[AncientCityIndian]

The ongoing discussion that pits Phoenix vs. Lex is actually healthy.  Too often, some of us on the Lex side automatically interpret a critique of the way we run our O as a diss to David Shaw, the football coach.  No one on this board discounts or ridicules the success that Harbaugh/Shaw has brought to our program.  I graduated from Stanford in 1972 and have never had a run like this despite two Rose Bowl wins in 1971 and 1972.  Now let`s just be a bit reasonable and not didactic but Socratic in our approach.

In 2007 we had minimal talent and Harbaugh took what we had and made it as respectable as possible while upgrading the recruiting level.  Within 3 years we were very respectful and in year 4, clobbered VT and had a 12-1 run.  We did it with not so dominant a D but a very productive O, albeit with a once in a generation QB which Harbaugh personally developed.  The teams were led by an OL group called the tunnel workers who were blue collar lunch pail type guys of high character but also some cruelty as they just hit living hell out of the D.

What has happened under Shaw is that our D has improved remarkably and is usually strong enough to keep us in any ballgame despite the performance of the O.  Over time, except for the one remarkable OL recruiting class that maintained an acceptable O line performance level, we seem to have lost some intensity and "cruelty".  Yesterday, we were absolutely manhandled by the UW D.  Harbaugh at Michigan has been there for 17 games and already has taken a rag tag group of  2nd echelon players who were not competitive and developed them into possibly the top group in the Big 10 and one of the best in the country.  Harbaugh has dedicated OL coaches, a dedicated OC, coaches the QB personally and is driving people off the ball like he did at Stanford.  He also has developed quite a D.

Here at Stanford, we have an OL coach who has to spend a bunch of his time recruiting, another bunch of time game planning an O and somehow still coaching the O line.  I contend we have lost some intensity, drive, cruelty and the blue collar power of the Roman era.  Our O just does not strike fear in the hearts of good defenses.  Even Cal, WSU and Colorado have very potent passing O`s and score points in great numbers.  We are just plain Jane vanilla with little imagination in our portfolio on O and if we run into a decent group of linemen as we have the past two weeks, we have to depend on the D to carry us through which did not happen with a very potent Washington attack.

All that and we have the best football player in the country on our roster.

So here we have it.....two great Stanford supporters who love the team and the game AND David Shaw but have a real difference of opinion.  Phoenix wants a dedicated O Coordinator with a playbook that stresses the run and the pass, and O Line that plays with character and cruelty,  a QB coach with great experience who can take our QB talent and develop it into Goffs, Brownings, Rosens, Falks, Lucks and the like.  He wants to win.

Lex also wants to win.  He supports Shaw to the point that any criticism of his MO and delegation of coaching duties and selection of coaches different than what Shaw presently has is silly and disloyal given our success.  He seems satisfied that we can so dominate opposing O and D Lines that our running attack should prevail against any D formations without developing a prolific QB and passing attack that a great O coordinator like a Dykes or a Leach could develop.  I`m NOT advocating for  either of their O schemes, just an effective, credible and respected passing attack and effective QB development.  We have QB`s in the system for 3 and 4 years who, when given a chance to play, play like redshirt frosh and appear not to have been taught well either the basics or the nuances of the position.

These are two different yet coherent points of view.  I come down on the side of Phoenix and have for years.  It is just my opinion that we could be better with a few changes along with all the incredibly great things Shaw has brought to our program.  Any team that has had great recruiting as we have for 7 years, has our record of success and the longevity of our coaching staff should never be beaten and pummeled so mercilessly along both LOS by a team that has had a new HC for only two 1/4 years with only 3 recruiting classes by the head coach and destroyed by a score of 44-6.  It was the worst beating a top ten team has ever had during the last three decades.  Does that ring a bell in any of our heads?

Phoenix contends something is amiss and needs rectification.  Lex says be patient and move on and hope it is an aberration.  I have sided with Lex over the years on so many issues and appreciate all his contributions but on this one, I am firmly in the Phoenix corner.

Unlike some on this board who are happy just to go to the moon (Rose Bowl), I want to reach for the stars (National Championship).  Maybe that is the difference between the two positions.  I think we can do more.

[AncientCityIndian]

The ongoing discussion that pits Phoenix vs. Lex is actually healthy.  Too often, some of us on the Lex side automatically interpret a critique of the way we run our O as a diss to David Shaw, the football coach.  No one on this board discounts or ridicules the success that Harbaugh/Shaw has brought to our program.  I graduated from Stanford in 1972 and have never had a run like this despite two Rose Bowl wins in 1971 and 1972.  Now let`s just be a bit reasonable and not didactic but Socratic in our approach.

In 2007 we had minimal talent and Harbaugh took what we had and made it as respectable as possible while upgrading the recruiting level.  Within 3 years we were very respectful and in year 4, clobbered VT and had a 12-1 run.  We did it with not so dominant a D but a very productive O, albeit with a once in a generation QB which Harbaugh personally developed.  The teams were led by an OL group called the tunnel workers who were blue collar lunch pail type guys of high character but also some cruelty as they just hit living hell out of the D.

What has happened under Shaw is that our D has improved remarkably and is usually strong enough to keep us in any ballgame despite the performance of the O.  Over time, except for the one remarkable OL recruiting class that maintained an acceptable O line performance level, we seem to have lost some intensity and "cruelty".  Yesterday, we were absolutely manhandled by the UW D.  Harbaugh at Michigan has been there for 17 games and already has taken a rag tag group of  2nd echelon players who were not competitive and developed them into possibly the top group in the Big 10 and one of the best in the country.  Harbaugh has dedicated OL coaches, a dedicated OC, coaches the QB personally and is driving people off the ball like he did at Stanford.  He also has developed quite a D.

Here at Stanford, we have an OL coach who has to spend a bunch of his time recruiting, another bunch of time game planning an O and somehow still coaching the O line.  I contend we have lost some intensity, drive, cruelty and the blue collar power of the Roman era.  Our O just does not strike fear in the hearts of good defenses.  Even Cal, WSU and Colorado have very potent passing O`s and score points in great numbers.  We are just plain Jane vanilla with little imagination in our portfolio on O and if we run into a decent group of linemen as we have the past two weeks, we have to depend on the D to carry us through which did not happen with a very potent Washington attack.

All that and we have the best football player in the country on our roster.

So here we have it.....two great Stanford supporters who love the team and the game AND David Shaw but have a real difference of opinion.  Phoenix wants a dedicated O Coordinator with a playbook that stresses the run and the pass, and O Line that plays with character and cruelty,  a QB coach with great experience who can take our QB talent and develop it into Goffs, Brownings, Rosens, Falks, Lucks and the like.  He wants to win.

Lex also wants to win.  He supports Shaw to the point that any criticism of his MO and delegation of coaching duties and selection of coaches different than what Shaw presently has is silly and disloyal given our success.  He seems satisfied that we can so dominate opposing O and D Lines that our running attack should prevail against any D formations without developing a prolific QB and passing attack that a great O coordinator like a Dykes or a Leach could develop.  I`m NOT advocating for  either of their O schemes, just an effective, credible and respected passing attack and effective QB development.  We have QB`s in the system for 3 and 4 years who, when given a chance to play, play like redshirt frosh and appear not to have been taught well either the basics or the nuances of the position.

These are two different yet coherent points of view.  I come down on the side of Phoenix and have for years.  It is just my opinion that we could be better with a few changes along with all the incredibly great things Shaw has brought to our program.  Any team that has had great recruiting as we have for 7 years, has our record of success and the longevity of our coaching staff should never be beaten and pummeled so mercilessly along both LOS by a team that has had a new HC for only two 1/4 years with only 3 recruiting classes by the head coach and destroyed by a score of 44-6.  It was the worst beating a top ten team has ever had during the last three decades.  Does that ring a bell in any of our heads?

Phoenix contends something is amiss and needs rectification.  Lex says be patient and move on and hope it is an aberration.  I have sided with Lex over the years on so many issues and appreciate all his contributions but on this one, I am firmly in the Phoenix corner.

Unlike some on this board who are happy just to go to the moon (Rose Bowl), I want to reach for the stars (National Championship).  Maybe that is the difference between the two positions.  I think we can do more.

[AncientCityIndian]

The ongoing discussion that pits Phoenix vs. Lex is actually healthy.  Too often, some of us on the Lex side automatically interpret a critique of the way we run our O as a diss to David Shaw, the football coach.  No one on this board discounts or ridicules the success that Harbaugh/Shaw has brought to our program.  I graduated from Stanford in 1972 and have never had a run like this despite two Rose Bowl wins in 1971 and 1972.  Now let`s just be a bit reasonable and not didactic but Socratic in our approach.

In 2007 we had minimal talent and Harbaugh took what we had and made it as respectable as possible while upgrading the recruiting level.  Within 3 years we were very respectful and in year 4, clobbered VT and had a 12-1 run.  We did it with not so dominant a D but a very productive O, albeit with a once in a generation QB which Harbaugh personally developed.  The teams were led by an OL group called the tunnel workers who were blue collar lunch pail type guys of high character but also some cruelty as they just hit living hell out of the D.

What has happened under Shaw is that our D has improved remarkably and is usually strong enough to keep us in any ballgame despite the performance of the O.  Over time, except for the one remarkable OL recruiting class that maintained an acceptable O line performance level, we seem to have lost some intensity and "cruelty".  Yesterday, we were absolutely manhandled by the UW D.  Harbaugh at Michigan has been there for 17 games and already has taken a rag tag group of  2nd echelon players who were not competitive and developed them into possibly the top group in the Big 10 and one of the best in the country.  Harbaugh has dedicated OL coaches, a dedicated OC, coaches the QB personally and is driving people off the ball like he did at Stanford.  He also has developed quite a D.

Here at Stanford, we have an OL coach who has to spend a bunch of his time recruiting, another bunch of time game planning an O and somehow still coaching the O line.  I contend we have lost some intensity, drive, cruelty and the blue collar power of the Roman era.  Our O just does not strike fear in the hearts of good defenses.  Even Cal, WSU and Colorado have very potent passing O`s and score points in great numbers.  We are just plain Jane vanilla with little imagination in our portfolio on O and if we run into a decent group of linemen as we have the past two weeks, we have to depend on the D to carry us through which did not happen with a very potent Washington attack.

All that and we have the best football player in the country on our roster.

So here we have it.....two great Stanford supporters who love the team and the game AND David Shaw but have a real difference of opinion.  Phoenix wants a dedicated O Coordinator with a playbook that stresses the run and the pass, and O Line that plays with character and cruelty,  a QB coach with great experience who can take our QB talent and develop it into Goffs, Brownings, Rosens, Falks, Lucks and the like.  He wants to win.

Lex also wants to win.  He supports Shaw to the point that any criticism of his MO and delegation of coaching duties and selection of coaches different than what Shaw presently has is silly and disloyal given our success.  He seems satisfied that we can so dominate opposing O and D Lines that our running attack should prevail against any D formations without developing a prolific QB and passing attack that a great O coordinator like a Dykes or a Leach could develop.  I`m NOT advocating for  either of their O schemes, just an effective, credible and respected passing attack and effective QB development.  We have QB`s in the system for 3 and 4 years who, when given a chance to play, play like redshirt frosh and appear not to have been taught well either the basics or the nuances of the position.

These are two different yet coherent points of view.  I come down on the side of Phoenix and have for years.  It is just my opinion that we could be better with a few changes along with all the incredibly great things Shaw has brought to our program.  Any team that has had great recruiting as we have for 7 years, has our record of success and the longevity of our coaching staff should never be beaten and pummeled so mercilessly along both LOS by a team that has had a new HC for only two 1/4 years with only 3 recruiting classes by the head coach and destroyed by a score of 44-6.  It was the worst beating a top ten team has ever had during the last three decades.  Does that ring a bell in any of our heads?

Phoenix contends something is amiss and needs rectification.  Lex says be patient and move on and hope it is an aberration.  I have sided with Lex over the years on so many issues and appreciate all his contributions but on this one, I am firmly in the Phoenix corner.

Unlike some on this board who are happy just to go to the moon (Rose Bowl), I want to reach for the stars (National Championship).  Maybe that is the difference between the two positions.  I think we can do more.

[AncientCityIndian]

The ongoing discussion that pits Phoenix vs. Lex is actually healthy.  Too often, some of us on the Lex side automatically interpret a critique of the way we run our O as a diss to David Shaw, the football coach.  No one on this board discounts or ridicules the success that Harbaugh/Shaw has brought to our program.  I graduated from Stanford in 1972 and have never had a run like this despite two Rose Bowl wins in 1971 and 1972.  Now let`s just be a bit reasonable and not didactic but Socratic in our approach.

In 2007 we had minimal talent and Harbaugh took what we had and made it as respectable as possible while upgrading the recruiting level.  Within 3 years we were very respectful and in year 4, clobbered VT and had a 12-1 run.  We did it with not so dominant a D but a very productive O, albeit with a once in a generation QB which Harbaugh personally developed.  The teams were led by an OL group called the tunnel workers who were blue collar lunch pail type guys of high character but also some cruelty as they just hit living hell out of the D.

What has happened under Shaw is that our D has improved remarkably and is usually strong enough to keep us in any ballgame despite the performance of the O.  Over time, except for the one remarkable OL recruiting class that maintained an acceptable O line performance level, we seem to have lost some intensity and "cruelty".  Yesterday, we were absolutely manhandled by the UW D.  Harbaugh at Michigan has been there for 17 games and already has taken a rag tag group of  2nd echelon players who were not competitive and developed them into possibly the top group in the Big 10 and one of the best in the country.  Harbaugh has dedicated OL coaches, a dedicated OC, coaches the QB personally and is driving people off the ball like he did at Stanford.  He also has developed quite a D.

Here at Stanford, we have an OL coach who has to spend a bunch of his time recruiting, another bunch of time game planning an O and somehow still coaching the O line.  I contend we have lost some intensity, drive, cruelty and the blue collar power of the Roman era.  Our O just does not strike fear in the hearts of good defenses.  Even Cal, WSU and Colorado have very potent passing O`s and score points in great numbers.  We are just plain Jane vanilla with little imagination in our portfolio on O and if we run into a decent group of linemen as we have the past two weeks, we have to depend on the D to carry us through which did not happen with a very potent Washington attack.

All that and we have the best football player in the country on our roster.

So here we have it.....two great Stanford supporters who love the team and the game AND David Shaw but have a real difference of opinion.  Phoenix wants a dedicated O Coordinator with a playbook that stresses the run and the pass, and O Line that plays with character and cruelty,  a QB coach with great experience who can take our QB talent and develop it into Goffs, Brownings, Rosens, Falks, Lucks and the like.  He wants to win.

Lex also wants to win.  He supports Shaw to the point that any criticism of his MO and delegation of coaching duties and selection of coaches different than what Shaw presently has is silly and disloyal given our success.  He seems satisfied that we can so dominate opposing O and D Lines that our running attack should prevail against any D formations without developing a prolific QB and passing attack that a great O coordinator like a Dykes or a Leach could develop.  I`m NOT advocating for  either of their O schemes, just an effective, credible and respected passing attack and effective QB development.  We have QB`s in the system for 3 and 4 years who, when given a chance to play, play like redshirt frosh and appear not to have been taught well either the basics or the nuances of the position.

These are two different yet coherent points of view.  I come down on the side of Phoenix and have for years.  It is just my opinion that we could be better with a few changes along with all the incredibly great things Shaw has brought to our program.  Any team that has had great recruiting as we have for 7 years, has our record of success and the longevity of our coaching staff should never be beaten and pummeled so mercilessly along both LOS by a team that has had a new HC for only two 1/4 years with only 3 recruiting classes by the head coach and destroyed by a score of 44-6.  It was the worst beating a top ten team has ever had during the last three decades.  Does that ring a bell in any of our heads?

Phoenix contends something is amiss and needs rectification.  Lex says be patient and move on and hope it is an aberration.  I have sided with Lex over the years on so many issues and appreciate all his contributions but on this one, I am firmly in the Phoenix corner.

Unlike some on this board who are happy just to go to the moon (Rose Bowl), I want to reach for the stars (National Championship).  Maybe that is the difference between the two positions.  I think we can do more.

[CowboyIndian]

Unlike some on this board who are happy just to go to the moon (Rose Bowl), I want to reach for the stars (National Championship).  Maybe that is the difference between the two positions.  I think we can do more.

I wish there were no such thing as a playoff because it seems to be ruining the regular season for the great majority of teams...you know, the ones not in the running after a few weeks. Thanks, ESPN.

I want the greatest success possible for Stanford and therefore always hope and root for an undefeated season, which is a sure ticket to the playoff. But it's relegated great traditions such as the Rose Bowl to hind tit. I would be happier if there were no such thing as a playoff and we all spent the offseason arguing about who's best. Oh well.

[CowboyIndian]

Unlike some on this board who are happy just to go to the moon (Rose Bowl), I want to reach for the stars (National Championship).  Maybe that is the difference between the two positions.  I think we can do more.

I wish there were no such thing as a playoff because it seems to be ruining the regular season for the great majority of teams...you know, the ones not in the running after a few weeks. Thanks, ESPN.

I want the greatest success possible for Stanford and therefore always hope and root for an undefeated season, which is a sure ticket to the playoff. But it's relegated great traditions such as the Rose Bowl to hind tit. I would be happier if there were no such thing as a playoff and we all spent the offseason arguing about who's best. Oh well.

[CowboyIndian]

Unlike some on this board who are happy just to go to the moon (Rose Bowl), I want to reach for the stars (National Championship).  Maybe that is the difference between the two positions.  I think we can do more.

I wish there were no such thing as a playoff because it seems to be ruining the regular season for the great majority of teams...you know, the ones not in the running after a few weeks. Thanks, ESPN.

I want the greatest success possible for Stanford and therefore always hope and root for an undefeated season, which is a sure ticket to the playoff. But it's relegated great traditions such as the Rose Bowl to hind tit. I would be happier if there were no such thing as a playoff and we all spent the offseason arguing about who's best. Oh well.

[CowboyIndian]

Unlike some on this board who are happy just to go to the moon (Rose Bowl), I want to reach for the stars (National Championship).  Maybe that is the difference between the two positions.  I think we can do more.

I wish there were no such thing as a playoff because it seems to be ruining the regular season for the great majority of teams...you know, the ones not in the running after a few weeks. Thanks, ESPN.

I want the greatest success possible for Stanford and therefore always hope and root for an undefeated season, which is a sure ticket to the playoff. But it's relegated great traditions such as the Rose Bowl to hind tit. I would be happier if there were no such thing as a playoff and we all spent the offseason arguing about who's best. Oh well.

[82 Card]

I agree with CowboyIndian. National championship sucks the fun out of football.

[82 Card]

I agree with CowboyIndian. National championship sucks the fun out of football.

[82 Card]

I agree with CowboyIndian. National championship sucks the fun out of football.

[82 Card]

I agree with CowboyIndian. National championship sucks the fun out of football.

[JohnR34231]

You've got your Stepfords (people who say we should be happy with what we have given the way Stanford chooses to approach football with high admissions standards and so forth) and the Borgs (people who are unhappy with anything less than a perfect season). I suppose it makes for lively discussion but I find the Borgs a bit tiresome.

P.S. Speaking for myself, I didn't find our dismantling of Iowa in the Rose Bowl last year any less enjoyable because I knew we hadn't made the national playoffs.

[JohnR34231]

You've got your Stepfords (people who say we should be happy with what we have given the way Stanford chooses to approach football with high admissions standards and so forth) and the Borgs (people who are unhappy with anything less than a perfect season). I suppose it makes for lively discussion but I find the Borgs a bit tiresome.

P.S. Speaking for myself, I didn't find our dismantling of Iowa in the Rose Bowl last year any less enjoyable because I knew we hadn't made the national playoffs.

[JohnR34231]

You've got your Stepfords (people who say we should be happy with what we have given the way Stanford chooses to approach football with high admissions standards and so forth) and the Borgs (people who are unhappy with anything less than a perfect season). I suppose it makes for lively discussion but I find the Borgs a bit tiresome.

P.S. Speaking for myself, I didn't find our dismantling of Iowa in the Rose Bowl last year any less enjoyable because I knew we hadn't made the national playoffs.

[JohnR34231]

You've got your Stepfords (people who say we should be happy with what we have given the way Stanford chooses to approach football with high admissions standards and so forth) and the Borgs (people who are unhappy with anything less than a perfect season). I suppose it makes for lively discussion but I find the Borgs a bit tiresome.

P.S. Speaking for myself, I didn't find our dismantling of Iowa in the Rose Bowl last year any less enjoyable because I knew we hadn't made the national playoffs.

[81alum]

For me, much of the pleasure of watching football is attached to the traditions of the game.  The national championship to me symbolizes all the corrupting influence of TV, money, and hype.  Playing in the Rose Bowl against a Big 10 champion represents decades of tradition that ties the actual game to a part of Stanford's culture.  I won't discount the pleasure of winning a national championship and proving to the world that it is possible for a university with high academic standards to win it all.  I admit that would be wonderful and that I do hope it happens.  However, I find myself so repulsed by the commercialism, hype, neon uniforms, night games, weekday games, inane talking heads, rescheduling of Big games, and the sacrifice of local fans and ancient traditions-- that I find the few opportunities for true tradition to be a blessed relief.  Playing in the Rose Bowl, in the middle of the afternoon, against a Big 10 opponent, after winning our conference--and dominating--nothing is better than that. 

[81alum]

For me, much of the pleasure of watching football is attached to the traditions of the game.  The national championship to me symbolizes all the corrupting influence of TV, money, and hype.  Playing in the Rose Bowl against a Big 10 champion represents decades of tradition that ties the actual game to a part of Stanford's culture.  I won't discount the pleasure of winning a national championship and proving to the world that it is possible for a university with high academic standards to win it all.  I admit that would be wonderful and that I do hope it happens.  However, I find myself so repulsed by the commercialism, hype, neon uniforms, night games, weekday games, inane talking heads, rescheduling of Big games, and the sacrifice of local fans and ancient traditions-- that I find the few opportunities for true tradition to be a blessed relief.  Playing in the Rose Bowl, in the middle of the afternoon, against a Big 10 opponent, after winning our conference--and dominating--nothing is better than that. 

[81alum]

For me, much of the pleasure of watching football is attached to the traditions of the game.  The national championship to me symbolizes all the corrupting influence of TV, money, and hype.  Playing in the Rose Bowl against a Big 10 champion represents decades of tradition that ties the actual game to a part of Stanford's culture.  I won't discount the pleasure of winning a national championship and proving to the world that it is possible for a university with high academic standards to win it all.  I admit that would be wonderful and that I do hope it happens.  However, I find myself so repulsed by the commercialism, hype, neon uniforms, night games, weekday games, inane talking heads, rescheduling of Big games, and the sacrifice of local fans and ancient traditions-- that I find the few opportunities for true tradition to be a blessed relief.  Playing in the Rose Bowl, in the middle of the afternoon, against a Big 10 opponent, after winning our conference--and dominating--nothing is better than that. 

[81alum]

For me, much of the pleasure of watching football is attached to the traditions of the game.  The national championship to me symbolizes all the corrupting influence of TV, money, and hype.  Playing in the Rose Bowl against a Big 10 champion represents decades of tradition that ties the actual game to a part of Stanford's culture.  I won't discount the pleasure of winning a national championship and proving to the world that it is possible for a university with high academic standards to win it all.  I admit that would be wonderful and that I do hope it happens.  However, I find myself so repulsed by the commercialism, hype, neon uniforms, night games, weekday games, inane talking heads, rescheduling of Big games, and the sacrifice of local fans and ancient traditions-- that I find the few opportunities for true tradition to be a blessed relief.  Playing in the Rose Bowl, in the middle of the afternoon, against a Big 10 opponent, after winning our conference--and dominating--nothing is better than that. 

[stupac2]

Your retelling is a bit off. The D in 2010 was actually quite good, and that's why that team was probably the best of Stanford's recent teams, otherwise we can't ever quite seem to align dominant defense and offense (2013's O had too many holes for it to count).

I independently came to the conclusion that Bloomgren doing both OC and OL roles might be an issue. As WiM has been pointing out our offense seems to need an unreasonable amount of returning talent on the OL to work. Given how highly rated our linemen tend to be, it seems that we're just doing a poor job of developing the backups, which points to the coaching.

Given the NCAA's asinine coaching limit I'm not sure who we'd axe to bring in a dedicated OL coach, or if that's even what we really want, but (even given that we're looking through a glass darkly at how this stuff works) it's starting to look reasonable.

I'm somewhat less convinced that the playbook or QB development is a problem. After all, one of the reasons we all assumed Chryst would be the guy is that Burns looked horrible in Spring 2015. Clearly he has developed since then! And it's not like he's looked uniformly bad in games, he's certainly flashed in stretches (opening of the KSU game, end of UCLA) and looked mostly competent outside of those, unless he's getting pressured. It's pretty non-ideal that his pocket presence is quite bad, but he's a first-year starter and I still maintain that no one would've succeeded against UW when getting sacked 6 times in a half (and it's not like they were all his fault).

I'm left not knowing what to think about where we are right now. My inclination is to say that UW was a confluence of factors (short week, away game, really hobbled team, extremely good opponent, game just snowballed on us) that won't likely repeat and hope for the best against WSU. If we look as listless in that one as we did on Friday then we can panic.

[stupac2]

Your retelling is a bit off. The D in 2010 was actually quite good, and that's why that team was probably the best of Stanford's recent teams, otherwise we can't ever quite seem to align dominant defense and offense (2013's O had too many holes for it to count).

I independently came to the conclusion that Bloomgren doing both OC and OL roles might be an issue. As WiM has been pointing out our offense seems to need an unreasonable amount of returning talent on the OL to work. Given how highly rated our linemen tend to be, it seems that we're just doing a poor job of developing the backups, which points to the coaching.

Given the NCAA's asinine coaching limit I'm not sure who we'd axe to bring in a dedicated OL coach, or if that's even what we really want, but (even given that we're looking through a glass darkly at how this stuff works) it's starting to look reasonable.

I'm somewhat less convinced that the playbook or QB development is a problem. After all, one of the reasons we all assumed Chryst would be the guy is that Burns looked horrible in Spring 2015. Clearly he has developed since then! And it's not like he's looked uniformly bad in games, he's certainly flashed in stretches (opening of the KSU game, end of UCLA) and looked mostly competent outside of those, unless he's getting pressured. It's pretty non-ideal that his pocket presence is quite bad, but he's a first-year starter and I still maintain that no one would've succeeded against UW when getting sacked 6 times in a half (and it's not like they were all his fault).

I'm left not knowing what to think about where we are right now. My inclination is to say that UW was a confluence of factors (short week, away game, really hobbled team, extremely good opponent, game just snowballed on us) that won't likely repeat and hope for the best against WSU. If we look as listless in that one as we did on Friday then we can panic.

[stupac2]

Your retelling is a bit off. The D in 2010 was actually quite good, and that's why that team was probably the best of Stanford's recent teams, otherwise we can't ever quite seem to align dominant defense and offense (2013's O had too many holes for it to count).

I independently came to the conclusion that Bloomgren doing both OC and OL roles might be an issue. As WiM has been pointing out our offense seems to need an unreasonable amount of returning talent on the OL to work. Given how highly rated our linemen tend to be, it seems that we're just doing a poor job of developing the backups, which points to the coaching.

Given the NCAA's asinine coaching limit I'm not sure who we'd axe to bring in a dedicated OL coach, or if that's even what we really want, but (even given that we're looking through a glass darkly at how this stuff works) it's starting to look reasonable.

I'm somewhat less convinced that the playbook or QB development is a problem. After all, one of the reasons we all assumed Chryst would be the guy is that Burns looked horrible in Spring 2015. Clearly he has developed since then! And it's not like he's looked uniformly bad in games, he's certainly flashed in stretches (opening of the KSU game, end of UCLA) and looked mostly competent outside of those, unless he's getting pressured. It's pretty non-ideal that his pocket presence is quite bad, but he's a first-year starter and I still maintain that no one would've succeeded against UW when getting sacked 6 times in a half (and it's not like they were all his fault).

I'm left not knowing what to think about where we are right now. My inclination is to say that UW was a confluence of factors (short week, away game, really hobbled team, extremely good opponent, game just snowballed on us) that won't likely repeat and hope for the best against WSU. If we look as listless in that one as we did on Friday then we can panic.

[stupac2]

Your retelling is a bit off. The D in 2010 was actually quite good, and that's why that team was probably the best of Stanford's recent teams, otherwise we can't ever quite seem to align dominant defense and offense (2013's O had too many holes for it to count).

I independently came to the conclusion that Bloomgren doing both OC and OL roles might be an issue. As WiM has been pointing out our offense seems to need an unreasonable amount of returning talent on the OL to work. Given how highly rated our linemen tend to be, it seems that we're just doing a poor job of developing the backups, which points to the coaching.

Given the NCAA's asinine coaching limit I'm not sure who we'd axe to bring in a dedicated OL coach, or if that's even what we really want, but (even given that we're looking through a glass darkly at how this stuff works) it's starting to look reasonable.

I'm somewhat less convinced that the playbook or QB development is a problem. After all, one of the reasons we all assumed Chryst would be the guy is that Burns looked horrible in Spring 2015. Clearly he has developed since then! And it's not like he's looked uniformly bad in games, he's certainly flashed in stretches (opening of the KSU game, end of UCLA) and looked mostly competent outside of those, unless he's getting pressured. It's pretty non-ideal that his pocket presence is quite bad, but he's a first-year starter and I still maintain that no one would've succeeded against UW when getting sacked 6 times in a half (and it's not like they were all his fault).

I'm left not knowing what to think about where we are right now. My inclination is to say that UW was a confluence of factors (short week, away game, really hobbled team, extremely good opponent, game just snowballed on us) that won't likely repeat and hope for the best against WSU. If we look as listless in that one as we did on Friday then we can panic.

[winflop]

I'm head over heels excited about the state of the Stanford Football program and Shaw gets all the credit for that.  At the same time, you always have to ask what could be done better.  I don't think changing our style is the way to go.

Reality is that Shaw has a limit on the number of assistants he can have that coach players (note: Sark is a consultant and does not coach players).  If he wanted to have a separate OL coach, he'd have to combine positions somewhere else.  Very few programs have a special teams coach - can you really argue that Pete Alamar isn't incredibly valuable to the program?

On recruiting, virtually all coaches have recruiting responsibility in every program in the country.  So I don't see that as a complicating factor.  Hard for me to say if the OL we are recruiting today is as nasty on the field as the players Harbs recruited.  I don't know enough to say one way or the other.

But I think the bigger problem the last two games was the tackle swapping.  I hope that's done and those two will be back where they belong.

[winflop]

I'm head over heels excited about the state of the Stanford Football program and Shaw gets all the credit for that.  At the same time, you always have to ask what could be done better.  I don't think changing our style is the way to go.

Reality is that Shaw has a limit on the number of assistants he can have that coach players (note: Sark is a consultant and does not coach players).  If he wanted to have a separate OL coach, he'd have to combine positions somewhere else.  Very few programs have a special teams coach - can you really argue that Pete Alamar isn't incredibly valuable to the program?

On recruiting, virtually all coaches have recruiting responsibility in every program in the country.  So I don't see that as a complicating factor.  Hard for me to say if the OL we are recruiting today is as nasty on the field as the players Harbs recruited.  I don't know enough to say one way or the other.

But I think the bigger problem the last two games was the tackle swapping.  I hope that's done and those two will be back where they belong.

[winflop]

I'm head over heels excited about the state of the Stanford Football program and Shaw gets all the credit for that.  At the same time, you always have to ask what could be done better.  I don't think changing our style is the way to go.

Reality is that Shaw has a limit on the number of assistants he can have that coach players (note: Sark is a consultant and does not coach players).  If he wanted to have a separate OL coach, he'd have to combine positions somewhere else.  Very few programs have a special teams coach - can you really argue that Pete Alamar isn't incredibly valuable to the program?

On recruiting, virtually all coaches have recruiting responsibility in every program in the country.  So I don't see that as a complicating factor.  Hard for me to say if the OL we are recruiting today is as nasty on the field as the players Harbs recruited.  I don't know enough to say one way or the other.

But I think the bigger problem the last two games was the tackle swapping.  I hope that's done and those two will be back where they belong.

[winflop]

I'm head over heels excited about the state of the Stanford Football program and Shaw gets all the credit for that.  At the same time, you always have to ask what could be done better.  I don't think changing our style is the way to go.

Reality is that Shaw has a limit on the number of assistants he can have that coach players (note: Sark is a consultant and does not coach players).  If he wanted to have a separate OL coach, he'd have to combine positions somewhere else.  Very few programs have a special teams coach - can you really argue that Pete Alamar isn't incredibly valuable to the program?

On recruiting, virtually all coaches have recruiting responsibility in every program in the country.  So I don't see that as a complicating factor.  Hard for me to say if the OL we are recruiting today is as nasty on the field as the players Harbs recruited.  I don't know enough to say one way or the other.

But I think the bigger problem the last two games was the tackle swapping.  I hope that's done and those two will be back where they belong.

[Stymie]

I have always been a semi-closeted Phoenix.  Class of '68, expecting nothing then and just missing the wild and crazy UM/tOSU (or was it vice versa?) Rose Bowl years.  Season ticket holder from 76-85, loving Walsh and then loathing his successors, giving up for pretty much of the ensuing 25 years, until Harbaugh appeared and we finally beat the Toejams into the ground, where they belong.  As for Shaw, I've given him some slack, which worked for me as long as he won, even when his Woody Hayes "3 yards and cloud of dust" philosophy bored me to death and then seemed to become engrained when it seemed to work.  Well....now I think that the opposing coaches, beginning with Pat Fitzgerald at NW up through Mora and now Petersen, are embedding the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" and we are going to have to come to grips with this fact.  Until Shaw goes back to the drawing board, I'm sticking with Phoenix.

[Stymie]

I have always been a semi-closeted Phoenix.  Class of '68, expecting nothing then and just missing the wild and crazy UM/tOSU (or was it vice versa?) Rose Bowl years.  Season ticket holder from 76-85, loving Walsh and then loathing his successors, giving up for pretty much of the ensuing 25 years, until Harbaugh appeared and we finally beat the Toejams into the ground, where they belong.  As for Shaw, I've given him some slack, which worked for me as long as he won, even when his Woody Hayes "3 yards and cloud of dust" philosophy bored me to death and then seemed to become engrained when it seemed to work.  Well....now I think that the opposing coaches, beginning with Pat Fitzgerald at NW up through Mora and now Petersen, are embedding the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" and we are going to have to come to grips with this fact.  Until Shaw goes back to the drawing board, I'm sticking with Phoenix.

[Stymie]

I have always been a semi-closeted Phoenix.  Class of '68, expecting nothing then and just missing the wild and crazy UM/tOSU (or was it vice versa?) Rose Bowl years.  Season ticket holder from 76-85, loving Walsh and then loathing his successors, giving up for pretty much of the ensuing 25 years, until Harbaugh appeared and we finally beat the Toejams into the ground, where they belong.  As for Shaw, I've given him some slack, which worked for me as long as he won, even when his Woody Hayes "3 yards and cloud of dust" philosophy bored me to death and then seemed to become engrained when it seemed to work.  Well....now I think that the opposing coaches, beginning with Pat Fitzgerald at NW up through Mora and now Petersen, are embedding the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" and we are going to have to come to grips with this fact.  Until Shaw goes back to the drawing board, I'm sticking with Phoenix.

[Stymie]

I have always been a semi-closeted Phoenix.  Class of '68, expecting nothing then and just missing the wild and crazy UM/tOSU (or was it vice versa?) Rose Bowl years.  Season ticket holder from 76-85, loving Walsh and then loathing his successors, giving up for pretty much of the ensuing 25 years, until Harbaugh appeared and we finally beat the Toejams into the ground, where they belong.  As for Shaw, I've given him some slack, which worked for me as long as he won, even when his Woody Hayes "3 yards and cloud of dust" philosophy bored me to death and then seemed to become engrained when it seemed to work.  Well....now I think that the opposing coaches, beginning with Pat Fitzgerald at NW up through Mora and now Petersen, are embedding the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" and we are going to have to come to grips with this fact.  Until Shaw goes back to the drawing board, I'm sticking with Phoenix.

[JohnR34231]

I have always been a semi-closeted Phoenix.  Class of '68, expecting nothing then and just missing the wild and crazy UM/tOSU (or was it vice versa?) Rose Bowl years.  Season ticket holder from 76-85, loving Walsh and then loathing his successors, giving up for pretty much of the ensuing 25 years, until Harbaugh appeared and we finally beat the Toejams into the ground, where they belong.  As for Shaw, I've given him some slack, which worked for me as long as he won, even when his Woody Hayes "3 yards and cloud of dust" philosophy bored me to death and then seemed to become engrained when it seemed to work.  Well....now I think that the opposing coaches, beginning with Pat Fitzgerald at NW up through Mora and now Petersen, are embedding the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" and we are going to have to come to grips with this fact.  Until Shaw goes back to the drawing board, I'm sticking with Phoenix.

I remember that people were saying these same kinds of things when we lost to Utah to go 5-5 back in 2014. Since then and up to Friday night, we had gone 18-2 and won two bowl games. All it apparently takes is one ugly loss for people to start saying them again. Last year we put up 45 against Iowa in the Rose Bowl, 41 twice against U$C, 55 against Arizona. Is that boring "three yards and a cloud of dust" football?

[JohnR34231]

I have always been a semi-closeted Phoenix.  Class of '68, expecting nothing then and just missing the wild and crazy UM/tOSU (or was it vice versa?) Rose Bowl years.  Season ticket holder from 76-85, loving Walsh and then loathing his successors, giving up for pretty much of the ensuing 25 years, until Harbaugh appeared and we finally beat the Toejams into the ground, where they belong.  As for Shaw, I've given him some slack, which worked for me as long as he won, even when his Woody Hayes "3 yards and cloud of dust" philosophy bored me to death and then seemed to become engrained when it seemed to work.  Well....now I think that the opposing coaches, beginning with Pat Fitzgerald at NW up through Mora and now Petersen, are embedding the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" and we are going to have to come to grips with this fact.  Until Shaw goes back to the drawing board, I'm sticking with Phoenix.

I remember that people were saying these same kinds of things when we lost to Utah to go 5-5 back in 2014. Since then and up to Friday night, we had gone 18-2 and won two bowl games. All it apparently takes is one ugly loss for people to start saying them again. Last year we put up 45 against Iowa in the Rose Bowl, 41 twice against U$C, 55 against Arizona. Is that boring "three yards and a cloud of dust" football?

[JohnR34231]

I have always been a semi-closeted Phoenix.  Class of '68, expecting nothing then and just missing the wild and crazy UM/tOSU (or was it vice versa?) Rose Bowl years.  Season ticket holder from 76-85, loving Walsh and then loathing his successors, giving up for pretty much of the ensuing 25 years, until Harbaugh appeared and we finally beat the Toejams into the ground, where they belong.  As for Shaw, I've given him some slack, which worked for me as long as he won, even when his Woody Hayes "3 yards and cloud of dust" philosophy bored me to death and then seemed to become engrained when it seemed to work.  Well....now I think that the opposing coaches, beginning with Pat Fitzgerald at NW up through Mora and now Petersen, are embedding the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" and we are going to have to come to grips with this fact.  Until Shaw goes back to the drawing board, I'm sticking with Phoenix.

I remember that people were saying these same kinds of things when we lost to Utah to go 5-5 back in 2014. Since then and up to Friday night, we had gone 18-2 and won two bowl games. All it apparently takes is one ugly loss for people to start saying them again. Last year we put up 45 against Iowa in the Rose Bowl, 41 twice against U$C, 55 against Arizona. Is that boring "three yards and a cloud of dust" football?

[JohnR34231]

I have always been a semi-closeted Phoenix.  Class of '68, expecting nothing then and just missing the wild and crazy UM/tOSU (or was it vice versa?) Rose Bowl years.  Season ticket holder from 76-85, loving Walsh and then loathing his successors, giving up for pretty much of the ensuing 25 years, until Harbaugh appeared and we finally beat the Toejams into the ground, where they belong.  As for Shaw, I've given him some slack, which worked for me as long as he won, even when his Woody Hayes "3 yards and cloud of dust" philosophy bored me to death and then seemed to become engrained when it seemed to work.  Well....now I think that the opposing coaches, beginning with Pat Fitzgerald at NW up through Mora and now Petersen, are embedding the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" and we are going to have to come to grips with this fact.  Until Shaw goes back to the drawing board, I'm sticking with Phoenix.

I remember that people were saying these same kinds of things when we lost to Utah to go 5-5 back in 2014. Since then and up to Friday night, we had gone 18-2 and won two bowl games. All it apparently takes is one ugly loss for people to start saying them again. Last year we put up 45 against Iowa in the Rose Bowl, 41 twice against U$C, 55 against Arizona. Is that boring "three yards and a cloud of dust" football?

[BobK]

Most Stanford fans back in August would have been happy at a 3-1 start.  Yes terrible performance Friday night.    However 18-2 recently and 3 Rose Bowls recently.    Plus 2 Other BCS bowls and 4 of the 5 under this coaching staff that some here want to change ?  Just weird. But then agreeing with the strangest poster on the bootleg is really weird

[BobK]

Most Stanford fans back in August would have been happy at a 3-1 start.  Yes terrible performance Friday night.    However 18-2 recently and 3 Rose Bowls recently.    Plus 2 Other BCS bowls and 4 of the 5 under this coaching staff that some here want to change ?  Just weird. But then agreeing with the strangest poster on the bootleg is really weird

[BobK]

Most Stanford fans back in August would have been happy at a 3-1 start.  Yes terrible performance Friday night.    However 18-2 recently and 3 Rose Bowls recently.    Plus 2 Other BCS bowls and 4 of the 5 under this coaching staff that some here want to change ?  Just weird. But then agreeing with the strangest poster on the bootleg is really weird

[BobK]

Most Stanford fans back in August would have been happy at a 3-1 start.  Yes terrible performance Friday night.    However 18-2 recently and 3 Rose Bowls recently.    Plus 2 Other BCS bowls and 4 of the 5 under this coaching staff that some here want to change ?  Just weird. But then agreeing with the strangest poster on the bootleg is really weird