08-11-2015, 06:32 PM
Audaces fortuna iuvat
My kind of offense
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Audaces fortuna iuvat
08-11-2015, 06:54 PM
So much NFL talent and a solid OLine.Â
I still wear that redzone shirt to the gym from time to time.Â
I still wear that redzone shirt to the gym from time to time.Â
So much NFL talent and a solid OLine.Â
I still wear that redzone shirt to the gym from time to time.Â
I still wear that redzone shirt to the gym from time to time.Â
08-11-2015, 07:43 PM
That block by Ryan W was the best play of the series. A close second is the smart play to hurry to the line for the TD. And of course Toby was just amazing every game that season. It's still my favorite year of Stanford fandom.
08-13-2015, 11:18 AM
Pass when you expect a run; run when you expect a pass; and a delayed pass to the fullback out of the backfield (when is the last time we've seen that?).Â
I'm sorry, but I'm not "buying" the notion that Stanford's offense under this regime is merely a continuation of what we saw under the prior regime. To me, there is a qualitative difference in approach that is obvious to the eyes, and that has little or nothing to do with #12 at QB.
I'm sorry, but I'm not "buying" the notion that Stanford's offense under this regime is merely a continuation of what we saw under the prior regime. To me, there is a qualitative difference in approach that is obvious to the eyes, and that has little or nothing to do with #12 at QB.
Pass when you expect a run; run when you expect a pass; and a delayed pass to the fullback out of the backfield (when is the last time we've seen that?).Â
I'm sorry, but I'm not "buying" the notion that Stanford's offense under this regime is merely a continuation of what we saw under the prior regime. To me, there is a qualitative difference in approach that is obvious to the eyes, and that has little or nothing to do with #12 at QB.
I'm sorry, but I'm not "buying" the notion that Stanford's offense under this regime is merely a continuation of what we saw under the prior regime. To me, there is a qualitative difference in approach that is obvious to the eyes, and that has little or nothing to do with #12 at QB.
08-13-2015, 11:58 AM
(08-13-2015, 11:18 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:Pass when you expect a run; run when you expect a pass; and a delayed pass to the fullback out of the backfield (when is the last time we've seen that?).Â
I'm sorry, but I'm not "buying" the notion that Stanford's offense under this regime is merely a continuation of what we saw under the prior regime. To me, there is a qualitative difference in approach that is obvious to the eyes, and that has little or nothing to do with #12 at QB.
Yeah, and whatever happened to the offensive coordinator we had then?
(08-13-2015, 11:18 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:Pass when you expect a run; run when you expect a pass; and a delayed pass to the fullback out of the backfield (when is the last time we've seen that?).Â
I'm sorry, but I'm not "buying" the notion that Stanford's offense under this regime is merely a continuation of what we saw under the prior regime. To me, there is a qualitative difference in approach that is obvious to the eyes, and that has little or nothing to do with #12 at QB.
Yeah, and whatever happened to the offensive coordinator we had then?
08-13-2015, 12:04 PM
The only thing obvious to many, if not most eyes, is the wisdom of playing nine future NFL players on offense, including two Voldemort Trophy runners up in the backfield, a soon-to-be All Pro offensive guard, an early second round draft choice left tackle, and a fullback who finishes tenth in the Voldemort voting. That was dominant talent imposing its will.Â
The only thing obvious to many, if not most eyes, is the wisdom of playing nine future NFL players on offense, including two Voldemort Trophy runners up in the backfield, a soon-to-be All Pro offensive guard, an early second round draft choice left tackle, and a fullback who finishes tenth in the Voldemort voting. That was dominant talent imposing its will.Â
08-13-2015, 12:15 PM
Wasn't that drive the very opposite of surprise? Wasn't it the middle linebacker declaring "If you guys run 'Power' one more time I'm walking off the field?" This is precisely the wrong example to justify the virtue of surprise in playcalling.
Wasn't that drive the very opposite of surprise? Wasn't it the middle linebacker declaring "If you guys run 'Power' one more time I'm walking off the field?" This is precisely the wrong example to justify the virtue of surprise in playcalling.
08-13-2015, 12:24 PM
(08-13-2015, 12:15 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Wasn't that drive the very opposite of surprise? Wasn't it the middle linebacker declaring "If you guys run 'Power' one more time I'm walking off the field?" This is precisely the wrong example to justify the virtue of surprise in playcalling.
My recollection was that occurred in the 4th quarter when they were totally gassed and we kept running Power because we could. Man, those were some good times.
(08-13-2015, 12:15 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Wasn't that drive the very opposite of surprise? Wasn't it the middle linebacker declaring "If you guys run 'Power' one more time I'm walking off the field?" This is precisely the wrong example to justify the virtue of surprise in playcalling.
My recollection was that occurred in the 4th quarter when they were totally gassed and we kept running Power because we could. Man, those were some good times.
(08-13-2015, 11:18 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:I'm sorry, but I'm not "buying" the notion that Stanford's offense under this regime is merely a continuation of what we saw under the prior regime. To me, there is a qualitative difference in approach that is obvious to the eyes, and that has little or nothing to do with #12 at QB.
In 2011, when Shaw had Andrew Luck, he ran the same offense that Harbaugh ran with Luck in 2010.
After Luck left, Shaw changed his emphasis on offense several times, depending on the personnel.
In 2012, the passing game focused on the TEs (Ertz/Toilolo) and RB (Taylor). We had more of a downfield passing game with Nunes at QB, and more of a short passing game after Hogan took over. Nunes ran by design only occasionally; Hogan more often.
In 2013, the offense became heavily run-oriented with Gaffney. The passing offense had a lot of downfield passing to the WRs, and almost no passes to the TEs.
In 2014, having lost our workhorse RBs (Taylor and Gaffney), we went to "running back by committee." We moved away from our long-time emphasis on the "power" play. We became more pass oriented for much of the year, until the last few games. We brought the TE back into the passing game, after abandoning the TE the prior year. The QB was in the shotgun more than in the past.
Shaw still has the same basic offensive philosophy that we've had since the Harbaugh years. But he has changed our offensive emphasis several times depending on personnel.
(08-13-2015, 11:18 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:I'm sorry, but I'm not "buying" the notion that Stanford's offense under this regime is merely a continuation of what we saw under the prior regime. To me, there is a qualitative difference in approach that is obvious to the eyes, and that has little or nothing to do with #12 at QB.
In 2011, when Shaw had Andrew Luck, he ran the same offense that Harbaugh ran with Luck in 2010.
After Luck left, Shaw changed his emphasis on offense several times, depending on the personnel.
In 2012, the passing game focused on the TEs (Ertz/Toilolo) and RB (Taylor). We had more of a downfield passing game with Nunes at QB, and more of a short passing game after Hogan took over. Nunes ran by design only occasionally; Hogan more often.
In 2013, the offense became heavily run-oriented with Gaffney. The passing offense had a lot of downfield passing to the WRs, and almost no passes to the TEs.
In 2014, having lost our workhorse RBs (Taylor and Gaffney), we went to "running back by committee." We moved away from our long-time emphasis on the "power" play. We became more pass oriented for much of the year, until the last few games. We brought the TE back into the passing game, after abandoning the TE the prior year. The QB was in the shotgun more than in the past.
Shaw still has the same basic offensive philosophy that we've had since the Harbaugh years. But he has changed our offensive emphasis several times depending on personnel.
08-13-2015, 01:24 PM
(08-13-2015, 12:24 PM)GoodGrief link Wrote:My recollection was that occurred in the 4th quarter when they were totally gassed and we kept running Power because we could. Man, those were some good times.
True. But it was true all game; Stanford ran 50 times and passed 22. In most passing situations, Stanford called run; by my count, 5 of the 6 passing situations the team saw that game.
The reason Stanford won that game had little to do with surprise, though I suppose individual play calls may have shocked. It was because:
1) Stanford ran a ton
2) Was really successful at it
3) And therefore never saw too many passing situations.
It was the apotheosis of the exact opposite approach teejers imagines.
(08-13-2015, 12:24 PM)GoodGrief link Wrote:My recollection was that occurred in the 4th quarter when they were totally gassed and we kept running Power because we could. Man, those were some good times.
True. But it was true all game; Stanford ran 50 times and passed 22. In most passing situations, Stanford called run; by my count, 5 of the 6 passing situations the team saw that game.
The reason Stanford won that game had little to do with surprise, though I suppose individual play calls may have shocked. It was because:
1) Stanford ran a ton
2) Was really successful at it
3) And therefore never saw too many passing situations.
It was the apotheosis of the exact opposite approach teejers imagines.
08-13-2015, 01:28 PM
(08-13-2015, 01:24 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:It was the apotheosis of the exact opposite approach teejers imagines.
True generally.
Somehwat OT, but perhaps of interest to the thread, in the sequence shown Stanford only ran Power once - that was a first and 10 when Taylor was subbing for Gerhart. Went for 8 yards.
(08-13-2015, 01:24 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:It was the apotheosis of the exact opposite approach teejers imagines.
True generally.
Somehwat OT, but perhaps of interest to the thread, in the sequence shown Stanford only ran Power once - that was a first and 10 when Taylor was subbing for Gerhart. Went for 8 yards.
08-13-2015, 01:33 PM
(08-13-2015, 01:24 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=GoodGrief link=topic=12497.msg124272#msg124272 date=1439493891]
My recollection was that occurred in the 4th quarter when they were totally gassed and we kept running Power because we could. Man, those were some good times.
True. But it was true all game; Stanford ran 50 times and passed 22. In most passing situations, Stanford called run; by my count, 5 of the 6 passing situations the team saw that game.
The reason Stanford won that game had little to do with surprise, though I suppose individual play calls may have shocked. It was because:
1) Stanford ran a ton
2) Was really successful at it
3) And therefore never saw too many passing situations.
It was the apotheosis of the exact opposite approach teejers imagines.
[/quote]
I think you meant to say "In most running situations, Stanford called run" or simply "In most situations, Stanford called run"
(or did we actually run in 5 out of the 6 passing situations we faced?)
Now, at the time, we did run in obvious passing situations (third and longish) a lot with Toby Gerhart. But that was because Toby had a freaky ability to get 9 yards on third and 9. In fact, that happened more before Luck and in Luck's first year. Thereafter, we rarely were in clear passing situations, since we tended to a) run on first down and b) gain a fair number of yards on first down, so we often faced second or third and short.
This goes back to the mantra that I've always held, which is that effective execution makes playcalling largely irrelevant. We were good enough to gain five yards per cary when opponents were stacking the box against the run. Andrew Luck could find the open receiver even when the opponent was expecting a pass. That can make any coach, even David Shaw look brilliant. You can call the play that was dictated by the situation and get the yards even when your opponent is expecting it, or you can run on a passing down knowing that your running back will still be able to get just enough yards for a first down, or pass on a running down knowing your QB has a high completion percentage and won't make a mistake, and has a good chance of finding the receiver downfield as your Orange Bowl opponent's linebacker who has been beaten over the top for the umpteenth time throws his mouthguard in disgust.
BC
(08-13-2015, 01:24 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=GoodGrief link=topic=12497.msg124272#msg124272 date=1439493891]
My recollection was that occurred in the 4th quarter when they were totally gassed and we kept running Power because we could. Man, those were some good times.
True. But it was true all game; Stanford ran 50 times and passed 22. In most passing situations, Stanford called run; by my count, 5 of the 6 passing situations the team saw that game.
The reason Stanford won that game had little to do with surprise, though I suppose individual play calls may have shocked. It was because:
1) Stanford ran a ton
2) Was really successful at it
3) And therefore never saw too many passing situations.
It was the apotheosis of the exact opposite approach teejers imagines.
[/quote]
I think you meant to say "In most running situations, Stanford called run" or simply "In most situations, Stanford called run"
(or did we actually run in 5 out of the 6 passing situations we faced?)
Now, at the time, we did run in obvious passing situations (third and longish) a lot with Toby Gerhart. But that was because Toby had a freaky ability to get 9 yards on third and 9. In fact, that happened more before Luck and in Luck's first year. Thereafter, we rarely were in clear passing situations, since we tended to a) run on first down and b) gain a fair number of yards on first down, so we often faced second or third and short.
This goes back to the mantra that I've always held, which is that effective execution makes playcalling largely irrelevant. We were good enough to gain five yards per cary when opponents were stacking the box against the run. Andrew Luck could find the open receiver even when the opponent was expecting a pass. That can make any coach, even David Shaw look brilliant. You can call the play that was dictated by the situation and get the yards even when your opponent is expecting it, or you can run on a passing down knowing that your running back will still be able to get just enough yards for a first down, or pass on a running down knowing your QB has a high completion percentage and won't make a mistake, and has a good chance of finding the receiver downfield as your Orange Bowl opponent's linebacker who has been beaten over the top for the umpteenth time throws his mouthguard in disgust.
BC
08-13-2015, 02:19 PM
In most passing situations Stanford called pass, I meant. Though I may have miscounted.
In most passing situations Stanford called pass, I meant. Though I may have miscounted.
08-13-2015, 02:50 PM
We ran 50 times, and on 35 of our last 38 plays. This was the game in which we ran power 19 straight times, iirc, and in which the SC defender said, "you run Power one more time and I'm leaving the field." We averaged 6.5 yards per 50 carries, averaged about the same on 22 passes. Not a big day for Luck, but she showed his elusiveness.
By my count, 12 players on that Stanford offense are still on NFL rosters, including all three receivers.
By my count, 12 players on that Stanford offense are still on NFL rosters, including all three receivers.
We ran 50 times, and on 35 of our last 38 plays. This was the game in which we ran power 19 straight times, iirc, and in which the SC defender said, "you run Power one more time and I'm leaving the field." We averaged 6.5 yards per 50 carries, averaged about the same on 22 passes. Not a big day for Luck, but she showed his elusiveness.
By my count, 12 players on that Stanford offense are still on NFL rosters, including all three receivers.
By my count, 12 players on that Stanford offense are still on NFL rosters, including all three receivers.
08-13-2015, 03:28 PM
(08-13-2015, 02:50 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We ran 50 times, and on 35 of our last 38 plays. This was the game in which we ran power 19 straight times, iirc, and in which the SC defender said, "you run Power one more time and I'm leaving the field." We averaged 6.5 yards per 50 carries, averaged about the same on 22 passes. Not a big day for Luck, but she showed his elusiveness.
By my count, 12 players on that Stanford offense are still on NFL rosters, including all three receivers.
Yes she did, by gum!
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(08-13-2015, 02:50 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We ran 50 times, and on 35 of our last 38 plays. This was the game in which we ran power 19 straight times, iirc, and in which the SC defender said, "you run Power one more time and I'm leaving the field." We averaged 6.5 yards per 50 carries, averaged about the same on 22 passes. Not a big day for Luck, but she showed his elusiveness.
By my count, 12 players on that Stanford offense are still on NFL rosters, including all three receivers.
Yes she did, by gum!
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
08-13-2015, 04:54 PM
(08-13-2015, 02:50 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:By my count, 12 players on that Stanford offense are still on NFL rosters, including all three receivers.
How Harbaugh amassed that kind of talent without many heralded recruits in simply amazing.
08-13-2015, 05:18 PM
Of course the key piece of talent was Andrew Luck, and you just don't find a potential hall of fame QB every year. Luck always seemed in control, always seemed to read the defense correctly, always seemed to choose the right receiver to throw the ball to. As good as the talent was on that team, Luck made them even better. (And as good as Harbaugh is as a coach, Luck on the field made Harbaugh look even better)
Of course the key piece of talent was Andrew Luck, and you just don't find a potential hall of fame QB every year. Luck always seemed in control, always seemed to read the defense correctly, always seemed to choose the right receiver to throw the ball to. As good as the talent was on that team, Luck made them even better. (And as good as Harbaugh is as a coach, Luck on the field made Harbaugh look even better)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »