[CardinalSagehen]

Yes, but playing ball control and limiting possessions protects your defense. When Stanford has won conference championships under Shaw, that was the formula. They aren’t going to be successful playing shoot outs.  Just ask Sonny Dykes how that worked.

What about Oregon's offenses that were scoring machines?  What about SC's offenses?  Hell, Stanford has won big with balanced, pro-style offenses - see Husak Rose Bowl, Seattle Bowl, Luck years, and yes, 2015.  It is not a requirement for Stanford to win only by taking the air out of the ball on offense.  Not sure why you cling to that when Stanford has had plenty of winning teams that have had very high-powered offenses.  

But I agree that Shaw always tries to play ball control offense.  He did it when he had great defenses, good defenses, and mediocre defenses.  The only time he doesn't do it is when he has tried multiple times, failed, and it is thus futile to ground and pound - though even then he might try and still pound it (see MSU Rose Bowl fourth and 3 play).  That's my impression anyway.

The terminology "ball control offense" strikes me as a bit ironic, because obviously the best way to control the ball would be not to willingly give it away to the opponent on 4th down.  You guys are using it in the way everyone does, but maybe the term ought to be rethought.  

To me, letting the clock roll and being willing to pound the ball methodically down the field is a different decision than whether to go for it on 4th down.  It can be both/and rather than either/or.

[CardinalSagehen]

Yes, but playing ball control and limiting possessions protects your defense. When Stanford has won conference championships under Shaw, that was the formula. They aren’t going to be successful playing shoot outs.  Just ask Sonny Dykes how that worked.

What about Oregon's offenses that were scoring machines?  What about SC's offenses?  Hell, Stanford has won big with balanced, pro-style offenses - see Husak Rose Bowl, Seattle Bowl, Luck years, and yes, 2015.  It is not a requirement for Stanford to win only by taking the air out of the ball on offense.  Not sure why you cling to that when Stanford has had plenty of winning teams that have had very high-powered offenses.  

But I agree that Shaw always tries to play ball control offense.  He did it when he had great defenses, good defenses, and mediocre defenses.  The only time he doesn't do it is when he has tried multiple times, failed, and it is thus futile to ground and pound - though even then he might try and still pound it (see MSU Rose Bowl fourth and 3 play).  That's my impression anyway.

The terminology "ball control offense" strikes me as a bit ironic, because obviously the best way to control the ball would be not to willingly give it away to the opponent on 4th down.  You guys are using it in the way everyone does, but maybe the term ought to be rethought.  

To me, letting the clock roll and being willing to pound the ball methodically down the field is a different decision than whether to go for it on 4th down.  It can be both/and rather than either/or.