The Stanford offense has been in a funk lately.
ESPN noticed this so much on Wednesday that they wrote two redundant articles about the struggling Cardinal O - one titled, "What's ailing Stanford's offense?", the other titled "What's wrong with the Stanford offense?"
Clearly, something's broken here if the Worldwide Leader feels the need to devote two articles to the problem. But there's no reason to think Stanford can't snap out of this funk. So what's the trick to an offensive breakout? Simplicity.
The bottom line with the Stanford offense is that it's time to make things easier for Kevin Hogan - the offensive coaching staff has to let his playmakers do the majority of the work with the football. David Shaw and Mike Bloomgren can't have a repeat of last week, where they asked Hogan to drop back and wait to throw over and over again. Under that formula, Hogan got sacked several times and fumbled twice. It's time to make his reads simpler - the way they were when he first became Stanford's starting quarterback.
So what kind of simple plays were those? Handoffs, QB runs, option plays, and passes with only one read - screen passes, bubble screens, or play-action passes with just two receivers running routes. It's what Hogan excelled at last year, and his substandard play over the last two weeks has raised a question in my mind: Why make a player who is really good at checkers try to play chess? Why not just let his strengths be his strengths?
Thankfully, there's one player who can help make Hogan's job easier by himself: Kelsey Young. The running back/wide receiver has already made his mark with the Cardinal - he scored Stanford's first touchdown in the Rose Bowl a year ago - but he's yet to get a high volume of touches... even though his statistics are eye-popping.
From 2012 through the first six games of 2013, Kelsey Young has touched the ball as a running back or as a wide receiver exactly 28 times. He's gained 304 total yards on those plays and he's scored two touchdowns. He's picked up eight first downs when he's touched the ball. He averages 10.85 yards per play when he touches the ball.
So... let's find a way to get this guy the ball more often.
So far, his main contribution to the Stanford offense has been on jet sweeps, like the one he ran for 32 yards against Arizona State last month.
The bizarre thing about this play isn't that Young broke it open for a big 32-yard gain, but that the Stanford coaching staff didn't go back to it again at all. In fact, the same thing happened in the Rose Bowl back in January. Young ran in a jet sweep for a touchdown and Stanford never called his number again.
For some reason, the Stanford coaching staff doesn't think that the jet sweep's success is sustainable over the course of a game - but that's not true. And Wisconsin, the Big Ten's Rose Bowl representative a year ago, proved it.
The Badgers already had Heisman contender Montee Ball as their workhorse in the backfield, but they still did everything they could to put the ball in one of their talented youngster's hands - and so he did. Running back Melvin Gordon gashed opposing defenses on the jet sweep, racking up 621 yards on 62 attempts - a spiffy 10 yard average. (Ringing any bells?)
Over and over again, Bret Bielema would pound opposing defenses with Ball up the middle, then hit them with Gordon on the outside. If defenses wanted to stack the box, they made themselves vulnerable to Gordon's speed on the edge, and if they tried to defend the boundaries then Ball would dominate them between the tackles. Because of this, Bielema was always able to keep two of his best players on the field at all times. Just watch Gordon blaze past defenders out on the edge:
Should the Cardinal incorporate Young's skill set into their offensive playcalling more often, it would allow them to put three of their best players on the field at all times - Ty Montgomery, Tyler Gaffney and Young - and keep defenses guessing which player would be getting the ball. It'd make Kevin Hogan's job a lot easier because all he's have to do is flip short passes to Montgomery or Young on the outside, hand off to Gaffney or Young, or run the option with any of those three guys.
It's an easy change, and it's one that's been proven to work. And even ESPN thinks it's time to put the ball in the hands of the playmakers.
But if the coaches don't turn to Young to help their "ailing" or "hurting" offense, it'll cause me to think up a different question for the coaching staff: What's your deal?
Comments
Enh:
1. Pedantry with a purpose: that Young play against ASU isn’t a fly sweep. It’s a reverse.
2. More to the point, observe how much window dressing there is: Hogan fakes a read-option with Hewitt, then pulls to have an option pitch relationship with Seale, before finally pitching to Young for the reverse. It’s a nasty play for the number of fakes built in, especially given ASU’s aggressiveness on defense. Still, it underlines the trend for Young: using him almost exclusively in gadget plays or garbage time.
3. Why is that? We’ve actually seen a fly sweep more recently — they tried a fly sweep to Young when we were trying to close the 4th quarter against Washington, which basically everything agreed was BAD PLAYCALLING. We’ve tried pure, unadorned fly sweeps on several other occasions; they don’t seem to work well.
4. On the other hand, reverses to Montgomery have worked quite well. Why is that? Montgomery presents a variety of threats: he can go deep; he can get a screen and make things happen with the ball in his hands; he’s a threat on many intermediate routes. The defense cannot key onto one specific possibility with Montgomery.
5. Back to Young: why isn’t he used in a versatile fashion? The problem is that he cannot catch terribly well. He probably has more drops than catches over his career. Asking Young to man the hybrid role is therefore probably a bad use of his skills; he should be a RB. Hopefully he will be used there next year.
6. Which is why Barry Sanders is the interesting one to watch. Is he a natural catcher? If so, he may inhabit the role you want.
7. More to the point, it’s hard for me to blame the staff for not using Young more. Montgomery, Cajuste and Rector are all playing quite well as wideouts — they’re all explosive. If anything, I think the most underused player on offense is Rector.
8. But then again, I’m not sure the thesis “Stanford’s offense ailing” is dead to rights yet anyway. I’m not sure why Miller lumps in the past two games, for instance. Utah and Washington were very different games offensively — against Washington, nothing really was working, whereas Utah had plenty of success…except for untimely errors. The two problems feel very different; the first was Nunesian, the second could be more of “weird stuff that happens” (or it could be the prelude to something more). It’s human nature to see narratives and trends where there aren’t any.
By dth1 on 10.17.13 10:46am
Whats wrong with the defense?
The offense has not been playing well at all, but the defensive regression is the biggest issue right now:
2012: 17.2 PPG, 8 games allowing 14 points or less, 3 games allowing 21 or more
2013: 22.2 PPG, 1 game allowing 14 points or less, 3 games allowing 21 or more
The injury to Henry Anderson is certainly a big factor, as is the entire D line being banged up right now. Pac-12 offenses have also improved. But the bottom line is that we’re simply not as dominant as we were last year despite our talent, depth, and player development. The secondary has been the most disappointing: Ed Reynolds has all but disappeared as a playmaker, and Wayne Lyons has been a step back compared to Terrence Brown (another big loss).
The offense will have good days and bad, but we cannot afford bad days on defense. It’s going to be extremely challenging to beat UCLA and OSU if we can’t slow them down on defense. And this D right now is in no shape to play Oregon.
By AJ89 on 10.17.13 12:16pm
This is why a lot of people right now are saying 8-4 or even 7-5 and that ’12 was a lucky year.
By Brendan Ross on 10.17.13 12:57pm
'12 did have luck-based elements
But ’13, so far, has featured more decisive wins than last year. Scoring margin is 14 ppg versus 10 last year, with 4 decisive wins so far (versus 4 for all of last year).
8-4 or 7-5 are still possible, of course, but that has more to do with the difficulty of the schedule and the number of injuries than any inherent problem with the team.
By dth1 on 10.17.13 1:24pm
But this year’s schedule is easier…
USC is terrible so that road game doesn’t count.
UW, Oregon, ND (garbage anyway) and UCLA are all at home.
The only supposedly difficult road test is in Corvallis and you never know what you’re going to get with the Beaversharks.
This year’s schedule was supposed to be one of the biggest reasons this team had a legitimate shot at an NC run. Every difficult game is at home.
Ya’ll just ‘Clemsoned’ against Utah is all.
Going by the stats, this team is either still a Rose Bowl front-runner or there are a ton of intangibles we can’t see and last year was a fluke and the wheels are about to be blown off for the next 3 weeks. You can say that about pretty much every team except Bama and Oregon.
By Pugseh on 10.17.13 2:55pm
This is why Stanford is still a favorite, spread wise, for this game — +6, which is not that small a spread for this game, really.
For all of the talk about Stanford being done in ‘13 and basically folding and likely going 7 or 8 wins, they are still favored to win this game. My guess is that the spread among Stanford fans and alumni would be + UCLA, I think. That’s not a knock on us, it’s just a reflection that our expectations were high (probably higher than they should have been).
By Brendan Ross on 10.17.13 5:35pm
Not the schedule we've played so far...
Sagarin rated 2012 as 22 and 2013 as 13th.
By dth1 on 10.17.13 6:52pm
Maybe because
UW and ASU are improved teams. Still in the PAC12 North, you can’t ask for a better schedule than what Stanford has this year.
UCLA is also likely a bit more improved, as is Oregon……………….but as the F/+ rankings show, this Stanford D is also improved and you get all of your hard opponents at home.
Also, unlike last season, the majority of fans on the Farm are wearing Cardinal. This season was and still is the best shot in a long time for Stanford to go to the NC. Everything lined up the way it needed to experience wise and on the schedule.
By Pugseh on 10.18.13 8:21am
Defense is statistically not the problem. They've actually improved.
2012 Stanford Defense finished 8th in Def F/+ with a percentage of 17.1
2013 Stanford Defense through the Utah game is 6th in Def F/+ with a percentage of 21.9.
So despite getting torched (and holding) against UW, letting ASU run wild in the 4th quarter (and holding) and getting blown out of the water in the 1st half against Utah (but dominate the second half) your defense is still one of the best in the country. On pace to be better than last year.
The offense has also improved. But you’ve got a Top 10 D with a top 40 O.
Eye Test be damned, that defense is stout. Maybe if the offense wasn’t in the bottom-half of the PAC12 in Drive-Point-Efficiency you guys would be killing teams instead of letting them hang in.
By Pugseh on 10.17.13 1:00pm
That was the case last year as well. I think that we knew there would be offensive issues this season with the departures at TE and RB — and last year’s team wasn’t a point scoring juggernaut. Other pieces have fallen together in a different way this year, but it’s certainly still lagging. For me, a big issue is that the offense, because of how it is currently being run/played, is not helping the defense as much as the ‘12 offense did, but I’ve written a lot about that in other threads already. Suffice to say — unless the offense picks things up in terms of being able to dictate the pace and tone of games like the ’12 team did, the remaining games are just going to be very hard to win, regardless of how well the D is playing statistically.
By Brendan Ross on 10.17.13 5:42pm
UCLA injuries -- more out than Stanford
UCLA will be missing Jordan likely, their leading rusher, and several linemen.
Bruins could be short more players than Stanford, and Cardinal run deeper.
Adjustments for the Stanford secondary could be more important than fixing offense.
UCLA throws more than they run, and without Jordan, they will throw even more.
But, Cardinal will need to bring pressure on Hundley rather than relying on coverage sacks.
Turnovers and better field position can help cure the Stanford offensive performance.
Hogan or Gaffney run it in from the 6 yard line last week, and Stanford pulls it out, 28-27. Different conversation.
By ADPATERSON on 10.17.13 10:28pm
IF
Stanford brings 5 and 6 on the rush, Hundley has a bad day. Real bad.
Stanford won’t be gifting UCLA 6 extra possessions. Utah totally dominated that game solely on the blitz.
I say run the ball with jumbo sets at start. Run right at Barr. Then start mixing in skill guys short and chuck a couple deep to Montgomery and see what you get. If Stanford can actually extend some drives on offense and get at least field goals (kicker has a hurt leg though…), this should be an easy win.
By Pugseh on 10.18.13 8:27am
This coaching staff has been too reactive
I fully expect to see some changes this week, but it’s frustrating that it takes a loss for the coaches to realize there are things they could have done before. In other words, I wish they were more proactive like Harbaugh was. They really haven’t been dominating teams (by the score), and that’s usually based on the style of play. But sometimes, things are going to go wrong. To fix it, you have to make changes. They made some changes last week, but it was reactive, and it was ultimately too late. The biggest offensive play of the game was a screen to Montgomery. I understand this coaching staff hates negative plays a lot more than others, but sometimes you just have to take risks. This team doesn’t have Fleener or Taylor or Ertz to bail them out on offense anymore. I don’t care about style points like Oregon puts up… sometimes you have to go out of your comfort zone to pull out a win when your team isn’t playing at its best. Alabama has done that several times over the last few years, and saved their championship hopes multiple times.
By TheFreakSF on 10.18.13 3:53am
"Heck yeah, we're the San Francisco 49ers, we can do whatever we want." - Jim Harbaugh
Possibly my second-favorite Harbaugh quote of all time
By Jack Blanchat on 10.18.13 8:36am
just a stab in the dark here...
but all this hype (mostly internet comments) about kelsey young and bjs—in particular, about “why isn’t the coaching staff utilizing these guys more??”—doesn’t anyone think that the coaching staff has a little more insight into their players’ abilities than the rest of us?
By hutre67 on 10.19.13 11:06am