The one word that defines Stanford football’s success over the past decade would be power.
Not too long ago, Stanford’s winning formula started with dominating the line on both sides of the ball. On defense, the front seven got to the quarterback often and shut down the opposing run game. On offense, a fearsome line was essential for the team’s game plan, and in particular, the “mammoth” package defined Stanford’s offensive line group and set them apart from any other group in the nation.
Former Stanford center Brian Chaffin, who will play at Rice next year, described the formation for me in a recent interview.
“We try to get as many offensive linemen on the field as possible into tight splits to try to eliminate gaps for defenders to shoot through,” Chaffin said. “We can scheme up ways to take advantage of our tight splits and either force the ball one way, go over the top, or go through the defense.”
Historically, Stanford utilizes this formation on short yardage plays, typically on third or fourth down. Furthermore, David Shaw has shown in the past that he’s not afraid to bring out extra linemen even on long-distance situations.
A tweet from 2013 perfectly illustrates how defenses saw Stanford’s signature formation.
Though Stanford fans saw less of the mammoth package in 2018, it’s still alive and well in the Stanford football program.
Every Wednesday at the beginning and the end of practice, according to Chaffin, Stanford would practice the formation, which is quite a lot of dedicated practice time considering that the team only ran the formation once or twice a game.
Still, only running the formation once or twice a game in 2018 seemed like a drop of usage for David Shaw. Over the past two years, it appeared like David Shaw was hesitant to go for it on 4th and 1, not showing confidence in his lineman. On the other hand, maybe David Shaw opted against the formation not because he lacked confidence in his linemen, but rather because he lacked the offensive linemen to run the formation consistently.
“We had injuries this year, which made it hard to get a lot of lineman on the field because we just simply didn’t have enough guys, but we still tried to get it in as much as possible,” Chaffin recalled.
In particular, the senior leader Jesse Burkett, the young phenom Walker Little, the reliable Nate Herbig, and the highly-touted Foster Sarell all battled injuries throughout the year. The Cardinal never truly fielded a healthy line, and without depth up front, Stanford could not possibly run the mammoth package as often as they usually would.
Another possible factor for not calling the formation regularly could be the departure of Mike Bloomgren, who became the head coach for Rice last year. Bloomgren also brought multiple Stanford assistants with him, which was a major factor for Chaffin’s decision to transfer there. He noticed a difference between Bloomgren and the new offensive line coach Kevin Carberry.
“I think they are definitely different coaches in terms of how they operate,” he said. “They’re both really good coaches in their own aspect, but I think the biggest thing is how they go about practice. Coach Bloomgren focused a little bit more on schematics, and then Coach Carberry focused a little bit more on the details of the pass protection.”
Certainly, the team did need more pass protection compared to past years. With K.J. Costello behind center, the team threw 413 times, double the amount Kevin Hogan threw as a senior.
Chaffin believes that the change in the offense had to do with personnel, believing Costello will be a high draft pick one day and pointing towards Stanford’s talented receivers. Now, with the departure of JJ Arcega-Whiteside, Trenton Irwin, and Kaden Smith, Stanford has an identity crisis on their hands.
Tavita Pritchard will no longer be a rookie offensive coordinator, and Bryce Love leaves with the receiving core. KJ Costello does return next year as does the talented offensive line duo of Walker Little and Foster Sarell. The role of starting running back remains open.
My recommendation: return to power football.
Last season, I was an advocate of throwing the ball more and running less, but Chaffin made me realize Stanford will return to being subpar if they continue that trend. Power football gives Stanford an identity, setting them apart from the majority of college football teams.
For Stanford, that identity starts with the mammoth package. For one, it makes Stanford’s football program unique: Chaffin could not think of another program that runs a similar formation.
That formation is also essential for Stanford’s development of linemen. Why? Because it gives playing opportunities to younger guys, who would typically not see the field.
Chaffin pointed out, “The package allows guys who sometimes aren’t starters to get on the field. It gives people in-game experience that they might not otherwise see, and these guys take it very seriously, so I think it’s a very valuable package for developing linemen.”
What the mammoth package teaches young linemen is what NFL scouts crave to see in linemen out of college. It forces players to learn the four-point stance, a rarity in college football. It also teaches player patience and discipline. The package makes Stanford linemen better-rounded and more prepared as they transition to the pros.
For example, Chaffin was watching the recent Pro Bowl and recognized the terminology that the professional linemen used. The Pro Bowl also had two former Stanford linemen playing.
Power football is what got those Stanford linemen to the pros. It’s also what got Stanford to multiple Rose Bowls and Pac-12 Championships.
Chaffin recognized that the most successful team he played for was the 2016 team, which won the Rose Bowl after Christian McCaffrey set the game’s all-purpose yard record behind Joshua Garnett and Kyle Murphy.
If Stanford hopes to return to Pasadena in January, they should look to reincorporate their signature mammoth package.
Comments
Sounds like to run it effectively they might need a different OL coach
I mean, if a guy transfers to play with his original coach, there could be a reason other than talent that the OL regressed so much last year. Either way, there’s no doubt that not being able to pick up a yard reliably when they needed hurt Stanford last year.
By worldblee on 02.23.19 2:14pm
Power football requires power
Couldn’t agree more that Stanford’s identity on offense under David Shaw involves power football. But just about every NFL scout who watched Stanford last year commented that the O linemen lacked strength across the board. That is the first thing all of them have to work on this off season. (Hopefully, Shannon Turley’s suspension is brief.) Just weighing in at 300 pounds is no longer enough. Stanford also needs better production out of the middle of the line, the guards and center. Presumably Drew Dalman will start at center (guessing that’s why Chaffin transferred to Rice), backed up by Dylan Powell. Both could use some additional weight as well as muscle, but have enough experience to direct the line. The guard positions, on the other hand, remain suspect. Neither Foster Sarell nor Devery Hamilton are quick enough to be true guards, but Hamilton had the most reps at that position last year, so I’m guessing that’s where he’ll start. The other slot is wide open. But all the candidates have issues: Trey Stratford (injured, small at 258); Nick Wilson (will he return for 5th year?); Branson Bragg (freshman). The tackle positions are solid, assuming both Little and Sarell return healthy. Henry Hattis and Hamilton should be enough backups and should be the first two in for the mammoth package, when needed. And I’m guessing one of the 4 remaining 3 star offensive line recruits (perhaps Walter Rouse) will emerge later in the season.
As for the coaching, the jury is still out on Carberry. Bloomgren was excellent and certainly missed last year. Chaffin is too kind in his comments about the difference. The schematics for the O-line last year under Carberry were horrible. How many times did the defensive line or linebackers bust through using only simple stunts? And how often did you see a Stanford lineman essential give up after the first contact? Sure, there were injuries, but a lot of the people used on the line last year had three years of experience. Yet, De La Salle and Mater Dei high schools have better prepared O-lines than Stanford’s last year. The highly touted virtual reality head sets are not just for quarterbacks. There is really no excuse for the O-linemen not to anticipate what they’ll be facing every game and just about every down. That’s Carberry’s job for heaven’s sake.
So get stronger and work as a unit. If they do, then hope, as always, springs eternal.
By SU74 on 02.23.19 2:14pm
Good points.
From what I’ve heard Nick Wilson will not return.
By NowBoy on 02.25.19 7:38am
This past season, it looked like Stanford needed as many OL on the field as in the photo in the tweet
The OL just seemed to get pushed around a lot. When Bryce Love can’t consistently tear up a defense, you know the OL is having significant problems. Don’t know if it was coaching or training, but when your guys don’t look strong enough and consistently get beat out there, one has to think it’s more than just the talent.
Hope Stanford can get back to its intellectually brutal ways — on both sides of the ball.
By g8tgod on 02.23.19 10:10pm
This Is A Good Article And I Agree With Its Premise
But I am concerned about the trends…………..and whether they can be easily reversed.
1. We appear to be having a problem replacing Bloomgren. Full stop. How much time and leash does Carberry get?
2. Shannon Turley was noteworthy for developing flexibility and reducing injuries. The fact that he is suspended is disturbing, as is his evolution to working across all major Stanford sports teams rather than a primary focus on football. Who was responsible for our formerly "strong" linemen?
3. Tavita Pritchard. Where exactly is he adding any value? Filling a vacuum but with what?
4. I saw that Lance Taylor, former Stanford running backs coach, left the Carolina Panthers to join Notre Dame as their running backs coach. No interest in returning to the Farm? Built some strong running programs here.
My broader point is that I think that we have lost a lot of talent at coaching levels below David Shaw and have not done a good job of replacing it. And it is showing. Our recruiting seems to have remained strong but our player development not so much. While our record has suffered the past couple of years, our performance in both years is worse than our record. I am afraid that, with our strong and early non-conference schedule this year, we are going to pick up a bunch of losses. Hope not. But remain very concerned.
Despite Costello being a very solid QB, Stanford football is at its best when it has a dominant power running game. And it gives the QB so many more options to be effective in the passing game.
When our assistants leaver for greener pastures (particularly moving up to head coaching positions), it is a credit to our program. But we need to replace them with high quality talent. We seem to have fewer assistant coaches than a lot of programs, and some questionable individuals sitting in key spots ("moving up"). It is not a winning strategy. We need the help. And some accountability.
By hoyaparanoia on 02.24.19 11:15pm
A couple of exceptions
I don’t think there is any reason to question Ron Gould as RB coach or Duane Akina, who both come with excellent reputations and have gotten great results, with the exception of the RB production falling off last year, but that could be the O-line and health rather than the RBs themselves. Gould seemed to have been very influential in helping Bryce Love reach new heights. As for the O-line, they seemed set up with a great mix of veterans and young talent, yet performed at a far below average level. In many years of being a fan across different sports, I can’t remember ever having such high expectations followed by such poor performance. I’m not an expert by any means, but it certainly leaves me with lots of doubts about the coaching.
By SN94703 on 02.25.19 7:53pm
Agree 100% On Gould And Akina
Proven, high quality guys……………..like we used to have across the board.
Note: I only mentioned Lance Taylor because I thought it was interesting that he was going to Notre Dame. The ND site noted not only his strong coaching but also his recruiting skills – indicating he recruited JJ to Stanford.
By hoyaparanoia on 02.26.19 8:51am
Agree with most of the comments
Could be that there are always adjustment periods with new coaches, and players that remain attached to the old coaches. We can also blame injuries. Seems like lots of fans are pretty suspect of Carberry at this point… for good reason. How could you not be? Stanford usually has lots of seniors return for their 5th year, between 7 and 10 by my count of recent years. This year we have 2 (although I don’t know about Cam Scarlett or Reagan Williams). I think there are up to 4 O-linemen that could have come back and none of them will. Biggest hit on defense is either Sean Barton or Frank Buncom not returning (don’t know if they are transferring).
If we come out next year and win 2 of our first 3 games I’ll be pretty darn happy. Worst case would be 3 losses and another injury to our 0-depth O-line.
If the offense doesn’t perform this year I hope we part ways with either Carberry, Pritchard or both.
I hate to question the coaching staff of my favorite team, but there are some not great signs. I didn’t know they changed the duties of Shannon Turley to cover all athletics (thanks for the info hoyaparanoia). Don’t know if we’ll ever know why he was suspended, but it doesn’t look good.
By NowBoy on 02.25.19 7:51am
I've Posted A Couple Of Times About The Stanford "Retirees"
Losing 5th year seniors who are starters or close to it hurts immensely. Capability and depth issues. Have seen very little discussion about what is going on here. Sure, everyone has a "reason", but the law of large numbers may be hinting at something. In absence of information, curious minds will out!
By hoyaparanoia on 02.25.19 8:55am
Hush-hush
Why so much hush-hush about 5th-year seniors? Why doesn’t someone interview these guys and find out the reasons? It may have nothing to do with football and more about careers. Fans deserve to know.
By farmboy2 on 02.25.19 9:03am
Warning signs shouldn’t be ignored
I would say there are a multitude of reasons that deal with football and the state of the program and not careers. A large number of talented football players with eligibility left on the table decided to leave the program or perhaps were forced out of the program. You can’t ignore that these percentages were much higher than what would be considered normal attrition rates. Absolutely that has to be football related and football caused! 100%!
The warning sirens are blaring and the red flashing lights are on and beaming brightly over Stanford stadium.
By ThinBlueLine444 on 02.27.19 7:58pm
Update on 5th Year Guys - SF Chronicle
Safeties Ben Edwards and Frank Buncom decided not to come back for their final year of eligibility, Shaw said. Edwards has "good opportunities ahead of him, and football is not one of them." Buncom wants to go to medical school. … Fullback Reagan Williams is exploring graduate-transfer options. … Shaw said inside linebacker Sean Barton’s decision to retire was not injury-related. He declined to explain further.
By farmboy2 on 03.02.19 10:36am
Thanks For This
Though, as always, hard to divine a full appreciation of what is going on behind Coach Shaw’s words.
The article also highlighted that injuries continue to be a big problem for the Cardinal, leaving many many players out of Spring practice. We have often had difficulty working new players (or even existing players) into a gelled unit by the start of the season (as have other schools to be fair I guess). No Spring practice (or reduced contact drills) for a large number of players, perhaps record losses of 5th year seniors this year (including starters), plus a very tough opening up of the schedule in the Fall could be a real challenge.
By hoyaparanoia on 03.03.19 10:24am
I am SO...
…effin’ bored. Why is it not August? Why? Thank goodness for rye…
By Plan Man on 03.11.19 4:14pm