[BostonCard]

It's not that I believe playcalling is unimportant, but that its importance is overrated by fans, and this is especially true when things don't work.

As WIM mentioned, it is a strawman.  Nobody here has said that playcalling is unimportant, just as I don't think anyone who argues the importance of playcalling doesn't believe in the importance of execution.  Both "sides" of the issue believe both are important, it's just a question of the relative importance of the two.  I happen to believe that given a competent coach, and I believe that Shaw meets that criteria, most failings can be traced back to a player being out of position or missing his block, or to an exceptional play by the other side, rather than the coach zigging when he should have zagged (the converse is also true; most "great plays" are due to a breakdown by the other side, or an exceptional one-on-one play by the offensive player), rather than calling the right play at the right time.

That's not to say at all that coaches are absolved of things when they went wrong because of "bad execution" on the part of the players.  The coaches are paid; the players are not.  The coaches recruit, condition and develop the players.  It is up to the coaches to teach the players how to execute and to pick the right players to be on the field to execute the calls.  If the coaches know the players are incapable of carrying out the plays, then it is up to the coaches to find plays that the players can execute.

After the Northwestern game, aside from the specific complaints about playcalling, there was a broader critique of Shaw, which was that the offensive system that he was implementing was too complex to be executed by a collegiate team that didn't have a first pick of the draft at QB, and multiple future NFL players in the offensive line and skill positions.  Despite our success the last couple weeks, the critique may still have merit.  After all, we have a fifth year senior at QB who is in his fourth year as a starter, an offensive line that returned four out of five starters from last year and features multiple future NFL players (I am assuming at the least that Garnet and Murphy will be in the Pros next year, at the least) from one of the best offensive line recruiting classes, at any school, ever.  It also features the second rated draft prospect at tight end, experienced receivers, and a player who has a good chance to end his career as Stanford's all-time rushing leader (if he doesn't leave early to the NFL).  But saying that our overall approach to offense may be problematic is different than critiquing the play calling.

BC

[BostonCard]

It's not that I believe playcalling is unimportant, but that its importance is overrated by fans, and this is especially true when things don't work.

As WIM mentioned, it is a strawman.  Nobody here has said that playcalling is unimportant, just as I don't think anyone who argues the importance of playcalling doesn't believe in the importance of execution.  Both "sides" of the issue believe both are important, it's just a question of the relative importance of the two.  I happen to believe that given a competent coach, and I believe that Shaw meets that criteria, most failings can be traced back to a player being out of position or missing his block, or to an exceptional play by the other side, rather than the coach zigging when he should have zagged (the converse is also true; most "great plays" are due to a breakdown by the other side, or an exceptional one-on-one play by the offensive player), rather than calling the right play at the right time.

That's not to say at all that coaches are absolved of things when they went wrong because of "bad execution" on the part of the players.  The coaches are paid; the players are not.  The coaches recruit, condition and develop the players.  It is up to the coaches to teach the players how to execute and to pick the right players to be on the field to execute the calls.  If the coaches know the players are incapable of carrying out the plays, then it is up to the coaches to find plays that the players can execute.

After the Northwestern game, aside from the specific complaints about playcalling, there was a broader critique of Shaw, which was that the offensive system that he was implementing was too complex to be executed by a collegiate team that didn't have a first pick of the draft at QB, and multiple future NFL players in the offensive line and skill positions.  Despite our success the last couple weeks, the critique may still have merit.  After all, we have a fifth year senior at QB who is in his fourth year as a starter, an offensive line that returned four out of five starters from last year and features multiple future NFL players (I am assuming at the least that Garnet and Murphy will be in the Pros next year, at the least) from one of the best offensive line recruiting classes, at any school, ever.  It also features the second rated draft prospect at tight end, experienced receivers, and a player who has a good chance to end his career as Stanford's all-time rushing leader (if he doesn't leave early to the NFL).  But saying that our overall approach to offense may be problematic is different than critiquing the play calling.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

After the Northwestern game, aside from the specific complaints about playcalling, there was a broader critique of Shaw, which was that the offensive system that he was implementing was too complex to be executed by a collegiate team that didn't have a first pick of the draft at QB, and multiple future NFL players in the offensive line and skill positions.  Despite our success the last couple weeks, the critique may still have merit.  After all, we have a fifth year senior at QB who is in his fourth year as a starter, an offensive line that returned four out of five starters from last year and features multiple future NFL players (I am assuming at the least that Garnet and Murphy will be in the Pros next year, at the least) from one of the best offensive line recruiting classes, at any school, ever.  It also features the second rated draft prospect at tight end, experienced receivers, and a player who has a good chance to end his career as Stanford's all-time rushing leader (if he doesn't leave early to the NFL).  But saying that our overall approach to offense may be problematic is different than critiquing the play calling.

So I've been thinking about Stanford's up-and-down fortunes on offense and contrasting them with the rather steady fortunes on defense. (Stanford's worst seasons on defense since the rise to elite status have been 2011 and, in all probability, this year.* Both of those years Stanford was a 20-25th ranked defense, assuming you trust the fancy stats; that's roughly equivalent to Stanford's 2013 offense -- the rough median for offenses.)

* Of course I'm happy to be proven wrong -- hopefully on the upside. Perhaps the team will gell and get reinforced by Davis and Anderson. If so you'd have to love Stanford's chances this year.

So what accounts for that? The popular narrative has been coaching. But there's an odd fact I haven't seen the popular narrative confront and explain: if the coaching is so poor, why are Stanford offensive coaches in such demand? Shaw seems to appear on his fair share of coaching lists, of course, but that's not all. Stanford has sent Mike Sanford, Pep Hamilton, Ron Crook, and Aaron Moorehead upwards and onwards. If the team is so poorly coached, why are its coaches in such demand?

So I wonder if we're underrating a simple factor: turnover. Compare the numbers of early departures. (Year denotes how many players left from that team. So, e.g. if Austin Hooper declared for the draft he'd be assigned to "2015.")

Year	Offense	Defense
2010	0	1
2011	4*	0
2012	2	1
2013	2	1
2014	5**	3***

* Tyler Gaffney left for baseball, though I'll concede this is marginal as he later returns
** Andrus Peat left for pro football. Jordan Pratt decided to stop playing football. Kevin Reihner, Kelsey Young and Charlie Hopkins transferred.
*** Alex Carter left for pro football. Zach Hoffpauir left for pro baseball. Wayne Lyons transferred.

I don't think it's an accident that the heaviest attrition suffered by the defense has led to its most flammable year in recent history. (My guess here.) And of course this neglects the in retrospect potentially-highly-damaging medical retirement of Ikenna Nwafor.

Moreover, it seems like high achievers on offense are more likely to leave early, for whatever reason. Sometimes that's OK -- Luck and Martin and DeCastro and Ertz had nothing left to prove at the college level. But some of the offensive guys who have left have been productive players, but not really great pro prospects -- Toilolo, Fleming, and Yankey are the guys I have in mind here. (All three seem to have struggled as pros so far; here's a Fox Sports story with Yankey admitting he wasn't ready for the pros: http://www.foxsports.com/north/story/min...son-013015) You wonder whether staying another year could've enhanced their pro prospects.

[washingtonismoney]

After the Northwestern game, aside from the specific complaints about playcalling, there was a broader critique of Shaw, which was that the offensive system that he was implementing was too complex to be executed by a collegiate team that didn't have a first pick of the draft at QB, and multiple future NFL players in the offensive line and skill positions.  Despite our success the last couple weeks, the critique may still have merit.  After all, we have a fifth year senior at QB who is in his fourth year as a starter, an offensive line that returned four out of five starters from last year and features multiple future NFL players (I am assuming at the least that Garnet and Murphy will be in the Pros next year, at the least) from one of the best offensive line recruiting classes, at any school, ever.  It also features the second rated draft prospect at tight end, experienced receivers, and a player who has a good chance to end his career as Stanford's all-time rushing leader (if he doesn't leave early to the NFL).  But saying that our overall approach to offense may be problematic is different than critiquing the play calling.

So I've been thinking about Stanford's up-and-down fortunes on offense and contrasting them with the rather steady fortunes on defense. (Stanford's worst seasons on defense since the rise to elite status have been 2011 and, in all probability, this year.* Both of those years Stanford was a 20-25th ranked defense, assuming you trust the fancy stats; that's roughly equivalent to Stanford's 2013 offense -- the rough median for offenses.)

* Of course I'm happy to be proven wrong -- hopefully on the upside. Perhaps the team will gell and get reinforced by Davis and Anderson. If so you'd have to love Stanford's chances this year.

So what accounts for that? The popular narrative has been coaching. But there's an odd fact I haven't seen the popular narrative confront and explain: if the coaching is so poor, why are Stanford offensive coaches in such demand? Shaw seems to appear on his fair share of coaching lists, of course, but that's not all. Stanford has sent Mike Sanford, Pep Hamilton, Ron Crook, and Aaron Moorehead upwards and onwards. If the team is so poorly coached, why are its coaches in such demand?

So I wonder if we're underrating a simple factor: turnover. Compare the numbers of early departures. (Year denotes how many players left from that team. So, e.g. if Austin Hooper declared for the draft he'd be assigned to "2015.")

Year	Offense	Defense
2010	0	1
2011	4*	0
2012	2	1
2013	2	1
2014	5**	3***

* Tyler Gaffney left for baseball, though I'll concede this is marginal as he later returns
** Andrus Peat left for pro football. Jordan Pratt decided to stop playing football. Kevin Reihner, Kelsey Young and Charlie Hopkins transferred.
*** Alex Carter left for pro football. Zach Hoffpauir left for pro baseball. Wayne Lyons transferred.

I don't think it's an accident that the heaviest attrition suffered by the defense has led to its most flammable year in recent history. (My guess here.) And of course this neglects the in retrospect potentially-highly-damaging medical retirement of Ikenna Nwafor.

Moreover, it seems like high achievers on offense are more likely to leave early, for whatever reason. Sometimes that's OK -- Luck and Martin and DeCastro and Ertz had nothing left to prove at the college level. But some of the offensive guys who have left have been productive players, but not really great pro prospects -- Toilolo, Fleming, and Yankey are the guys I have in mind here. (All three seem to have struggled as pros so far; here's a Fox Sports story with Yankey admitting he wasn't ready for the pros: http://www.foxsports.com/north/story/min...son-013015) You wonder whether staying another year could've enhanced their pro prospects.

[Mick]

Shaw seems to appear on his fair share of coaching lists, of course, but that's not all. Stanford has sent Mike Sanford, Pep Hamilton, Ron Crook, and Aaron Moorehead upwards and onwards. If the team is so poorly coached, why are its coaches in such demand?

I would include Greg Roman, OC of the Buffalo Bills, currently #9 in the NFL in points per game.

[Mick]

Shaw seems to appear on his fair share of coaching lists, of course, but that's not all. Stanford has sent Mike Sanford, Pep Hamilton, Ron Crook, and Aaron Moorehead upwards and onwards. If the team is so poorly coached, why are its coaches in such demand?

I would include Greg Roman, OC of the Buffalo Bills, currently #9 in the NFL in points per game.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13162.msg134648#msg134648 date=1444873923]
Shaw seems to appear on his fair share of coaching lists, of course, but that's not all. Stanford has sent Mike Sanford, Pep Hamilton, Ron Crook, and Aaron Moorehead upwards and onwards. If the team is so poorly coached, why are its coaches in such demand?

I would include Greg Roman, OC of the Buffalo Bills, currently #9 in the NFL in points per game.
[/quote]

Not really a Shaw guy -- most people who criticize the coaching argue pre-Shaw was a prelapsarian time.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13162.msg134648#msg134648 date=1444873923]
Shaw seems to appear on his fair share of coaching lists, of course, but that's not all. Stanford has sent Mike Sanford, Pep Hamilton, Ron Crook, and Aaron Moorehead upwards and onwards. If the team is so poorly coached, why are its coaches in such demand?

I would include Greg Roman, OC of the Buffalo Bills, currently #9 in the NFL in points per game.
[/quote]

Not really a Shaw guy -- most people who criticize the coaching argue pre-Shaw was a prelapsarian time.