[KartyFan]

I have read a lot about how Shaw needs to "open up the playbook" or "add more variety" to the offense. I have to say I am puzzled by this. In the first two games of the season, I saw:

1) A large number of runs to the outside
2) Several swing passes to the outside
3) Multiple reverse plays
4) A tight end screen
5) A flea flicker

In fact, it seemed to me that in the Northwestern game, our most successful run plays were up the middle, which we seemed to move away from. It did not seem like our linemen, tight ends, or receivers were able to block plays to the outside. If anything, I came away from the Northwestern game thinking we should be making the playbook smaller, which is what I am hearing this week from the coaches as well.

For those of you who disagree with the above, what exactly would you like to see done differently from a playcalling standpoint? The one area where I would like to see more aggressiveness is on 3rd and long (10-15 yds) situations. Otherwise, I would have to say that most of our issues are execution rather than the play calls.

My hunch is that we tend to blend playcalling with decisions such as when to punt or go for a field goal. I am firmly in the camp that we punt too much, but I see that as a separate issue.

[KartyFan]

I have read a lot about how Shaw needs to "open up the playbook" or "add more variety" to the offense. I have to say I am puzzled by this. In the first two games of the season, I saw:

1) A large number of runs to the outside
2) Several swing passes to the outside
3) Multiple reverse plays
4) A tight end screen
5) A flea flicker

In fact, it seemed to me that in the Northwestern game, our most successful run plays were up the middle, which we seemed to move away from. It did not seem like our linemen, tight ends, or receivers were able to block plays to the outside. If anything, I came away from the Northwestern game thinking we should be making the playbook smaller, which is what I am hearing this week from the coaches as well.

For those of you who disagree with the above, what exactly would you like to see done differently from a playcalling standpoint? The one area where I would like to see more aggressiveness is on 3rd and long (10-15 yds) situations. Otherwise, I would have to say that most of our issues are execution rather than the play calls.

My hunch is that we tend to blend playcalling with decisions such as when to punt or go for a field goal. I am firmly in the camp that we punt too much, but I see that as a separate issue.

[OutsiderFan]

Don't know about others, but I don't want to see the playbook "opened up" as much as I want to see it reduced so the team can execute better and play faster on offense.  That doesn't mean you have to be predictable.  You can run or pass out of the same formations and you can use the same personnel packages in different formations.

One thing I absolutely want thrown out of the playbook is the heavy sets with extra OL instead of TE, with runs up the middle.  They generally go nowhere because everyone in the stadium knows it is an up the middle run, and it just ends up being a pile of about 20 bodies with absolutely no place to run other than dive over a pile.  It's a very low percentage of success play with a very low yield of yards if successful.  Even getting one yard is difficult. At least if you use three TEs, they are pass threats and you can get a defense sleeping on a play action fake or get a few defenders to maybe not immediately attack the RB at the snap, fearing there might be a pass called.

My three commandments of offense
1. Don't be predictable
2. Design your scheme to harness what your best players do (even if they are True Frosh)
3. Limit the number of plays to maximize chances of flawless execution

[OutsiderFan]

Don't know about others, but I don't want to see the playbook "opened up" as much as I want to see it reduced so the team can execute better and play faster on offense.  That doesn't mean you have to be predictable.  You can run or pass out of the same formations and you can use the same personnel packages in different formations.

One thing I absolutely want thrown out of the playbook is the heavy sets with extra OL instead of TE, with runs up the middle.  They generally go nowhere because everyone in the stadium knows it is an up the middle run, and it just ends up being a pile of about 20 bodies with absolutely no place to run other than dive over a pile.  It's a very low percentage of success play with a very low yield of yards if successful.  Even getting one yard is difficult. At least if you use three TEs, they are pass threats and you can get a defense sleeping on a play action fake or get a few defenders to maybe not immediately attack the RB at the snap, fearing there might be a pass called.

My three commandments of offense
1. Don't be predictable
2. Design your scheme to harness what your best players do (even if they are True Frosh)
3. Limit the number of plays to maximize chances of flawless execution

[winflop]

I have read a lot about how Shaw needs to "open up the playbook" or "add more variety" to the offense. I have to say I am puzzled by this. In the first two games of the season, I saw:

1) A large number of runs to the outside
2) Several swing passes to the outside
3) Multiple reverse plays
4) A tight end screen
5) A flea flicker

In fact, it seemed to me that in the Northwestern game, our most successful run plays were up the middle, which we seemed to move away from. It did not seem like our linemen, tight ends, or receivers were able to block plays to the outside. If anything, I came away from the Northwestern game thinking we should be making the playbook smaller, which is what I am hearing this week from the coaches as well.

For those of you who disagree with the above, what exactly would you like to see done differently from a playcalling standpoint? The one area where I would like to see more aggressiveness is on 3rd and long (10-15 yds) situations. Otherwise, I would have to say that most of our issues are execution rather than the play calls.

My hunch is that we tend to blend playcalling with decisions such as when to punt or go for a field goal. I am firmly in the camp that we punt too much, but I see that as a separate issue.

My criticisms of Shaw boil down to four things:
- Going to battle with the army you have instead of the one you want.  Have a gameplan that fits the strengths of your personnel
- Be willing to and able to adjust if the gameplan isn't working.  Too much stubbornness & arrogance, as reflected in multiple post-game and Tuesday pressers in the last two seasons
- Punting inside the opponents' 40, and then trying to justify it.  See arrogance above.
- Not recruiting to match the type of offense you want to have.  It's now been 2 seasons without a bell cow RB, and it will probably be 3.  Getting one EVERY year should be a top priority

[winflop]

I have read a lot about how Shaw needs to "open up the playbook" or "add more variety" to the offense. I have to say I am puzzled by this. In the first two games of the season, I saw:

1) A large number of runs to the outside
2) Several swing passes to the outside
3) Multiple reverse plays
4) A tight end screen
5) A flea flicker

In fact, it seemed to me that in the Northwestern game, our most successful run plays were up the middle, which we seemed to move away from. It did not seem like our linemen, tight ends, or receivers were able to block plays to the outside. If anything, I came away from the Northwestern game thinking we should be making the playbook smaller, which is what I am hearing this week from the coaches as well.

For those of you who disagree with the above, what exactly would you like to see done differently from a playcalling standpoint? The one area where I would like to see more aggressiveness is on 3rd and long (10-15 yds) situations. Otherwise, I would have to say that most of our issues are execution rather than the play calls.

My hunch is that we tend to blend playcalling with decisions such as when to punt or go for a field goal. I am firmly in the camp that we punt too much, but I see that as a separate issue.

My criticisms of Shaw boil down to four things:
- Going to battle with the army you have instead of the one you want.  Have a gameplan that fits the strengths of your personnel
- Be willing to and able to adjust if the gameplan isn't working.  Too much stubbornness & arrogance, as reflected in multiple post-game and Tuesday pressers in the last two seasons
- Punting inside the opponents' 40, and then trying to justify it.  See arrogance above.
- Not recruiting to match the type of offense you want to have.  It's now been 2 seasons without a bell cow RB, and it will probably be 3.  Getting one EVERY year should be a top priority

[CTcard]

I have read a lot about how Shaw needs to "open up the playbook" or "add more variety" to the offense. ...
In fact, it seemed to me that in the Northwestern game, our most successful run plays were up the middle, which we seemed to move away from. ...

My hunch is that we tend to blend playcalling with decisions such as when to punt or go for a field goal.

My hunch is that we tend to blend play calling and the phrase "conservative offense" with simply not being good.

I agree with you about Northwestern. Our most successful plays in that game were middle-runs. That was less true vs UCF - they stopped our middle runs better, we tried to run Power less often, and we had more success throwing, mostly on short passes. Our best run plays vs UCF were probably the wildcat plays - perhaps indicating that we are one blocker short much of the time from normal sets.

I suspect that trimming the playbook to what we do well would indeed be a good idea - provided that there really is something that we do well.

[CTcard]

I have read a lot about how Shaw needs to "open up the playbook" or "add more variety" to the offense. ...
In fact, it seemed to me that in the Northwestern game, our most successful run plays were up the middle, which we seemed to move away from. ...

My hunch is that we tend to blend playcalling with decisions such as when to punt or go for a field goal.

My hunch is that we tend to blend play calling and the phrase "conservative offense" with simply not being good.

I agree with you about Northwestern. Our most successful plays in that game were middle-runs. That was less true vs UCF - they stopped our middle runs better, we tried to run Power less often, and we had more success throwing, mostly on short passes. Our best run plays vs UCF were probably the wildcat plays - perhaps indicating that we are one blocker short much of the time from normal sets.

I suspect that trimming the playbook to what we do well would indeed be a good idea - provided that there really is something that we do well.

[Ronnietrader]

I can't remember play action run in the first two games.  Expect it to be a big part of the offense on Saturday.  I like to think they were setting up the USC defense by not putting it on tape against NW and UCF.

[Ronnietrader]

I can't remember play action run in the first two games.  Expect it to be a big part of the offense on Saturday.  I like to think they were setting up the USC defense by not putting it on tape against NW and UCF.

[fullmetal]

I hope you're right, but we haven't seen play action from under center much out of Hogan at all lately.

[fullmetal]

I hope you're right, but we haven't seen play action from under center much out of Hogan at all lately.

[Extra Point]

I hope you're right, but we haven't seen play action from under center much out of Hogan at all lately.

Play action is effective when the running game is working and the safeties move up to stop the run. If the safeties are playing deep play action is not advisable.

[Extra Point]

I hope you're right, but we haven't seen play action from under center much out of Hogan at all lately.

Play action is effective when the running game is working and the safeties move up to stop the run. If the safeties are playing deep play action is not advisable.

[fullmetal]

If we line up jumbo with a RB, FB, extra TE+OL, and zero WRs, I bet the safeties creep up.

[fullmetal]

If we line up jumbo with a RB, FB, extra TE+OL, and zero WRs, I bet the safeties creep up.

[OutsiderFan]

Boston College was running a similar offense to Stanford last night.  Many jumbo sets with extra OL.  They even tried play-action passes out of those formations and played with tempo.  BC scored exactly 0 points against Florida State. 

Now granted, BC's OL is inexperienced, but to me, that game is a real foreshadowing of what is in store for Stanford tonight if it insists on playing 3 yards and a cloud of dust football.

[OutsiderFan]

Boston College was running a similar offense to Stanford last night.  Many jumbo sets with extra OL.  They even tried play-action passes out of those formations and played with tempo.  BC scored exactly 0 points against Florida State. 

Now granted, BC's OL is inexperienced, but to me, that game is a real foreshadowing of what is in store for Stanford tonight if it insists on playing 3 yards and a cloud of dust football.