for the secondary.
4a) Hogan is a one read, stare-the-target-down QB - ...he might progress to his second read if the target is on the same side of the field. Progression passing or scrambling to find an open receiver is not what he does.
5) The trouble Golson had against Syracuse was due to pressue. The prevent defense once again prevented nothing - that is on Lance Anderson.

[PrinceLightfoot]

Hogan was the last place I put blame for the loss, after

1. The scheme and offensive game plan yet again (including personnel decisions)
2. The OL
3. Lyons
4. Montgomery (the least productive superstar performance I've ever seen - 5 catches for 16 yards was it?)
5. Three-man rush on biggest play of game (why wasn't Kalambayi rushing Golson?)

1) Yes.
2) The OL performed quite well save the penalities. (watched the game live and then again at home)
3) Yes, multiple times but the last PI call he received was completely bogus.
4) They shut him down and our TE pass routes really well which makes me wonder if our passing routes are simply not creating enough confusion for the secondary.
4a) Hogan is a one read, stare-the-target-down QB - ...he might progress to his second read if the target is on the same side of the field. Progression passing or scrambling to find an open receiver is not what he does.
5) The trouble Golson had against Syracuse was due to pressue. The prevent defense once again prevented nothing - that is on Lance Anderson.

[thunder_chik]

Many incisive, eloquent analyses on this board and others.  Consensus boils down to square pegs (personnel/skills) vs. round holes (schemes/play calling/game strategy).  Will Shaw change pegs or holes or neither?  Guess we'll find out Friday night...

[thunder_chik]

Many incisive, eloquent analyses on this board and others.  Consensus boils down to square pegs (personnel/skills) vs. round holes (schemes/play calling/game strategy).  Will Shaw change pegs or holes or neither?  Guess we'll find out Friday night...

[teejers1]

Well, BC, I read the passage you quoted from me and am still wondering where your beef is.  I said Shaw is not there yet but the trend line is bad.  And I also wondered if Teevens ever had fewer than 205 total yards (not against ND, apparently, but in a couple other instances).  But if you don't think Stanford has had some Teevens-esque performances on offense under Shaw, then I respectfully disagree.

But more fundamentally, do you think there is any comparison in talent between the offensive personnel under Teevens and what we have now?  My (admittedly repressed) recollection from Teevens era offense was the recurring sight of an opposing DL in Stanford's backfield on virtually every play.  There was no room to run at all, due to a marginal OL.  And of course, Teevens' "dink and stink" offense did nothing to discourage opposing defenses from crowding the box.

13, 20, and 10 points in 2014, with this personnel - pardon me, but that's just plain bad.

[teejers1]

Well, BC, I read the passage you quoted from me and am still wondering where your beef is.  I said Shaw is not there yet but the trend line is bad.  And I also wondered if Teevens ever had fewer than 205 total yards (not against ND, apparently, but in a couple other instances).  But if you don't think Stanford has had some Teevens-esque performances on offense under Shaw, then I respectfully disagree.

But more fundamentally, do you think there is any comparison in talent between the offensive personnel under Teevens and what we have now?  My (admittedly repressed) recollection from Teevens era offense was the recurring sight of an opposing DL in Stanford's backfield on virtually every play.  There was no room to run at all, due to a marginal OL.  And of course, Teevens' "dink and stink" offense did nothing to discourage opposing defenses from crowding the box.

13, 20, and 10 points in 2014, with this personnel - pardon me, but that's just plain bad.

[Mick]

Well, BC, I read the passage you quoted from me and am still wondering where your beef is.  I said Shaw is not there yet but the trend line is bad.  And I also wondered if Teevens ever had fewer than 205 total yards (not against ND, apparently, but in a couple other instances).  But if you don't think Stanford has had some Teevens-esque performances on offense under Shaw, then I respectfully disagree.

But more fundamentally, do you think there is any comparison in talent between the offensive personnel under Teevens and what we have now?  My (admittedly repressed) recollection from Teevens era offense was the recurring sight of an opposing DL in Stanford's backfield on virtually every play.  There was no room to run at all, due to a marginal OL.  And of course, Teevens' "dink and stink" offense did nothing to discourage opposing defenses from crowding the box.

13, 20, and 10 points in 2014, with this personnel - pardon me, but that's just plain bad.

Teevens had Chris Lewis for two years and Soph Trent Edwards.  I think neither is as strong as Hogan.  What was interesting is the first half of the season, Stanford did really well...three blowouts, a close victory and a close loss to #1 USC.  The second half of the season was horrendous, really awful. Spectacularly bad coaching and a complete inability to adjust to other teams, complete with their ability to adjust to our schemes.  Yech.

[Mick]

Well, BC, I read the passage you quoted from me and am still wondering where your beef is.  I said Shaw is not there yet but the trend line is bad.  And I also wondered if Teevens ever had fewer than 205 total yards (not against ND, apparently, but in a couple other instances).  But if you don't think Stanford has had some Teevens-esque performances on offense under Shaw, then I respectfully disagree.

But more fundamentally, do you think there is any comparison in talent between the offensive personnel under Teevens and what we have now?  My (admittedly repressed) recollection from Teevens era offense was the recurring sight of an opposing DL in Stanford's backfield on virtually every play.  There was no room to run at all, due to a marginal OL.  And of course, Teevens' "dink and stink" offense did nothing to discourage opposing defenses from crowding the box.

13, 20, and 10 points in 2014, with this personnel - pardon me, but that's just plain bad.

Teevens had Chris Lewis for two years and Soph Trent Edwards.  I think neither is as strong as Hogan.  What was interesting is the first half of the season, Stanford did really well...three blowouts, a close victory and a close loss to #1 USC.  The second half of the season was horrendous, really awful. Spectacularly bad coaching and a complete inability to adjust to other teams, complete with their ability to adjust to our schemes.  Yech.

[TrumpCard]

To get the best personnel for this offense on the field, Shaw could try moving Montgomery to RB and Hooper to FB.  Better to have the elite talent less dependent on Hogan's ability to deliver a strike anyway.  The guys who stand to gain the most playing time at TE (Cotton) and WR (Rector) are better overall players than the guys who would lose the most playing time at RB (Wright) and FB (Ward).  This would be a BIG shake-up, but I think it's worth a shot.

[TrumpCard]

To get the best personnel for this offense on the field, Shaw could try moving Montgomery to RB and Hooper to FB.  Better to have the elite talent less dependent on Hogan's ability to deliver a strike anyway.  The guys who stand to gain the most playing time at TE (Cotton) and WR (Rector) are better overall players than the guys who would lose the most playing time at RB (Wright) and FB (Ward).  This would be a BIG shake-up, but I think it's worth a shot.

[CTcard]

To get the best personnel for this offense on the field, Shaw could try moving Montgomery to RB and Hooper to FB. 

Yeah.
Our coaching is so bad that our team would be much better if we put all of our guys in positions that they haven't played or practiced. All that work under our staff just makes them worse.

[CTcard]

To get the best personnel for this offense on the field, Shaw could try moving Montgomery to RB and Hooper to FB. 

Yeah.
Our coaching is so bad that our team would be much better if we put all of our guys in positions that they haven't played or practiced. All that work under our staff just makes them worse.

[CowboyIndian]

2) The OL performed quite well save the penalities. (watched the game live and then again at home)

Huh? Forty-seven rushing yards! How many sacks and hurries and scrambles for Hogan? They are number one on my list....for this game and every previous one this season.

[CowboyIndian]

2) The OL performed quite well save the penalities. (watched the game live and then again at home)

Huh? Forty-seven rushing yards! How many sacks and hurries and scrambles for Hogan? They are number one on my list....for this game and every previous one this season.

[BostonCard]

Well, BC, I read the passage you quoted from me and am still wondering where your beef is.  I said Shaw is not there yet but the trend line is bad.  And I also wondered if Teevens ever had fewer than 205 total yards (not against ND, apparently, but in a couple other instances).  But if you don't think Stanford has had some Teevens-esque performances on offense under Shaw, then I respectfully disagree.

But more fundamentally, do you think there is any comparison in talent between the offensive personnel under Teevens and what we have now?  My (admittedly repressed) recollection from Teevens era offense was the recurring sight of an opposing DL in Stanford's backfield on virtually every play.  There was no room to run at all, due to a marginal OL.  And of course, Teevens' "dink and stink" offense did nothing to discourage opposing defenses from crowding the box.

13, 20, and 10 points in 2014, with this personnel - pardon me, but that's just plain bad.

If your point is that the offense is currently struggling, then I fully agree with it.  If your point is that Shaw is remotely comparable to Buddy Teevens as a coach, then I could not disagree more vehemently. Perhaps it is because you are repressing it, but I don't think you fully grasp just how bad our offense was during the Teevens years.

Obviously nobody is happy with how the offense has performed.  However, I doubt that the problems are amenable to a quick fix that many people here are advocating, like changing the play calling, the scheme (which is not a quick fix) or changing the quarterback.  Some are, as best as I can tell, fixable problems however (I think/hope); others such as the lack of a big running back will require workarounds.

First and foremost, we have to reduce unnecessary penalties: false starts by the OL, delay of game, chop blocks.  We are averaging 6.4 penalties a game (can't check what the division is between offense and defense, for 58 yards per game).  That's a penalty and 14 more yards per game more than last year, and more than any year since 2008.

Two, the offensive line has to jell (or gel; sorry grammar USC marching band members, I looked it up and though jell has the correct etymology, "gel" is used so commonly that it has made it into the dictionary).  We know they have the physical tools to be a great line, perhaps the best we have ever had in terms of talent, but they need to work together, trust each other, not blow assignments.  Some of that is experience (remember, only Peat started before this year).  However, if we don't start seeing improvement soon it should be cause for alarm.

Third, we need to stop turning the ball over.  We have 11 turnovers through 5 games; in the last 5 years, we had never had more than 19 in 14 games (or 17 in 13 games).  We need a couple of clean games from everyone.

Fourth, we need to develop a consistent and credible rushing game.  On its surface, it's not that bad; if you take out Hogan's sacks and scrambles to avoid a sack, the running backs are doing ok.  However, the results are a bit skewed by the army game (199 yards on 32 attempts).  In our two losses, we averaged 3.37 and 1.47 yards per carry.  Last year, we never averaged fewer than 3.84 yards per carry, and, in fact, dating back to 2008, we have never averaged fewer than 3 yards per carry. More performances like this and we will be looking at a long season.  Now, part of that is hoping the OL jells.  However, running back was a question mark going into the season (just as tight end was a question mark going into last season), and I am concerned that we may not have an answer at the position by season's end. 

Finally, there is our passing game, which lacks the ability to support the offense on its own.  I think it was CTCard who noted that Hogan is most effective when he can execute big plays when a defense overcommits to stopping the run, which they are not doing this year.  My own analysis shows that Hogan's effectiveness is fine in situations where the defense has to respect the rush (first and second downs, third and short), but really struggles in clear passing situations (third and long).  And, as Hulk has surmised, the big problem this year is we are encountering way too many clear passing situations (see the above points).  Although it would be great to have a QB who can make plays on his own when needed, if we can fix the above points, Hogan should be fine.

Contrary to popular belief on this board, Shaw and the coaching staff are not idiots.  They know what our problems are and are working to fix them.  The problem is that many of the problems are not amenable to quick fixes; however, it is my belief that most are fixable (we will see if a running back can emerge), and I have every expectation that the offense will improve over the course of the year. 

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, BC, I read the passage you quoted from me and am still wondering where your beef is.  I said Shaw is not there yet but the trend line is bad.  And I also wondered if Teevens ever had fewer than 205 total yards (not against ND, apparently, but in a couple other instances).  But if you don't think Stanford has had some Teevens-esque performances on offense under Shaw, then I respectfully disagree.

But more fundamentally, do you think there is any comparison in talent between the offensive personnel under Teevens and what we have now?  My (admittedly repressed) recollection from Teevens era offense was the recurring sight of an opposing DL in Stanford's backfield on virtually every play.  There was no room to run at all, due to a marginal OL.  And of course, Teevens' "dink and stink" offense did nothing to discourage opposing defenses from crowding the box.

13, 20, and 10 points in 2014, with this personnel - pardon me, but that's just plain bad.

If your point is that the offense is currently struggling, then I fully agree with it.  If your point is that Shaw is remotely comparable to Buddy Teevens as a coach, then I could not disagree more vehemently. Perhaps it is because you are repressing it, but I don't think you fully grasp just how bad our offense was during the Teevens years.

Obviously nobody is happy with how the offense has performed.  However, I doubt that the problems are amenable to a quick fix that many people here are advocating, like changing the play calling, the scheme (which is not a quick fix) or changing the quarterback.  Some are, as best as I can tell, fixable problems however (I think/hope); others such as the lack of a big running back will require workarounds.

First and foremost, we have to reduce unnecessary penalties: false starts by the OL, delay of game, chop blocks.  We are averaging 6.4 penalties a game (can't check what the division is between offense and defense, for 58 yards per game).  That's a penalty and 14 more yards per game more than last year, and more than any year since 2008.

Two, the offensive line has to jell (or gel; sorry grammar USC marching band members, I looked it up and though jell has the correct etymology, "gel" is used so commonly that it has made it into the dictionary).  We know they have the physical tools to be a great line, perhaps the best we have ever had in terms of talent, but they need to work together, trust each other, not blow assignments.  Some of that is experience (remember, only Peat started before this year).  However, if we don't start seeing improvement soon it should be cause for alarm.

Third, we need to stop turning the ball over.  We have 11 turnovers through 5 games; in the last 5 years, we had never had more than 19 in 14 games (or 17 in 13 games).  We need a couple of clean games from everyone.

Fourth, we need to develop a consistent and credible rushing game.  On its surface, it's not that bad; if you take out Hogan's sacks and scrambles to avoid a sack, the running backs are doing ok.  However, the results are a bit skewed by the army game (199 yards on 32 attempts).  In our two losses, we averaged 3.37 and 1.47 yards per carry.  Last year, we never averaged fewer than 3.84 yards per carry, and, in fact, dating back to 2008, we have never averaged fewer than 3 yards per carry. More performances like this and we will be looking at a long season.  Now, part of that is hoping the OL jells.  However, running back was a question mark going into the season (just as tight end was a question mark going into last season), and I am concerned that we may not have an answer at the position by season's end. 

Finally, there is our passing game, which lacks the ability to support the offense on its own.  I think it was CTCard who noted that Hogan is most effective when he can execute big plays when a defense overcommits to stopping the run, which they are not doing this year.  My own analysis shows that Hogan's effectiveness is fine in situations where the defense has to respect the rush (first and second downs, third and short), but really struggles in clear passing situations (third and long).  And, as Hulk has surmised, the big problem this year is we are encountering way too many clear passing situations (see the above points).  Although it would be great to have a QB who can make plays on his own when needed, if we can fix the above points, Hogan should be fine.

Contrary to popular belief on this board, Shaw and the coaching staff are not idiots.  They know what our problems are and are working to fix them.  The problem is that many of the problems are not amenable to quick fixes; however, it is my belief that most are fixable (we will see if a running back can emerge), and I have every expectation that the offense will improve over the course of the year. 

BC

[BurgXXIII]

I was taught that when driving an orange cone obstacle course, you hit what you look at, so you look at the spaces, not the cones. I'll bet football is not dissimilar. When you concentrate on penalties and turnovers, you don't get fewer of them, you get more. I think the offense needs to have the coaches concentrating on instructing about gaining yards, completing passes, and scoring touchdowns, not eliminating mistakes.

[BurgXXIII]

I was taught that when driving an orange cone obstacle course, you hit what you look at, so you look at the spaces, not the cones. I'll bet football is not dissimilar. When you concentrate on penalties and turnovers, you don't get fewer of them, you get more. I think the offense needs to have the coaches concentrating on instructing about gaining yards, completing passes, and scoring touchdowns, not eliminating mistakes.

[slide]

Contrary to popular belief on this board, Shaw and the coaching staff are not idiots.  They know what our problems are and are working to fix them.  The problem is that many of the problems are not amenable to quick fixes; however, it is my belief that most are fixable (we will see if a running back can emerge), and I have every expectation that the offense will improve over the course of the year. 

BC

BC -- much of what you write may be true, but the offensive trend is not good nor has it been since Luck's departure.  this year's current #96 is particularly troubling as our offense has been matched against average to bad defenses so far.  and I am with Teejers on thinking Saturday's offense had a Teevens-esque flair to it. 

#86 in 2012
#69 in 2013
#96 in 2014

[slide]

Contrary to popular belief on this board, Shaw and the coaching staff are not idiots.  They know what our problems are and are working to fix them.  The problem is that many of the problems are not amenable to quick fixes; however, it is my belief that most are fixable (we will see if a running back can emerge), and I have every expectation that the offense will improve over the course of the year. 

BC

BC -- much of what you write may be true, but the offensive trend is not good nor has it been since Luck's departure.  this year's current #96 is particularly troubling as our offense has been matched against average to bad defenses so far.  and I am with Teejers on thinking Saturday's offense had a Teevens-esque flair to it. 

#86 in 2012
#69 in 2013
#96 in 2014

[stupac2]

What numbers are you guys using for those rankings? Using FEI+, which looks at quality of opponents*, I see:

2011: #6
2012: #36
2013: #18
2014: I don't see offense/defense rankings split out (maybe that comes later), but so far we're #75 in S&P+.

So I don't really see a trend. We took a step back when Luck left but were still above FBS-average, then clear improvement to good-but-not-elite last year, which paired with an elite defense had us in a pretty good spot. This year we've clearly regressed, but it doesn't appear to be trend.



*Given the wildly divergent quality of opponents in college football, I think this is necessary. It makes no goddamn sense to be comparing a team play Stanford's schedule to one playing FSU's, to say nothing of one playing Houston's.

[stupac2]

What numbers are you guys using for those rankings? Using FEI+, which looks at quality of opponents*, I see:

2011: #6
2012: #36
2013: #18
2014: I don't see offense/defense rankings split out (maybe that comes later), but so far we're #75 in S&P+.

So I don't really see a trend. We took a step back when Luck left but were still above FBS-average, then clear improvement to good-but-not-elite last year, which paired with an elite defense had us in a pretty good spot. This year we've clearly regressed, but it doesn't appear to be trend.



*Given the wildly divergent quality of opponents in college football, I think this is necessary. It makes no goddamn sense to be comparing a team play Stanford's schedule to one playing FSU's, to say nothing of one playing Houston's.

[yvonne]

BC -- much of what you write may be true, but the offensive trend is not good nor has it been since Luck's departure. 

Um, yeah. Now think about what you just wrote. Then think about it again. Then, go read the cover story of the Sept 8 Sports Illustrated. Then think about what you just wrote.

If after this exercise, you don't think anything's wrong with your statement, if you don't audibly say, "Well, duh!" you're just not thinking straight.

smdh

[yvonne]

BC -- much of what you write may be true, but the offensive trend is not good nor has it been since Luck's departure. 

Um, yeah. Now think about what you just wrote. Then think about it again. Then, go read the cover story of the Sept 8 Sports Illustrated. Then think about what you just wrote.

If after this exercise, you don't think anything's wrong with your statement, if you don't audibly say, "Well, duh!" you're just not thinking straight.

smdh

[slide]

What numbers are you guys using for those rankings? Using FEI+, which looks at quality of opponents*, I see:

2011: #6
2012: #36
2013: #18
2014: I don't see offense/defense rankings split out (maybe that comes later), but so far we're #75 in S&P+.

So I don't really see a trend. We took a step back when Luck left but were still above FBS-average, then clear improvement to good-but-not-elite last year, which paired with an elite defense had us in a pretty good spot. This year we've clearly regressed, but it doesn't appear to be trend.



*Given the wildly divergent quality of opponents in college football, I think this is necessary. It makes no goddamn sense to be comparing a team play Stanford's schedule to one playing FSU's, to say nothing of one playing Houston's.

cfbstats is the source

on FEI, it has the Stanford offense at 93rd.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff

[slide]

What numbers are you guys using for those rankings? Using FEI+, which looks at quality of opponents*, I see:

2011: #6
2012: #36
2013: #18
2014: I don't see offense/defense rankings split out (maybe that comes later), but so far we're #75 in S&P+.

So I don't really see a trend. We took a step back when Luck left but were still above FBS-average, then clear improvement to good-but-not-elite last year, which paired with an elite defense had us in a pretty good spot. This year we've clearly regressed, but it doesn't appear to be trend.



*Given the wildly divergent quality of opponents in college football, I think this is necessary. It makes no goddamn sense to be comparing a team play Stanford's schedule to one playing FSU's, to say nothing of one playing Houston's.

cfbstats is the source

on FEI, it has the Stanford offense at 93rd.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff

[stupac2]

cfbstats is the source

That clarifies nothing. YPG? PPG? YPP? There are a bunch of different metrics one could use.

Regardless, I think any ranking that ignores the strength of opposing defenses is beyond pointless and into actively misleading.

[stupac2]

cfbstats is the source

That clarifies nothing. YPG? PPG? YPP? There are a bunch of different metrics one could use.

Regardless, I think any ranking that ignores the strength of opposing defenses is beyond pointless and into actively misleading.

[washingtonismoney]

Problem with total offense stats is that it lumps together teams that play wildly divergent paces. I'm not a fan of huddling, but it's not clear to me pace is always and everywhere better. So it's inappropriate to just lump them together, I think.

With respect to the issue of overall effectiveness of offense...trend is probably the wrong thing to focus on. There's not much of one. Rephrase the question: do you think, given talent available over the four years of Shaw's tenure, that those are the kind of results you'd expect? If that 93rd ranking -- or similar -- sustains itself over the year, that's well below my expectations. I'm not sure what level it'd have to be to meet my expectations, but it would take a hell of a finish.

[washingtonismoney]

Problem with total offense stats is that it lumps together teams that play wildly divergent paces. I'm not a fan of huddling, but it's not clear to me pace is always and everywhere better. So it's inappropriate to just lump them together, I think.

With respect to the issue of overall effectiveness of offense...trend is probably the wrong thing to focus on. There's not much of one. Rephrase the question: do you think, given talent available over the four years of Shaw's tenure, that those are the kind of results you'd expect? If that 93rd ranking -- or similar -- sustains itself over the year, that's well below my expectations. I'm not sure what level it'd have to be to meet my expectations, but it would take a hell of a finish.