In the NFL, offenses are winning the battle over defense.
For example, the Patriots and Eagles were both ranked in the top five in scoring defense, yet between the two, they only punted a combined one time in the Super Bowl.
Another example: NFL teams are valuing their offensive players at the expense of their defensive ones. The Rams handed a boatload of cash to new receiver Brandin Cooks and young running back Todd Gurley while star defensive lineman Aaron Donald hasn’t gotten a new contract. Similarly, the Raiders haven’t come up with the cash to pay their best defensive player, Khalil Mack.
Teams realize that, with today’s statistics and analytics, offenses are nearly impossible to stop, so they’ve poured all their attention to scoring. It’s time Stanford follows their lead.
Now, it’s time for Stanford to do the same and ditch their trusty ground-and-pound approach. For years, the Stanford’s game plan has been predictable: dominate the line of scrimmage, run it up the gut, and rely on the defense. Yes, it’s been successful, but this game plan has cost the Cardinal a handful of games, too.
In the past, David Shaw has gone into games thinking: our defense is better than yours, and it will crush you. Now in 2018, he needs to approach every game thinking: our offense will crush you.
There’s a real chance this year’s defense won’t be very good. How do you replace Harrison Phillips, Justin Reid, and Quenton Meeks on a defense that already struggled at times last season? I have my doubts that the team can rely on their defense this year.
On the other hand, the offense is phenomenal. No words need to be spoken about Bryce Love. K.J. Costello avoids turnovers, and his receiving corps is potentially the best Stanford has ever had. Lastly, the offensive line almost all return in 2018.
With this dynamic offense, Shaw must mix it up and be aggressive. He must start passing more on first down, getting Love creatively involved in the passing game, including more trick plays, and maybe go with a no-huddle offense here and there. Heck, I think Shaw should even go for it on fourth down frequently.
Backed by strong analytics of the situations, the Eagles went for it on fourth down more than any other team, and they scored a touchdown or field goal on 13 of the 18 drives in which they converted a fourth down. As a result, the Eagles totaled 85 points (4.7 points per drive) in instances where they went for it on fourth down instead of deciding to punt or kick a field goal, according to ESPN Stats & Information.
The Super Bowl champions trusted their offense more than their defense and turned the unpredictable in their favor. Stanford must do the same in 2018.
Nerds love analytics; it’s time Nerd Nation embraces them as well.
Comments
Forget about defense, or change the focus ?
Maybe the defense would be better served by becoming less risk averse. The whole bend but don’t break, force you to drive down the field thing works best if the offense is chewing up the clock on the other side. If the offense is scoring quickly (admittedly a nice problem to have), the defense logs a lot of minutes and eventually wears down. By taking more chances, blitzing, going for an interception instead of a sure tackle, etc, the defense would get off the field quickly…then it’s up to the offense to stretch the lead or hold serve.
By jaustgen on 08.16.18 9:51am
No, focus on defense.
I believe Bill Walsh’s philosophy was to put your best players on defense.
That might work in one game, maybe two, but over the course of a season, it will destroy the program. Defense is about fundamentals. Creating a culture of blitzing and gambling deemphasizes accountability. It’s tantamount to trying to find a shortcut. No, you want the defensive players to have the mentality that they will out work the other team, that they will win through force of will and tenacity. You want defensive players to be tough, mentally and physically.
You take chances on defense, when you realize you can’t match up physically. Stanford should never resort to that approach as a baseline.
By Blackjoy on 08.16.18 10:14am
speed
Stanford does not recruit, nor does it have the ability (with current tech) to "coach speed". That is necc. for the D style to change. Walsh knew that in his first stint at Stanford, where Gordy C. got around 18 tackles, in some games. Bend but don’t break is all we got.
By ffishman1 on 08.18.18 1:49pm
Defense wins championships, nothing has changed that.
This statement is incorrect. Teams with top ranked defenses do better than teams with top ranked offenses. In fact, if you go look at the Super Bowl matchups, specifically the eight times that the #1 Offense has met the #1 Defense, the #1 Defense is 7-1 in those Super Bowl games, and the one loss, lol, is because the #1 Offense had the #2 Defense that year.
Stanford’s success atop the Pac-12 has been a function of its defense, not its offense. Luck and our record setting offense, never won the conference because we couldn’t stop Oregon from scoring. Luck leaves, in comes Hogan, and we win the conference title Hogan’s first year. Football is about stopping the run and stopping the QB, in that order. USC beat us because we couldn’t stop them from running on us. Last year, when we beat UW, it was because we shut down Gaskin after the 1st quarter, and forced UW to throw the ball. Stopping Gaskin on 4th and short was how you win in this conference.
If you need another example of how Defense wins championship, look no further than the SEC and Alabama. The SEC wins because of its comparative defense, not the offense. They run the ball and play rock solid defense. Stanford needs a defense to compete for the conference title year in and year out.
By Blackjoy on 08.16.18 10:09am
In recent years, defense has been Stanford’s trademark
But with this current Stanford roster, I don’t see them winning because of their defense. They need to win with their offense. They need to give themselves the best chance possible to score whether that be mixing up their gameplan or going for it on 4th and 3 on the 50 yard line. Who would you trust more this year, the offense or defense?
In last years super bowl, neither team was stopping the other from scoring despite having top defenses. Shaw should approach every similarly game, thinking, "how can terrorize the opposing defense?" And to do that, Shaw will need to shy away from his ground and pound, clock eating approach.
By charliefoy on 08.16.18 10:27am
If Defense is broken, then fix it, don't dump it in a ditch.
Neither do I, but that’s the nature of college football, some years are better than others. But you don’t build a winning program by flip-flopping your approach in any given year. And that’s because of recruiting. Shaw’s recruited players for a specific brand of football, you don’t put those players in schemes they aren’t going to succeed in. Plus, he’ll kill his credibility with high school coaches if he says Stanford is about X, and then the next year, he starts doing Y.
Shaw has shown that if the Defense simply cannot stop the other team, he’ll go for it. That’s exactly what he did against USC in the title game when we were down on the goal line. Shaw probably figured we’d have heard time of stopping them from scoring, so he went for it. He didn’t trust the Defense. How did that work out for him? We lost by 3 points and had he kicked the field goal, who knows, maybe we win that game. For the record, I was fine with it and think it was the right call. But one can easily argue it was the wrong call.
No. Ground and pound is what got him here. It works. It’s exactly what Clay Helton used to beat us. If we are not as good at it, then we need to recruit/coach better. You don’t abandon it. Shaw in this for the long haul, not one season.
By Blackjoy on 08.17.18 4:01pm
Bama
So you are content with the results. Sorry 4 u. Stanford is the # 1 University in the world. Yet you settle for a program that is consistently in the bottom half of the top 20, and has never contended for the Natty, in Shaw’s tenure. "It works" you say. I bet you are a big fan of Warren Zevon’s song "looking for the next best thing". You are settling for less. You do not appreciate the best.Keep on looking for mediocrity. You have found it, and boredom.
By ffishman1 on 08.18.18 1:43pm
You don't have the foggiest notion about football.
You really don’t. That fact that you take every opportunity to criticize, insult, and find fault with the best coach Stanford has ever had, and a coach who is rated by his coaching community as the most underrated in college, suggests some closet racism at work.
By Blackjoy on 08.20.18 12:31pm
Just gonna point this out
While true, this statement also encompasses all of Super Bowl history and doesn’t allow for recent trends. In the most recent Super Bowl, the two teams combined for over 1,000 yards of offense. That could be a blip or it could be a trend. Most likely, it is simply a part of the ever circular nature of football. Currently, innovative offensive minds have figured out an advantage over most defenses. At some point in the future, some innovative defensive minds will return the favor and things will keep going back and forth. But regardless, focusing on all-time records without acknowledging what has happened recently paints an incomplete picture.
By Omagus on 08.17.18 6:13pm
Last Super Bowl, totally proves the point.
Go look at NFL.com. Last year, the Patriots had the #1 Offense (YPG). Philadelphia’s offense is not in the Top 5, coming in at #7, and that was with with Wentz, not the back up Foles. However, Philly’s Defense is #4. While NE’s is 29th. The Eagles were #1 in Rushing Defense. And who won the SB? Defense WINS championships. Recent trends don’t change jack.
In fact, Minnesota should have beat Philly and Philly got lucky. Minnesota’s defense was #1 overall and 2nd to the Eagles in Rushing. But, Minnesota’s offense was ranked 11th last year and that gave just enough margin for Philly to eek one out.
The reason the Patriots get to the SB so frequently is:
1) They cheat;
2) The NFL officials have totally favored the Patriots to get Tom Brady to the SB on account of ratings;
3) The AFC sucks;
4) NE’s defense is normally pretty decent.
By Blackjoy on 08.17.18 7:14pm
"And who won the SB? Defense WINS championships."
The Eagles won the Super Bowl despite their defense allowing 613 yards to the Patriots. But ok.
By Omagus on 08.17.18 11:58pm
The eagles faced the "GOAT" of a QB and the #1 rated offense.
So yeah, the fact that the Eagles defense was good enough to allow their back-up to outscore the Patriots says Defense was the difference. Patriots didn’t have one at all. More to the point, it’s Philly’s Defense that got them to the SB to begin with. Or are you going to insist it was the Philly’s offense, with their back-up QB, who had not played the regular season and won’t be the starter this season, was Philly’s key to victory?
By Blackjoy on 08.20.18 12:35pm
really silly
Open your eyes. It was not the run that took the Tide to the end zone in January.
By ffishman1 on 08.18.18 1:45pm
"I have my doubts that the team can rely on their defense this year."
So do I, but you don’t change the entire program because you aren’t winning on paper in any given year. To build a program, the coaching staff must have a vision and recruit and coach toward that vision. That requires consistency and continuity year in and year out. If the defense doesn’t look that good, then the coaching staff needs to do a better job developing defensive talent. They need to do a better job of recruiting defensive talent. They don’t blow it all up and start over. Giving up on defense is giving up on players who you recruited under the auspices of those kids having the talent to compete.
By Blackjoy on 08.16.18 10:21am
Who you been watching the last decade?
I’d love to see this happen, but the chances of it happening are near zero. Shaw’s entire scheme is about ball control – keeping it in our hands and out of their hands – on BOTH sides of the ball
By winflop on 08.16.18 11:23am
Sorry Charliefoy, but you don't know Shaw
Everybody, including almost every opponent, likes to say Stanford’s offense is simply a pound away offense. If so, then how can you explain Love’s long runs (several of which went to the outside), JJ Arcega-Whiteside’s downfield catches, and just about any play involving Weddington? Sure, Shaw likes to pound and pound when he as a yard of so on fourth down or he is inside the 3 yard line, and we don’t expect that will ever change (particularly when he can insert Foster Sarell and Devery Hamilton into an already excellent front 5). But Shaw has shown a marked willingness in the last few years to throw on first down. Certainly everyone they face will stack the box against Love and this is the only way to open that up. Also, when you have a rare talent like Love, going behind a top 5 O-line, it would be wrong to get pass happy. Certainly, Shaw will increase Love’s participation in the passing game, but the bread and butter of the offense will be him running behind the left side of his line.
As for the defense, Phillips will be missed. But Meeks was mediocre last year and rather easily replaced with Holder, Murphy, and Adebo. Reed was good, but there are ample replacements at safety. And the linebackers on paper look a whole lot better this year.
Bottom line, hold the thought of abandoning the Shaw style until we see how the team fares against SDSU.
By SU74 on 08.16.18 12:04pm
Shaw’s style cost the Cardinal a NY6 game last year
Shaw’s stubborn, and he hates the unpredictable. I don’t believe he’ll change his game plan this year, the next year, or the year after. In my eyes, Shaw’s game plan is to establish the run early before passing and opening up the playbook. However, many times, that strategy doesn’t work and puts the team in a position to lose.
Last year versus SD State, Shaw kept running the ball and it was clear on 3rd and long the team would pass (yes Keller did miss open throws), but I remember Shaw was too stubborn to go for it on fourth and 1 in the red zone, which was part of the reason the team lost. In that game, Shaw trusted his defense to hold the lead, but they couldn’t. Win that game and the Cardinal are probably in the Fiesta Bowl instead of Washington.
All I’m saying is Shaw should be more aggressive on offense and trust Love and company over the defense.
By charliefoy on 08.16.18 1:58pm
That is totally myopic
Shaw’s style is what has kept Stanford in the national conversation for half a decade. Who would have thought Stanford could have been known as a ground and pound school? Before Shaw took over the offense (under Harbaugh), we were a finesse school.
If not for "Shaw’s Style" we would be no better than ASU or OSU. So the idea that he cost us a NY6 is the most ridiculous statement I’ve seen on forums. It’s like claiming Tom Brady cost NE a Super Bowl because he made a bad pass. Guess what Charlie? Sometimes you get get beat. That’s how sports work. Claiming Shaw "cost us" anything is refusing to give credit to all other coaches and players who also want to win.
Your article is great click-bait, but it’s absolutely the wrong strategy for Shaw/Stanford long term and I hope Shaw doesn’t give up and go this route.
By Blackjoy on 08.17.18 4:07pm
Any Stanford fan knows you are (sadly) correct
Tavita’s recent interview was very revealing. I bet Shaw will not pass more than 40 percent of the time in the moments it counts. That was the Genius of Walsh – to make the D respect his QB’s arm, and the depth of field they had to defend..
By ffishman1 on 08.18.18 1:33pm
Simple ideas
I have been commenting on Coach Shaw’s overreliance on smush mouth for years. He has learned nothing, and when you say he "must", he definitely will not. Blackjoy sounds like he has not watched any Stanford football in the 4 decades prior to Mr. Shaw’s arrival. If he is 30, no foul. But Ralston, Walsh (who definitely put Lofton Dills Margerum and Nelson on offense) was an offensive not defensive genius), Tyrone and a certain defector to Michigan were not just moldy peanut butter. Shaw will not throw enuf, percentage wise or for yards early in the game to make this Stanford’s breakout year. Even Bama has learned to throw. Shaw will not. An Interception is a Teachable Moment, a punt substitute, a defense unmasking. IF you have a QB who has the ability to throw accurately in the 15-30 yd range. "Elvis" does. Coach sees every interception as a disaster. That is a view of offense that went out with Harvard’s Bloody Monday in the 1800s. Coach is not just a century behind, he is nearing two hundred years.
By ffishman1 on 08.18.18 1:27pm