09-17-2015, 11:32 AM
Interesting article here: http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_288...um=twitter
How Shaw is preparing for SC
09-17-2015, 11:40 AM
He's preparing for U$C by hiding the playbook. From his offense.
Oops, wrong thread! :)
Oops, wrong thread! :)
09-17-2015, 12:12 PM
(09-17-2015, 11:32 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Interesting article here: http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_288...um=twitter
An interesting comment in their from Wilner,
Quote:Stanford's call sheet this week "is as small as I can remember," offensive coordinator Mike Bloomgren said. ... "The stuff where we say, 'Let's do another, and another and another.' "
For Stanford, the prime example would be Power, the running play over left or right tackle that involves a pulling guard and a lead block by the fullback.
Ironically, I am not sure we are running Power particularly often anymore. At least true Power with the pulling guard, trap blocking tackle, and kick-out from the fullback.
I haven't watched the NW tape carefully, I did finally watch the UCF tape. We rarely ran power in the game. I think I remember once early (maybe the 2 yard gain on the second play?) and that's about it. We were running more zone stuff than usual and more straight ahead "block the guy in front of you" plays. I am under the impression that they don't trust the OL to move and find the right guy to block.
(09-17-2015, 11:32 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Interesting article here: http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_288...um=twitter
An interesting comment in their from Wilner,
Quote:Stanford's call sheet this week "is as small as I can remember," offensive coordinator Mike Bloomgren said. ... "The stuff where we say, 'Let's do another, and another and another.' "
For Stanford, the prime example would be Power, the running play over left or right tackle that involves a pulling guard and a lead block by the fullback.
Ironically, I am not sure we are running Power particularly often anymore. At least true Power with the pulling guard, trap blocking tackle, and kick-out from the fullback.
I haven't watched the NW tape carefully, I did finally watch the UCF tape. We rarely ran power in the game. I think I remember once early (maybe the 2 yard gain on the second play?) and that's about it. We were running more zone stuff than usual and more straight ahead "block the guy in front of you" plays. I am under the impression that they don't trust the OL to move and find the right guy to block.
09-17-2015, 12:18 PM
I'd agree with this also. I haven't seen much power thus far. A few definite examples against Northwestern, a couple against Central Florida. It would be great to see some this week. Remember, it was after a U>S>C game a few years ago, perhaps the WYD? game, that the offensive linemen talked about the opposing defensive linemen begging them to stop running power towards the end. I'm thinking we need more of that.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
I'd agree with this also. I haven't seen much power thus far. A few definite examples against Northwestern, a couple against Central Florida. It would be great to see some this week. Remember, it was after a U>S>C game a few years ago, perhaps the WYD? game, that the offensive linemen talked about the opposing defensive linemen begging them to stop running power towards the end. I'm thinking we need more of that.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
09-17-2015, 12:23 PM
Power is more difficult to execute properly, but when we can execute it correctly, it is hard to stop. My suspicion is we are not running it much because the coaches aren't confident it can be executed consistently.
BC
BC
Power is more difficult to execute properly, but when we can execute it correctly, it is hard to stop. My suspicion is we are not running it much because the coaches aren't confident it can be executed consistently.
BC
BC
09-17-2015, 12:29 PM
(09-17-2015, 12:23 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:My suspicion is we are not running it much because the coaches aren't confident it can be executed consistently.
Exactly what I meant by "I am under the impression that they don't trust the OL to move and find the right guy to block."
It concerns me that we don't seem to be able to execute that play properly with four returning senior linemen - and it has nothing to do with the size of the RB carrying the ball.
I guess I should go back to the UCLA/Maryland tapes from last year - I don't remember the running plays from there too distinctly anymore.
(09-17-2015, 12:23 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:My suspicion is we are not running it much because the coaches aren't confident it can be executed consistently.
Exactly what I meant by "I am under the impression that they don't trust the OL to move and find the right guy to block."
It concerns me that we don't seem to be able to execute that play properly with four returning senior linemen - and it has nothing to do with the size of the RB carrying the ball.
I guess I should go back to the UCLA/Maryland tapes from last year - I don't remember the running plays from there too distinctly anymore.
09-17-2015, 12:34 PM
(09-17-2015, 12:29 PM)CTcard link Wrote:It concerns me that we don't seem to be able to execute that play properly with four returning senior linemen.
That and the announcement that they'll be experimenting with Caspers at C more frequently indicates the coaches rate the OL quite poorly. Which shouldn't be, given the hype that preceded them and the experience they carry.
(09-17-2015, 12:29 PM)CTcard link Wrote:It concerns me that we don't seem to be able to execute that play properly with four returning senior linemen.
That and the announcement that they'll be experimenting with Caspers at C more frequently indicates the coaches rate the OL quite poorly. Which shouldn't be, given the hype that preceded them and the experience they carry.
09-17-2015, 02:11 PM
(09-17-2015, 12:34 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:That and the announcement that they'll be experimenting with Caspers at C more frequently indicates the coaches rate the OL quite poorly.
I guess I missed the announcement, but during the UCF game Caspers was at center for short yardage situations. Not certain it was all of them, but certainly most.
(09-17-2015, 12:34 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:That and the announcement that they'll be experimenting with Caspers at C more frequently indicates the coaches rate the OL quite poorly.
I guess I missed the announcement, but during the UCF game Caspers was at center for short yardage situations. Not certain it was all of them, but certainly most.
09-17-2015, 02:21 PM
Andy mentioned it in his mid-week news and notes.
https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1803346
It's the second item, after the press conference.
More details in the link.
BC
https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1803346
It's the second item, after the press conference.
Quote:Stanford made a subtle but noteworthy change to its offensive line in short yardage situations against UCF. Starting guard Johnny Caspers replaced Graham Shuler at center, and reserve Brendon Austin slid into Caspers' vacant spot.
More details in the link.
BC
Andy mentioned it in his mid-week news and notes.
https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1803346
It's the second item, after the press conference.
More details in the link.
BC
https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1803346
It's the second item, after the press conference.
Quote:Stanford made a subtle but noteworthy change to its offensive line in short yardage situations against UCF. Starting guard Johnny Caspers replaced Graham Shuler at center, and reserve Brendon Austin slid into Caspers' vacant spot.
More details in the link.
BC
09-17-2015, 02:55 PM
(09-17-2015, 12:29 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12815.msg128851#msg128851 date=1442517790]
My suspicion is we are not running it much because the coaches aren't confident it can be executed consistently.
Exactly what I meant by "I am under the impression that they don't trust the OL to move and find the right guy to block."
It concerns me that we don't seem to be able to execute that play properly with four returning senior linemen - and it has nothing to do with the size of the RB carrying the ball.
I guess I should go back to the UCLA/Maryland tapes from last year - I don't remember the running plays from there too distinctly anymore.
[/quote]
Have you all seen the OLs fail to find the right guy to block? I'm no expert, so I don't want to opine on that. Now, despite my lack of expertise, I certainly have seen the OLs fail to get push against opposing DLs. That applies regardless of whether or the OL's blocking scheme involves moving the OLs to find blocks in space. I think it's more an issue of strength/toughness than it is an issue of knowing the offense.Â
Along the same lines, I don't know that the substitution we saw was even meant to address the team's trouble running power or the OLs inability to find the right guy to block in space. The substitution was on short yardage plays. To me, that says the staff didn't trust Shuler to get push when he's battling against the guy directly in front of him on a stacked defensive line. I don't know whether the staff even thinks that Caspers/Bright or Caspers/Austin would be better than Shuler/Caspers when it comes to finding the right block in power.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(09-17-2015, 12:29 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12815.msg128851#msg128851 date=1442517790]
My suspicion is we are not running it much because the coaches aren't confident it can be executed consistently.
Exactly what I meant by "I am under the impression that they don't trust the OL to move and find the right guy to block."
It concerns me that we don't seem to be able to execute that play properly with four returning senior linemen - and it has nothing to do with the size of the RB carrying the ball.
I guess I should go back to the UCLA/Maryland tapes from last year - I don't remember the running plays from there too distinctly anymore.
[/quote]
Have you all seen the OLs fail to find the right guy to block? I'm no expert, so I don't want to opine on that. Now, despite my lack of expertise, I certainly have seen the OLs fail to get push against opposing DLs. That applies regardless of whether or the OL's blocking scheme involves moving the OLs to find blocks in space. I think it's more an issue of strength/toughness than it is an issue of knowing the offense.Â
Along the same lines, I don't know that the substitution we saw was even meant to address the team's trouble running power or the OLs inability to find the right guy to block in space. The substitution was on short yardage plays. To me, that says the staff didn't trust Shuler to get push when he's battling against the guy directly in front of him on a stacked defensive line. I don't know whether the staff even thinks that Caspers/Bright or Caspers/Austin would be better than Shuler/Caspers when it comes to finding the right block in power.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
09-17-2015, 03:07 PM
Caspers is about 15 lbs heavier than Shuler, so that may have something to do with it.
BC
BC
Caspers is about 15 lbs heavier than Shuler, so that may have something to do with it.
BC
BC
09-17-2015, 03:41 PM
(09-17-2015, 03:07 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Caspers is about 15 lbs heavier than Shuler, so that may have something to do with it.
BC
Bingo, BC. Not just size, but strength and toughness, too. (Remember that Beeler, Schwarzstein, and Wilkes were all a bit undersized too.) Bloomgren's opinion of Shuler was not too veiled when he talked about the position battles earlier in the year. He said that Caspers is definitely one of the five best linemen on the team so he will be starting somewhere. Of course, if Shuler were comparable in ability to Bright/Austin, then there was no reason to consider moving Caspers to an unfamiliar position. In my mind, the implication was that Shuler is not one of the five best overall linemen, but he might have to start at center if Caspers isn't able to pick up the finer points of playing center. With that background in mind, I think it is very encouraging that Bloomgren is now willing to move Caspers to center because it suggests that we're about to see the OL get more push. Of course, we have to cross our fingers that there isn't a problem with the snap (especially in an unfriendly stadium), but I view the move as a positive for the outlook of the OL this season.Â
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(09-17-2015, 03:07 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Caspers is about 15 lbs heavier than Shuler, so that may have something to do with it.
BC
Bingo, BC. Not just size, but strength and toughness, too. (Remember that Beeler, Schwarzstein, and Wilkes were all a bit undersized too.) Bloomgren's opinion of Shuler was not too veiled when he talked about the position battles earlier in the year. He said that Caspers is definitely one of the five best linemen on the team so he will be starting somewhere. Of course, if Shuler were comparable in ability to Bright/Austin, then there was no reason to consider moving Caspers to an unfamiliar position. In my mind, the implication was that Shuler is not one of the five best overall linemen, but he might have to start at center if Caspers isn't able to pick up the finer points of playing center. With that background in mind, I think it is very encouraging that Bloomgren is now willing to move Caspers to center because it suggests that we're about to see the OL get more push. Of course, we have to cross our fingers that there isn't a problem with the snap (especially in an unfriendly stadium), but I view the move as a positive for the outlook of the OL this season.Â
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
09-17-2015, 04:18 PM
That's not a subtle move. Caspers is going to have to call the protections now, no minor task. I'm sure both guards have experience doing so, but it's different when you're the man all of a sudden.
09-17-2015, 07:33 PM
If we are just bringing him in for short yardage situations, no worryabout protections... There is a bit of telegraphing the play, but it's not like a between the tackles run isn't more or less telegraphed anyways.
BC
BC
If we are just bringing him in for short yardage situations, no worryabout protections... There is a bit of telegraphing the play, but it's not like a between the tackles run isn't more or less telegraphed anyways.
BC
BC
09-17-2015, 08:41 PM
(09-17-2015, 12:23 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Power is more difficult to execute properly, but when we can execute it correctly, it is hard to stop. My suspicion is we are not running it much because the coaches aren't confident it can be executed consistently.
BC
I have trouble buying that with an OL as experienced as this one. But if it leads to more of what we saw in the 2nd & 3rd quarters last Saturday I don't care.
(09-17-2015, 12:23 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Power is more difficult to execute properly, but when we can execute it correctly, it is hard to stop. My suspicion is we are not running it much because the coaches aren't confident it can be executed consistently.
BC
I have trouble buying that with an OL as experienced as this one. But if it leads to more of what we saw in the 2nd & 3rd quarters last Saturday I don't care.
09-17-2015, 08:42 PM
(09-17-2015, 07:33 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:If we are just bringing him in for short yardage situations, no worryabout protections... There is a bit of telegraphing the play, but it's not like a between the tackles run isn't more or less telegraphed anyways.
BC
When you line up 8 OL + Marx & McCaffrey, you are telegraphing bigtime
(09-17-2015, 07:33 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:If we are just bringing him in for short yardage situations, no worryabout protections... There is a bit of telegraphing the play, but it's not like a between the tackles run isn't more or less telegraphed anyways.
BC
When you line up 8 OL + Marx & McCaffrey, you are telegraphing bigtime
09-17-2015, 09:36 PM
(09-17-2015, 08:42 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12815.msg128909#msg128909 date=1442543581]
If we are just bringing him in for short yardage situations, no worryabout protections... There is a bit of telegraphing the play, but it's not like a between the tackles run isn't more or less telegraphed anyways.
BC
When you line up 8 OL + Marx & McCaffrey, you are telegraphing bigtime
[/quote]
Put the jumbo package in--RB, FB, TE, QB, and seven OL. The first three players have great hands, and the QB can run as well. If the players are properly trained, it telegraphs nothing, other than we think we're stronger than you.
(09-17-2015, 08:42 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12815.msg128909#msg128909 date=1442543581]
If we are just bringing him in for short yardage situations, no worryabout protections... There is a bit of telegraphing the play, but it's not like a between the tackles run isn't more or less telegraphed anyways.
BC
When you line up 8 OL + Marx & McCaffrey, you are telegraphing bigtime
[/quote]
Put the jumbo package in--RB, FB, TE, QB, and seven OL. The first three players have great hands, and the QB can run as well. If the players are properly trained, it telegraphs nothing, other than we think we're stronger than you.
09-18-2015, 12:31 AM
I got flamed in another thread for saying this, but perhaps the reason they're staying away from the bread and butter run plays is that they don't have a back that can be used as a blunt object. Bludgeoning the defense 3-4 yards at a time takes its toll on the back's body.
I got flamed in another thread for saying this, but perhaps the reason they're staying away from the bread and butter run plays is that they don't have a back that can be used as a blunt object. Bludgeoning the defense 3-4 yards at a time takes its toll on the back's body.
09-18-2015, 09:50 AM
Well yeah, we don't have a bruiser. Also, our OL isn't full of bruisers who will push the defensive front seven 3-4 yds back.
09-18-2015, 09:54 AM
(09-17-2015, 09:36 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=12815.msg128916#msg128916 date=1442547744]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12815.msg128909#msg128909 date=1442543581]
If we are just bringing him in for short yardage situations, no worryabout protections... There is a bit of telegraphing the play, but it's not like a between the tackles run isn't more or less telegraphed anyways.
BC
When you line up 8 OL + Marx & McCaffrey, you are telegraphing bigtime
[/quote]
Put the jumbo package in--RB, FB, TE, QB, and seven OL. The first three players have great hands, and the QB can run as well. If the players are properly trained, it telegraphs nothing, other than we think we're stronger than you.
[/quote]
Actually the package I'd love to see on short yardage is 6 OL, 2 TE, FB, RB. Several legit pass threats but can also just pound the rock between the tackles.
We should just line up like that the entire game and run Power & Counter :)Â Then we'd have as many plays as the Toejam Band has songs.
(09-17-2015, 09:36 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=12815.msg128916#msg128916 date=1442547744]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12815.msg128909#msg128909 date=1442543581]
If we are just bringing him in for short yardage situations, no worryabout protections... There is a bit of telegraphing the play, but it's not like a between the tackles run isn't more or less telegraphed anyways.
BC
When you line up 8 OL + Marx & McCaffrey, you are telegraphing bigtime
[/quote]
Put the jumbo package in--RB, FB, TE, QB, and seven OL. The first three players have great hands, and the QB can run as well. If the players are properly trained, it telegraphs nothing, other than we think we're stronger than you.
[/quote]
Actually the package I'd love to see on short yardage is 6 OL, 2 TE, FB, RB. Several legit pass threats but can also just pound the rock between the tackles.
We should just line up like that the entire game and run Power & Counter :)Â Then we'd have as many plays as the Toejam Band has songs.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »