[qwerty49]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=17909.msg211188#msg211188 date=1510159176]
BC, once again, raises the straw man about "if you only enjoy a winner, root for Alabama."  Please.  I've supported Stanford WAY longer than most here and almost all of that period has been for "less than winning" teams.  And in truth, it is YOU who are taking the "root for a winner" position because the "defense" of this regime's pathetic offensive showing is often "hey, look at the W/L record."

This goes beyond W/L record.  And if you don't (or won't) see what an underperforming team - and particularly, here, on offense - does to a fan base, then we might as well all throw around straw men in our discussions.

This goes to the heart of program health - unless and until we can all dispense with people in the stands and just put in cardboard cutouts for TV.  Forget the fan boards (which are up in arms), what about your personal emails?  I'm getting a bunch of emails from friends all over the country who are asking WTF is going on?  How can this Stanford team be so pathetic on offense.  And these are my schoolmates from the early '80s - i.e., folks who have attended/supported Stanford football through many non-winning seasons.  A season ticket holder in LA sent me his UW tix and said "I can't watch the game.  I mean, I can, but I won't.  Too frustrating."  That is a very real and growing sentiment.

Now, you and Goose and others may characterize all these folks as "just band-wagoners who only support a winner," and I can authoritatively say you are full of it if you think that.  Unless Stanford turns this around and wins some games down the stretch, I dread what the stands will look like next season (in the bad, even year schedule).

And Goose, I agree that an OL that is worthless will lead to a butt-ugly offense every time.  But these guys are so above "worthless" it's ridiculous.  They are good players. 

How did AZ bury WSU?  How did ןɐɔ win so easily? (I know TOs had a lot to do with it). 

At some point, after multiple games of pathetic offensive showings (with a good roster of O talent) - and there have been so many games of underperformance under this regime - you have to start accepting that there is a problem on the  sidelines.  The kids are not being coached up to anywhere near their peak performance.

And it is killing fan interest in this program.

Wow, extremely well put. BTW,  I finally agree with you on something. Common ground is a great thing. +1
[/quote]

The specifics have been debated ad nauseam for several years all over the internet -- hire a dedicated OC, make someone the OL coach exclusively, upgrade the QB coach, give accountability for red zone playcalling to someone else, widen the OL splits in ogre to prevent the backside defender from pulling the RB down behind the LOS, install a varied blitz package, simplify the 10,000-page playbook, have Shaw step back from x's and o's to a Ralston-like head administrator/motivator model, etc etc.

But nothing happens unless 1) David Shaw first perceives there is a problem that needs to be fixed.  And 2) if he does perceive a problem, the real question is if the various fixes involve "better execution" (which is Shaw's historic party line) or a whole different approach.

I'm not convinced we're even at step 1 yet.  And it is, what it is.  At this point, we don't know what's going on in Shaw's mind, and not much matters unless and until we do.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=17909.msg211188#msg211188 date=1510159176]
BC, once again, raises the straw man about "if you only enjoy a winner, root for Alabama."  Please.  I've supported Stanford WAY longer than most here and almost all of that period has been for "less than winning" teams.  And in truth, it is YOU who are taking the "root for a winner" position because the "defense" of this regime's pathetic offensive showing is often "hey, look at the W/L record."

This goes beyond W/L record.  And if you don't (or won't) see what an underperforming team - and particularly, here, on offense - does to a fan base, then we might as well all throw around straw men in our discussions.

This goes to the heart of program health - unless and until we can all dispense with people in the stands and just put in cardboard cutouts for TV.  Forget the fan boards (which are up in arms), what about your personal emails?  I'm getting a bunch of emails from friends all over the country who are asking WTF is going on?  How can this Stanford team be so pathetic on offense.  And these are my schoolmates from the early '80s - i.e., folks who have attended/supported Stanford football through many non-winning seasons.  A season ticket holder in LA sent me his UW tix and said "I can't watch the game.  I mean, I can, but I won't.  Too frustrating."  That is a very real and growing sentiment.

Now, you and Goose and others may characterize all these folks as "just band-wagoners who only support a winner," and I can authoritatively say you are full of it if you think that.  Unless Stanford turns this around and wins some games down the stretch, I dread what the stands will look like next season (in the bad, even year schedule).

And Goose, I agree that an OL that is worthless will lead to a butt-ugly offense every time.  But these guys are so above "worthless" it's ridiculous.  They are good players. 

How did AZ bury WSU?  How did ןɐɔ win so easily? (I know TOs had a lot to do with it). 

At some point, after multiple games of pathetic offensive showings (with a good roster of O talent) - and there have been so many games of underperformance under this regime - you have to start accepting that there is a problem on the  sidelines.  The kids are not being coached up to anywhere near their peak performance.

And it is killing fan interest in this program.

Wow, extremely well put. BTW,  I finally agree with you on something. Common ground is a great thing. +1
[/quote]

The specifics have been debated ad nauseam for several years all over the internet -- hire a dedicated OC, make someone the OL coach exclusively, upgrade the QB coach, give accountability for red zone playcalling to someone else, widen the OL splits in ogre to prevent the backside defender from pulling the RB down behind the LOS, install a varied blitz package, simplify the 10,000-page playbook, have Shaw step back from x's and o's to a Ralston-like head administrator/motivator model, etc etc.

But nothing happens unless 1) David Shaw first perceives there is a problem that needs to be fixed.  And 2) if he does perceive a problem, the real question is if the various fixes involve "better execution" (which is Shaw's historic party line) or a whole different approach.

I'm not convinced we're even at step 1 yet.  And it is, what it is.  At this point, we don't know what's going on in Shaw's mind, and not much matters unless and until we do.