[BostonCard]

What we know:

1.  Stanford's offense has been middling to bad the last 3 years;
2.  The constant in this period is the head coach, who by all appearances, is "involved" in the play calling on offense.
3.  Stanford moved the ball quite effectively against SC outside the red zone, and stunk up the joint in the red zone.

What we think we know:

1.  Shaw was/is responsible for red zone calls (per comment from T. Husak on radio broadcast).

What we don't know:

1.  Exactly who calls the plays and who has responsibility for what.  I suspect Shaw has final say on everything, based on his constant examination of that plastic card in front of him and speaking into the headset when Stanford is on offense (and oh yeah, signaling in the plays to Hogan).

Based on the above, my belief is  that until Shaw removes himself from input into play calling, Stanford's offense will be consigned to mediocrity.  He can decide whether to go for it or punt; he can make a suggestion during a TO before a big/important play.  But the OC has to be given the leeway during games to make the calls.  Otherwise, (a) how can you have consistency?, and (b) how can you have accountability?  For all we know, Bloomgren is suggesting perfectly good play calls, only to be overridden by Shaw.  That is why the dumping on Bloomgren is, at best, not on a solid base.

The above, of course, is based on a certain belief as to what is actually happening now.  If, in fact, Bloomgren is calling all the plays and making all the decisions, then the argument that he has to relinquish those responsibilities is strong (if not ironclad).

But we fans really don't know for sure what the hell is going on, beyond the fact that "it isn't working."

We must forgive Teejers for his selective amnesia about 2011.  I know the thought that a Shaw-coached offense could have the 7th ranked scoring offense in the nation, 8th ranked total offense (despite running fewer plays than most because of our style; we were 6th in yards per play), the 5th rated passing efficiency offense, (7th in yards per attempt), the 13th ranked rushing yards per attempt offense, not to mention the country's best red zone conversion team (97.1%!!!) is completely incongruous with the theory that David Shaw could not coach an offense out of a box, but yes, those stats really are true, and completely discredit the idea that as soon as Shaw took over, the offense became middling.  Unfortunately, the one true constant we've had for the last three years is that the quarterback was not Andrew Luck, not that the coach was David Shaw.

Any analysis that seeks to explain why we have struggled more the last three years has to account for the fact that David Shaw was the coach during one of the best offensive years in Stanford's history, and was presumably in charge of red zone calls during the year where we were about as close to perfect in red zone conversion as any team can get.  Because any analysis that selectively looks only at the last three years is inherently flawed.

BC

[BostonCard]

What we know:

1.  Stanford's offense has been middling to bad the last 3 years;
2.  The constant in this period is the head coach, who by all appearances, is "involved" in the play calling on offense.
3.  Stanford moved the ball quite effectively against SC outside the red zone, and stunk up the joint in the red zone.

What we think we know:

1.  Shaw was/is responsible for red zone calls (per comment from T. Husak on radio broadcast).

What we don't know:

1.  Exactly who calls the plays and who has responsibility for what.  I suspect Shaw has final say on everything, based on his constant examination of that plastic card in front of him and speaking into the headset when Stanford is on offense (and oh yeah, signaling in the plays to Hogan).

Based on the above, my belief is  that until Shaw removes himself from input into play calling, Stanford's offense will be consigned to mediocrity.  He can decide whether to go for it or punt; he can make a suggestion during a TO before a big/important play.  But the OC has to be given the leeway during games to make the calls.  Otherwise, (a) how can you have consistency?, and (b) how can you have accountability?  For all we know, Bloomgren is suggesting perfectly good play calls, only to be overridden by Shaw.  That is why the dumping on Bloomgren is, at best, not on a solid base.

The above, of course, is based on a certain belief as to what is actually happening now.  If, in fact, Bloomgren is calling all the plays and making all the decisions, then the argument that he has to relinquish those responsibilities is strong (if not ironclad).

But we fans really don't know for sure what the hell is going on, beyond the fact that "it isn't working."

We must forgive Teejers for his selective amnesia about 2011.  I know the thought that a Shaw-coached offense could have the 7th ranked scoring offense in the nation, 8th ranked total offense (despite running fewer plays than most because of our style; we were 6th in yards per play), the 5th rated passing efficiency offense, (7th in yards per attempt), the 13th ranked rushing yards per attempt offense, not to mention the country's best red zone conversion team (97.1%!!!) is completely incongruous with the theory that David Shaw could not coach an offense out of a box, but yes, those stats really are true, and completely discredit the idea that as soon as Shaw took over, the offense became middling.  Unfortunately, the one true constant we've had for the last three years is that the quarterback was not Andrew Luck, not that the coach was David Shaw.

Any analysis that seeks to explain why we have struggled more the last three years has to account for the fact that David Shaw was the coach during one of the best offensive years in Stanford's history, and was presumably in charge of red zone calls during the year where we were about as close to perfect in red zone conversion as any team can get.  Because any analysis that selectively looks only at the last three years is inherently flawed.

BC