[BostonCard]

I'm pretty wishy-washy on this point. If you take the 3.75 years of the Shaw administration so far, we've got:

1) a really good year (when we should've had a really good year)
2) a mediocre year (that I think more-or-less fulfilled its talent level)
3) a solid year (again, more-or-less fulfilling its talent level)
4) an awful year (...with issues that don't seem easily reducible to a sentence-level summation as in previous years)

At 5.91 yards per play, our offense is worse than in 2011 (duh) and 2013, but actually better than 2012 (what you call "a mediocre year"), when we averaged 5.53 yards per play.  I'm not going to sit here and say we have a good offense, but I do think it is comparable to the offense of 2 years ago.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm pretty wishy-washy on this point. If you take the 3.75 years of the Shaw administration so far, we've got:

1) a really good year (when we should've had a really good year)
2) a mediocre year (that I think more-or-less fulfilled its talent level)
3) a solid year (again, more-or-less fulfilling its talent level)
4) an awful year (...with issues that don't seem easily reducible to a sentence-level summation as in previous years)

At 5.91 yards per play, our offense is worse than in 2011 (duh) and 2013, but actually better than 2012 (what you call "a mediocre year"), when we averaged 5.53 yards per play.  I'm not going to sit here and say we have a good offense, but I do think it is comparable to the offense of 2 years ago.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

At 5.91 yards per play, our offense is worse than in 2011 (duh) and 2013, but actually better than 2012 (what you call "a mediocre year"), when we averaged 5.53 yards per play.  I'm not going to sit here and say we have a good offense, but I do think it is comparable to the offense of 2 years ago.

2014, however, has the epic redzone struggles (44% vs. 60% in 2012) and slightly greater turnover issues (2.89% vs. 2.42%, which surely isn't a significant difference), against a slightly worse schedule (33 so far in 2014, 22 in 2012 per Sagarin). So I think it's fair to characterize the offense as worse, though perhaps I overstated things. Still, two mediocre offenses in four years should prompt some rethinking of the way things are done.

Other thought. The coaching staff from 2011-13 strikes me as more experienced than this one. Perhaps Shaw isn't hiring as well as he previously did on the offensive end of the ball?

[washingtonismoney]

At 5.91 yards per play, our offense is worse than in 2011 (duh) and 2013, but actually better than 2012 (what you call "a mediocre year"), when we averaged 5.53 yards per play.  I'm not going to sit here and say we have a good offense, but I do think it is comparable to the offense of 2 years ago.

2014, however, has the epic redzone struggles (44% vs. 60% in 2012) and slightly greater turnover issues (2.89% vs. 2.42%, which surely isn't a significant difference), against a slightly worse schedule (33 so far in 2014, 22 in 2012 per Sagarin). So I think it's fair to characterize the offense as worse, though perhaps I overstated things. Still, two mediocre offenses in four years should prompt some rethinking of the way things are done.

Other thought. The coaching staff from 2011-13 strikes me as more experienced than this one. Perhaps Shaw isn't hiring as well as he previously did on the offensive end of the ball?

[yvonne]

Is it that he is isn't hiring as well, or that he isn't hiring? The last I remember is that he simply promoted, but didn't add anyone. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[yvonne]

Is it that he is isn't hiring as well, or that he isn't hiring? The last I remember is that he simply promoted, but didn't add anyone. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[CTcard]

At 5.91 yards per play, our offense is worse than in 2011 (duh) and 2013, but actually better than 2012 (what you call "a mediocre year"), when we averaged 5.53 yards per play. 

2012: 374 yds/gm; 5.5 yds/play; 27.9 pts/gm; 2.08 pts/drive
2013: 405 yds/gm; 6.3 yds/play; 32.3 pts/gm; 2.67 pts/drive
2014: 383 yds/gm; 5.9 yds/play; 25.8 pts/gm; 1.87 pts/drive

An important consideration for 2014 is that the season isn't over. We still have games versus the #3, #7, #11, and #12 conference-ranked defenses (yds/gm).

It seems to me that at this point in the season, the offense is not that different in overall ability to move the ball than in 2013 - and better than 2012. Last year after 8 games we were just coming off an epic offensive failure vs OSU and just a few weeks past the Utah and (offensively) UW disasters.

The 2012 team is in some ways my favorite of the current run. I think it clearly had the lowest inherent ability level yet managed somehow to become Rose Bowl champions. That's pretty great.

This year I think much of the fan base, in projecting Stanford's prospects, either under-estimated the importance of the Oline or over-estimated its likely performance based upon recruiting rankings. It's very hard to have a good Oline with 4 new starters, and we have seen much of those struggles play out.

What seems particularly bad this year is inability to actually score - see 1.87 pts/drive - which has usually been discussed as red zone woes. Part of that is the disappearance of the run game. As the field shrinks, it impacts the passing game more than the run game. It also seems to have magnified the line issues - penalties, lack of push on short-yardage, sacks have all played a role.

If Shaw has a line on somebody whom he has reason to believe will be a particularly great fit for a Stanford OC I would be happy with a new hire. If Shaw changes OCs merely to "do something" then I wouldn't be happy. The problem of course is I wouldn't be able to tell the difference a priori.

[CTcard]

At 5.91 yards per play, our offense is worse than in 2011 (duh) and 2013, but actually better than 2012 (what you call "a mediocre year"), when we averaged 5.53 yards per play. 

2012: 374 yds/gm; 5.5 yds/play; 27.9 pts/gm; 2.08 pts/drive
2013: 405 yds/gm; 6.3 yds/play; 32.3 pts/gm; 2.67 pts/drive
2014: 383 yds/gm; 5.9 yds/play; 25.8 pts/gm; 1.87 pts/drive

An important consideration for 2014 is that the season isn't over. We still have games versus the #3, #7, #11, and #12 conference-ranked defenses (yds/gm).

It seems to me that at this point in the season, the offense is not that different in overall ability to move the ball than in 2013 - and better than 2012. Last year after 8 games we were just coming off an epic offensive failure vs OSU and just a few weeks past the Utah and (offensively) UW disasters.

The 2012 team is in some ways my favorite of the current run. I think it clearly had the lowest inherent ability level yet managed somehow to become Rose Bowl champions. That's pretty great.

This year I think much of the fan base, in projecting Stanford's prospects, either under-estimated the importance of the Oline or over-estimated its likely performance based upon recruiting rankings. It's very hard to have a good Oline with 4 new starters, and we have seen much of those struggles play out.

What seems particularly bad this year is inability to actually score - see 1.87 pts/drive - which has usually been discussed as red zone woes. Part of that is the disappearance of the run game. As the field shrinks, it impacts the passing game more than the run game. It also seems to have magnified the line issues - penalties, lack of push on short-yardage, sacks have all played a role.

If Shaw has a line on somebody whom he has reason to believe will be a particularly great fit for a Stanford OC I would be happy with a new hire. If Shaw changes OCs merely to "do something" then I wouldn't be happy. The problem of course is I wouldn't be able to tell the difference a priori.

[Mick]

Turnovers and field goals.

There is a positive correlation between net turnover margin and win/loss record.  We are actually outperforming the mean when you take into account our turnover margin this year of -8, which ranks #118 in the country.  Two years ago, we had 28 takeaways, this year we have eight so far.  We're not giving up the ball appreciably more (19 giveups in 2012 against 16 this year), although it is slightly higher.  Our defense is not getting the takeaways.  That is a core concern that affects the offense:

YR      margin 
2012    +9, or .64 per game
2013      0, 19 lost, 19 taken away
2014    -8, 16 lost, 8 taken away

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/23/4649718/college-football-turnover-margin-winning-percentage


Secondly, field goals.  Check field goals made:

YR
2012  17 (of 27, 63%)
2013  20 (of 26, 77%)
2014    8 (of 14, 57%)

That's three points per game, one extra field goal made per game would put a big dent in the difference between 1.87 and 2.08 points per drive.

I'm not an offensive genius and I wouldn't presuppose what the offense is, but I can see that we're not getting takeaways and Shaw has little confidence in his field goal game. 

[Mick]

Turnovers and field goals.

There is a positive correlation between net turnover margin and win/loss record.  We are actually outperforming the mean when you take into account our turnover margin this year of -8, which ranks #118 in the country.  Two years ago, we had 28 takeaways, this year we have eight so far.  We're not giving up the ball appreciably more (19 giveups in 2012 against 16 this year), although it is slightly higher.  Our defense is not getting the takeaways.  That is a core concern that affects the offense:

YR      margin 
2012    +9, or .64 per game
2013      0, 19 lost, 19 taken away
2014    -8, 16 lost, 8 taken away

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/23/4649718/college-football-turnover-margin-winning-percentage


Secondly, field goals.  Check field goals made:

YR
2012  17 (of 27, 63%)
2013  20 (of 26, 77%)
2014    8 (of 14, 57%)

That's three points per game, one extra field goal made per game would put a big dent in the difference between 1.87 and 2.08 points per drive.

I'm not an offensive genius and I wouldn't presuppose what the offense is, but I can see that we're not getting takeaways and Shaw has little confidence in his field goal game. 

[BostonCard]

Someone else noted that we have had bad luck with fumbles.  I think the statistics show that fumble recovery is a crapshoot, and over the long range, evens out at 50%.  We've been substantially lower than 50% this year... the ball is just not bouncing our way.

BC

[BostonCard]

Someone else noted that we have had bad luck with fumbles.  I think the statistics show that fumble recovery is a crapshoot, and over the long range, evens out at 50%.  We've been substantially lower than 50% this year... the ball is just not bouncing our way.

BC

[jayasena]

Hasn't this coaching staff by now shown that they're willing to evolve? You can argue that it came too late, but I can see why Shaw was hesitant. The offense basically worked against U$€, we just had an extremely unfortunate series of essentially unrelated disasters. I think if we switch the Army and U$€ games we probably beat U$€ by 2 scores just from the extra time to get the kinks out. And the loss to ND was against a top-10 team, on the road, and we nearly won. After the WSU game where we moved the ball well enough, how clear was it that we had a problem with the base offense and not a simple execution issue?

I've had faith in Shaw's willingness to change, especially after the ASU disaster (as I posted in the immediate aftermath). And, as above, I attributed the lack of a change prior to the ASU game to Shaw being conservative and not willing to change until there was conclusive evidence of our offensive woes.

That said, one thing I've wondered is why the coaching staff needs to rely on game performance to come to this conclusion. I have a hard time believing our base offense works well against our defense, which is tougher than any of the opponents to date (unless there's some specific mismatch that I can't fathom). So, surely, the staff had to have seen this in practice. And hopefully the staff isn't so full of themselves to think there are no other defenses out there that can come close to our own (i.e., that struggling against our D is not indicative of a problem worth fixing). Or is it that our defense is so good that our offense looks bad in practice regardless of the scheme?

Anyway, when questions are raised about the coaching staff on these boards, a lot of folks offer the defense (and rightfully so) that the staff has a lot more information than we do as we only see the games. So it's a bit odd to turn around and say the coaches have to wait until they have conclusive evidence from games before trying to fix problems. And I'm saying that as one of the guilty parties myself (with key incriminating evidence linked above).

[jayasena]

Hasn't this coaching staff by now shown that they're willing to evolve? You can argue that it came too late, but I can see why Shaw was hesitant. The offense basically worked against U$€, we just had an extremely unfortunate series of essentially unrelated disasters. I think if we switch the Army and U$€ games we probably beat U$€ by 2 scores just from the extra time to get the kinks out. And the loss to ND was against a top-10 team, on the road, and we nearly won. After the WSU game where we moved the ball well enough, how clear was it that we had a problem with the base offense and not a simple execution issue?

I've had faith in Shaw's willingness to change, especially after the ASU disaster (as I posted in the immediate aftermath). And, as above, I attributed the lack of a change prior to the ASU game to Shaw being conservative and not willing to change until there was conclusive evidence of our offensive woes.

That said, one thing I've wondered is why the coaching staff needs to rely on game performance to come to this conclusion. I have a hard time believing our base offense works well against our defense, which is tougher than any of the opponents to date (unless there's some specific mismatch that I can't fathom). So, surely, the staff had to have seen this in practice. And hopefully the staff isn't so full of themselves to think there are no other defenses out there that can come close to our own (i.e., that struggling against our D is not indicative of a problem worth fixing). Or is it that our defense is so good that our offense looks bad in practice regardless of the scheme?

Anyway, when questions are raised about the coaching staff on these boards, a lot of folks offer the defense (and rightfully so) that the staff has a lot more information than we do as we only see the games. So it's a bit odd to turn around and say the coaches have to wait until they have conclusive evidence from games before trying to fix problems. And I'm saying that as one of the guilty parties myself (with key incriminating evidence linked above).