10-29-2014, 01:04 PM
I think we are just challenging your premise that the offense has not changed.
A case can certainly be made that we should get ourselves a new Andrew Luck director of the offense, because the offense hasn't been elite since we had Andrew Luck (though maybe that says more about the QB than about the offensive coordinator).
But you keep harping on the need to get a new OC because we need to change, suggesting that our current OC is incapable of change.
Change is necessary, and certainly if you can anticipate changing circumstances and execute it, change can be very positive. I read the parable, "Who moved my cheese" (Short read: http://www.mindwell.be/ebooks/WhoMovedMyCheese.pdf). Although (pardon the pun) cheesy, it does show the important of being able to change and adapt to change. But there is a fine line between adaptive change and panic, and it all boils down to whether the change that is instituted works. Gavin has alluded to the Buddy Teevens fiasco. Buddy certainly introduced change into the Stanford offense, but it was poorly executed and was a disaster. That doesn't mean that someone more competent could not have pulled it off, but I question the idea of change just for change's sake.
I rather think of things from the perspective of "what kind of athletes can Stanford recruit well", and can we build an offense around it that can best use their skills, tailoring said offense to variations in strengths from year to year.
I don't think we want to be chasing the latest fad on offense, or going after what is hot now. Nor do we want to entirely re-work our offense. What I think we should do, and have been doing, is incorporating new ideas/plays, and changing the balance of plays to emphasize our strengths.
BC
A case can certainly be made that we should get ourselves a new Andrew Luck director of the offense, because the offense hasn't been elite since we had Andrew Luck (though maybe that says more about the QB than about the offensive coordinator).
But you keep harping on the need to get a new OC because we need to change, suggesting that our current OC is incapable of change.
Change is necessary, and certainly if you can anticipate changing circumstances and execute it, change can be very positive. I read the parable, "Who moved my cheese" (Short read: http://www.mindwell.be/ebooks/WhoMovedMyCheese.pdf). Although (pardon the pun) cheesy, it does show the important of being able to change and adapt to change. But there is a fine line between adaptive change and panic, and it all boils down to whether the change that is instituted works. Gavin has alluded to the Buddy Teevens fiasco. Buddy certainly introduced change into the Stanford offense, but it was poorly executed and was a disaster. That doesn't mean that someone more competent could not have pulled it off, but I question the idea of change just for change's sake.
I rather think of things from the perspective of "what kind of athletes can Stanford recruit well", and can we build an offense around it that can best use their skills, tailoring said offense to variations in strengths from year to year.
I don't think we want to be chasing the latest fad on offense, or going after what is hot now. Nor do we want to entirely re-work our offense. What I think we should do, and have been doing, is incorporating new ideas/plays, and changing the balance of plays to emphasize our strengths.
BC