4-8. Let that sink in for a moment.
The last time Stanford finished 4-8 was in 2007 under Jim Harbaugh. However, that season was much more successful than this one; in 2007, they completed arguably the greatest upset ever over USC, and they beat Cal in another impressive upset. This season did not come with any big upset or any Big Game victory. Instead, it came with complete disappointment.
How does Stanford bounce back?
David Shaw and the Cardinal need to look themselves in the mirror ahead of next season. They need to remember what made them so great on offense: a physical and explosive run game.
The Cardinal averaged 105.5 yards running per game. Yes, they did not have a Heisman worthy running back that the team grew accustomed to seeing in the backfield, but even in 2014, when Remound Wright led the running back committee, the team averaged 158.8 yards running per game.
In 2014, the team finished with eight wins—instead of eight losses. It was a transition year, and if Stanford wants to make 2019 nothing more than a transition year, they’ll need to go back to running the ball.
We’ve seen Stanford try to win through the air. Despite a record-setting performance versus Washington State, Davis Mills and the Cardinal only found the end zone three times. He passed for 504 yards yet struggled in the red zone. He threw an interception there, and two of his three touchdown passes came from outside the red zone.
As the field gets shorter, running becomes more imperative. With less space to operate, it becomes harder to pass, which is something the announcers against Washington State noted. It’s no coincidence that Mills’ completed only 50 percent of his passes in the red zone—15 percentage points than his season average. It’s also no coincidence that his 4.1 yards per passing attempt inside the opponent 20-yard line is four yards worse than his season average.
A solid running game makes a world of difference near the end zone. If a defense respects it, it’s easier for a quarterback to go over the top with a fade—a past Stanford staple. If a defense doesn’t respect the run, an offense should be able to hand the ball off effectively and make the disrespectful defense pay. If a defense respects both, the opposing offense has options.
This season, Cameron Scarlett ran the ball 72 times in the red zone. He averaged 2.0 yards per carry, so it’s no wonder defenses could expect pass plays. Defenses focused on stopping the pass, yet the Cardinal still couldn’t run up the middle.
As a result, the Cardinal only scored touchdowns on 16 of their 34 red zone trips, or 47 percent of the time. In comparison, in 2014, the Cardinal scored touchdowns on 31 of their 52 trips, or 54 percent. The 2015 Stanford team, led by Christian McCaffrey, reached the end zone on 66 percent of their red zone trips.
Running the ball needs to be the primary focus heading into the offseason. In my opinion, it directly relates to red zone success, and luckily, there is promise that the Cardinal can fix the issue. The younger offensive linemen should improve after seeing so much experience, and hopefully, the team sees a healthy Walker Little return. Furthermore, freshman Austin Jones looked good in his limited action and could be a solid lead back as a sophomore.
Only time will tell if 2019 will be the Stanford football empire beginning to fall or merely a transition year. If we want to fix a downward trend, we need to start by identifying the issues, and running the ball effectively was clearly Stanford’s biggest one on offense.
Comments
It Is All About The O Line and Offensive Playcalling
I recently read an interesting article about the University of Miama Hurricane who, under Manny Diaz, installed a pro style offense with some bells and whistles (limited spread, read option, etc.). The offense did not work out as expected this year. The article cited that many top teams in the nation have moved more toward a spread offense and, importantly, that to execute the pro-style offense effectively the team needs to be able to recruit a bevy of outsanding offensive lineman who can hold blocks long enough to support the running game. Their view was that Miami, with the 11th ranked recruiting class, would have difficulty getting enough of those players.
While Stanford has been effective at running the ball in the past (increasingly distant past), it has been years since the run game has been dominant. My sense is that it is three things. Fewer high quality offensive lineman and limited depth. Defenses adjusting to Stanford’s game. A complete lack of the element of surprise in Stanford’s running attack. We have had strong QB play to help offset any defensive focus on the run, and our running backs have been more than adequate. But the incredibly predicable and slow developing runs up the middle just don’t work.
It was interesting to watch Notre Dame this past week-end (and I have seen most of their games this year). Their QB is good, but not great. Their RBs are, at best, good. Like us, they have a big fast receiver and a big tight end to provide a bit of a passing threat. Their O line is good, but not great. But how they execute the run game is totally different. There is constant misdirection. Receivers often running fake and real jet sweeps. Shifting lineman and runs not solely focused on between the tackles. And runs not only on entirely predictable downs. They are not a great running team, but they get the most out of what they have.
So where does that leave Stanford? For a team that self-describes itself as having a punishing and dominant run first identity, it has failed miserably to live up to this billing. And it is not just injuries. We used to have a fullback. That seems to have disappeared. Not sure why. We probably could use the extra blocker, and potential receiver out of the backfield. We are boring and predictable to a fault – not only on what we run but when we run it. And we do not have the physical capacity to impose our will in these situations. IT IS NOT ABOUT EXECUTION.
As to our passing game, Davis Mills came out and drove the field twice passing the ball. Once for a touchdown, once for a field goal – after Shaw had stopped passing in the red zone. Mills is a very good QB. Once we got up by 10 points, Shaw went conservative and we starting running the ball more to no avail. 3 and out, over and over again. Our final TD drive looked like our opening drives. Why did it disappear for most of the game? Of course Mills is going to be less productive statistically inside the Red Zone without a running threat. But that does not mean he would not be more productive than running the ball.
Our defense actually got a number of stops in the second half, and almost a few more. But responding with serial 3 and outs and turnovers sealed our doom. We were in that game, which totally surprised me. I am not surprised that we lost, but that it could have easily been a one score game that might have gone either way.
Shaw needs to wake up to the fact that he does not, and may never, have the offensive line talent to do what Stanford did 5+ years ago – and adapt the offense accordingly. The run should still be a big part of our game, but implemented differently. And some spread and no huddle offenses will make sense with our QB and receiving corps.
Lastly, it is not possible to talk about the offense without referencing the defense. If we cannot be counted on to shut down the opponent when needed, Shaw needs to open up the offense more. Which often means just keeping the foot on the gas and taking a few risks with respect to field position.
We will have one of the best QBs in the conference next year and several great receivers. We just need a more intelligent run game built around our strengths (and weaknesses) and playcalling which creates a bit more confusion and uncertaintly for our opponent. Sure, an improved defense can make up for an abundance of offensive sins – but we should not count on it.
By hoyaparanoia on 12.02.19 10:58am
YES! I Agree
with everything you said! Excellent analysis! W O W
By Slot_Man22 on 12.02.19 12:07pm
I can't agree with a lot of this...
Stanford ran the ball for 150 yards against UW. Stanford ran the ball when UW knew we were running the ball. It was only two years ago Love ran for a ton. The idea that Stanford’s running days are some how long gone isn’t accurate.
And yet, Scarlett ran for 150 yards against UW. Some of those yards were with true a Freshman on the line. So neither the depth, the defense, or the lack of surprise is why Stanford isn’t running the ball well. The answer is painfully obvious: We aren’t handing the ball off.
Against UW, Scarlett had 33 carries. Let’s look at Scarlett’s carries in some of our loses:
UCLA – 13 (And that’s with a 3rd string QB)
Colorado – 13
WSU – 4
Cal – 12
ND – 13
Thirteen carries when we have a 3rd string QB who can’t hit water falling out of a canoe? When is the last time UCLA, Colorado, WSU, Cal, and ND all ran the ball more than us?
Except Shaw eschewed that identity against UCF. He point blank said he wasn’t going to call plays based on some identity, that he was going to do whatever it took to win. Shaw said this in response to someone questioning Costello’s 1st quarter throw on 2 &3 when we were down by 7. Costello threw an INT and soon we were down 14-0. If you’ll recall, it was at that point I knew this team was screwed and said as such. This team isn’t going to do jackshit without a commitment to power running.
Yup. The fullback has been "adapted" out of the offense. This is all part of Shaw trying to evolve the running game. Apparently we don’t run Power anymore, it seems. It’s all the RPO crap, only our QB doesn’t typically option.
Have you not been watching Stanford football? Adapting the offense is exactly what Shaw has done and this is the outcome. 30+ passes a game, with a 3rd string QB.
You couldn’t be more wrong. Shaw has absolutely opened the offense more. Jesus christ, Mills threw the ball 46 times! The way you help your Defense out is by BALL CONTROL. We are never going to get an SEC roster full of defenders. We compensate by holding the ball as long as possible. That is exactly what we did against UW and it worked. We held UW to a season low.
Once again, this is way off the mark. When Stanford was in its heyday, do you think opposing teams were "confused" about out offense? When Oregon was putting up 60 points a game, do you think teams were confused by Oregon’s offense? No. Oregon had like 12 offensive plays all out of the same formation. What did they do? They executed the offense.
Pulling from SU74’s post…
This may explain a lot…but not enough. Even if the Freshman were weak in the second half of the season, Shaw still has to run the ball to keep the other team honest. 13 carries a game for a legitimate running back is not doing that. The fact that Shaw insisted on Jack West dropping back to get sack after sack doesn’t make sense. It’s make no-sense…it’s nonsense. WTF Shaw?
I’d like to believe that, I really would. But Shaw had already given up on power football as early as UCF. What irks me is that you don’t get better at run blocking by pass blocking the whole game.
So what? You think every run play on 3rd & 1 that succeeds isn’t predictable? You think Alabama won NC’s because no one could predict their plays? You win football games because you’re better at doing what you do than the other team is at doing what they do. That used to be true for us. We constantly ran the ball in to eight-man fronts and got positive yards, sometimes big yards. Now, I’m lucky so see us run the ball during an entire series.
Yup, and we don’t do that anymore. There are a LOT of running plays we don’t run any more because Shaw "adapted" and look where that’s gotten us?
Not directed at anyone in particular…
Anyone who keeps spouting that same offal that Shaw is stubborn and can’t adapt is a complete idiot. The offense has been totally revamped and is unrecognizable from what it was the last time we won the conference…and that is the problem. Harbaugh got players who wanted to play football. Who wanted it more than the other guy. Shaw saw that and won with it. I don’t know what he’s thinking now, but unless he recognizes how far he’s gotten off the path, we probably aren’t going back to a bowl game before 2023…and then…
By Blackjoy on 12.03.19 4:05pm
Great analysis
"Boring and predictable to a fault" is spot on.
By gaffman on 12.02.19 11:39am
As always...
With Andrew Luck, Shaw’s offense was renown as boring and predictable, but defenses still didn’t stop it. In 2010, under Harbaugh, Luck was #2 rusher (nearly 500 yards). In 2011, Shaw put a leash on Luck, who finished #5 rusher (150 yards). In 2013, the offense was a continual handoff to Tyler Gaffney. In 2014, a dysfunctional TWU struggled to a 5-5 record, before a come-to-whozit, "soul-searching" TWU meeting raised them from near-death, to blitz to a 8-5 finish, as Kevin Hogan channeled Andrew Luck and the football world was shown the arrival of Christian McCaffrey. Except for 2105, Stanford has been boring and predictable—by design.
By Candid One on 12.03.19 3:52pm
Shaw will always be a run first coach
Afraid I disagree with a few things. First, Love had a pretty good running year his junior year and that was only a few years ago. Second, Little and Sarell were both 5 star linemen and Stanford adds another next year in Hinton. So Shaw continues landing high quality offensive linemen. Third, it is easier to learn pass blocking than run blocking, and freshmen simply don’t have the strength to plow holes against experienced defensive lines. Fourth, whether Stanford has the talent next year on the offensive line depends on who returns next year and how much stronger the freshmen get in the off season. It is possible (though unlikely) Stanford could start Little, Hamilton, Dalman, and Sarell. That’s the best o line in the conference and one of the best in the country. Even if Little and Hamilton don’t return, the cupboard is far from bare next year.
On the other hand, I do agree with other things you bring up. Because of injuries, Shaw was forced to adjust to a pass first offense this year (and arguably last year). And the first drive against Notre Dame showed that this strategy could be effective. But Shaw consistently (and frustratingly) returns to the run game regardless of the success of the passing game. He justifies it in part by the notion of keeping the other team’s offense off the field, but short crossing patterns would do the same thing. I also wondered all year where the fullbacks went. Unlike the freshmen linemen, they’ve both been around and must know the allegedly complicated playbook pretty well. Neither McCaffrey nor Love gets as many open holes without fullback support. Finally, I agree that many times (but not all anymore, thanks to more passing) Stanford’s plays are predictable. And I agree that seems to be in large part because there are so few moving parts. The offense sets up, then inevitably adjusts to a formation that the other teams are totally prepared for and that telegraphs the play. Remember in a bowl game a long time ago when Harbaugh moved five offensive linemen pre snap and the defense was completely flummoxed.
By SU74 on 12.02.19 12:15pm
Bryce Love And Five Star Rated OL
Love DID put up big numbers his Junior year, but mostly on the back of one or two very long runs per game which I would argue were mostly of his own creation. He often got hit behind the line and managed anywhere from zero to two yards on many plays. While we had a great running back, I think the seeds of a deteriorating offensive line and run attack were very visible at that point.
I agree that Stanford continues to bring in highly rated offensive linemen. The problem is that they have not been playing at that level on the field in college. Sure, injuries and depth have been an issue. But I think the story is bigger than that.
By hoyaparanoia on 12.03.19 10:01am