[washingtonismoney]

Yeah, 3-1 is well above preseason expectations. I too hope for a national champions, but that's only going to happen in (at least) one of two ways:

1) good timing! Trivially this means getting good luck in-season. Here's the list of players who appear to be (to some degree) injured right now: Meeks, Holder, Taboada, Owusu, Love, Marx, Kaden Smith, Tucker... That's a lot, of course, and suggests the team would be a lot better at full health.

It's been observed more than a few times that navigating a team through the regular season unbeaten or near-unbeaten requires a nice portion of luck. (Just do .9 to the 15 and see what I mean...)

But for Stanford there's a special challenge: it looks like Stanford can have either a really good offense or a good defense, but rarely both simultaneously. (Exceptions: 2010, 2013, the late part of 2014...) If 2015's offense were paired with 2014 or (a healthy) 2016 defense it's a playoff team. Figuring out the timing issue would solve a lot of problems. I don't know how to do this.

(Meanwhile, while Stanford fans tend to pile on the offensive coaching, let's not totally exempt defensive coaching either. The state of the linebackers appears not great and the line has been solid at best this year.)

2) Better recruiting! The Shaw regime has brought in -- by recruiting rankings, anyway -- better players than ever. Still, if you want to get up to the playoff stratosphere Shaw likely needs to lift recruiting to an even higher level. For example right now both lines aren't ideal, and that's likely traceable to OK-ish recruiting at the lines between 2013-2015.

Developing, right now, is a hole at RB. Stanford's never relied on so few running backs -- we could've used Barry J, to be honest, this year. Next year, with McCaffrey presumably gone, there's Love and... what, precisely? Speight is a question mark; Scarlett hasn't exactly been encouraging in his rare carries. Sadly the 2017 class isn't providing relief; Lund, if accepted, will go on his mission.

Now obviously there's an element of admissions difficulty. Brandon Stephens, rejected and now at UCLA, is getting some carries for the Bruins. That's a solid enough beginning to his career. Beau Bisharat has gotten occasional difficulties. Nevertheless in the immortal words of Rich Sherman, coaches need to freaking adapt and fill holes before they ever open.

[washingtonismoney]

Yeah, 3-1 is well above preseason expectations. I too hope for a national champions, but that's only going to happen in (at least) one of two ways:

1) good timing! Trivially this means getting good luck in-season. Here's the list of players who appear to be (to some degree) injured right now: Meeks, Holder, Taboada, Owusu, Love, Marx, Kaden Smith, Tucker... That's a lot, of course, and suggests the team would be a lot better at full health.

It's been observed more than a few times that navigating a team through the regular season unbeaten or near-unbeaten requires a nice portion of luck. (Just do .9 to the 15 and see what I mean...)

But for Stanford there's a special challenge: it looks like Stanford can have either a really good offense or a good defense, but rarely both simultaneously. (Exceptions: 2010, 2013, the late part of 2014...) If 2015's offense were paired with 2014 or (a healthy) 2016 defense it's a playoff team. Figuring out the timing issue would solve a lot of problems. I don't know how to do this.

(Meanwhile, while Stanford fans tend to pile on the offensive coaching, let's not totally exempt defensive coaching either. The state of the linebackers appears not great and the line has been solid at best this year.)

2) Better recruiting! The Shaw regime has brought in -- by recruiting rankings, anyway -- better players than ever. Still, if you want to get up to the playoff stratosphere Shaw likely needs to lift recruiting to an even higher level. For example right now both lines aren't ideal, and that's likely traceable to OK-ish recruiting at the lines between 2013-2015.

Developing, right now, is a hole at RB. Stanford's never relied on so few running backs -- we could've used Barry J, to be honest, this year. Next year, with McCaffrey presumably gone, there's Love and... what, precisely? Speight is a question mark; Scarlett hasn't exactly been encouraging in his rare carries. Sadly the 2017 class isn't providing relief; Lund, if accepted, will go on his mission.

Now obviously there's an element of admissions difficulty. Brandon Stephens, rejected and now at UCLA, is getting some carries for the Bruins. That's a solid enough beginning to his career. Beau Bisharat has gotten occasional difficulties. Nevertheless in the immortal words of Rich Sherman, coaches need to freaking adapt and fill holes before they ever open.

[washingtonismoney]

Yeah, 3-1 is well above preseason expectations. I too hope for a national champions, but that's only going to happen in (at least) one of two ways:

1) good timing! Trivially this means getting good luck in-season. Here's the list of players who appear to be (to some degree) injured right now: Meeks, Holder, Taboada, Owusu, Love, Marx, Kaden Smith, Tucker... That's a lot, of course, and suggests the team would be a lot better at full health.

It's been observed more than a few times that navigating a team through the regular season unbeaten or near-unbeaten requires a nice portion of luck. (Just do .9 to the 15 and see what I mean...)

But for Stanford there's a special challenge: it looks like Stanford can have either a really good offense or a good defense, but rarely both simultaneously. (Exceptions: 2010, 2013, the late part of 2014...) If 2015's offense were paired with 2014 or (a healthy) 2016 defense it's a playoff team. Figuring out the timing issue would solve a lot of problems. I don't know how to do this.

(Meanwhile, while Stanford fans tend to pile on the offensive coaching, let's not totally exempt defensive coaching either. The state of the linebackers appears not great and the line has been solid at best this year.)

2) Better recruiting! The Shaw regime has brought in -- by recruiting rankings, anyway -- better players than ever. Still, if you want to get up to the playoff stratosphere Shaw likely needs to lift recruiting to an even higher level. For example right now both lines aren't ideal, and that's likely traceable to OK-ish recruiting at the lines between 2013-2015.

Developing, right now, is a hole at RB. Stanford's never relied on so few running backs -- we could've used Barry J, to be honest, this year. Next year, with McCaffrey presumably gone, there's Love and... what, precisely? Speight is a question mark; Scarlett hasn't exactly been encouraging in his rare carries. Sadly the 2017 class isn't providing relief; Lund, if accepted, will go on his mission.

Now obviously there's an element of admissions difficulty. Brandon Stephens, rejected and now at UCLA, is getting some carries for the Bruins. That's a solid enough beginning to his career. Beau Bisharat has gotten occasional difficulties. Nevertheless in the immortal words of Rich Sherman, coaches need to freaking adapt and fill holes before they ever open.

[washingtonismoney]

Yeah, 3-1 is well above preseason expectations. I too hope for a national champions, but that's only going to happen in (at least) one of two ways:

1) good timing! Trivially this means getting good luck in-season. Here's the list of players who appear to be (to some degree) injured right now: Meeks, Holder, Taboada, Owusu, Love, Marx, Kaden Smith, Tucker... That's a lot, of course, and suggests the team would be a lot better at full health.

It's been observed more than a few times that navigating a team through the regular season unbeaten or near-unbeaten requires a nice portion of luck. (Just do .9 to the 15 and see what I mean...)

But for Stanford there's a special challenge: it looks like Stanford can have either a really good offense or a good defense, but rarely both simultaneously. (Exceptions: 2010, 2013, the late part of 2014...) If 2015's offense were paired with 2014 or (a healthy) 2016 defense it's a playoff team. Figuring out the timing issue would solve a lot of problems. I don't know how to do this.

(Meanwhile, while Stanford fans tend to pile on the offensive coaching, let's not totally exempt defensive coaching either. The state of the linebackers appears not great and the line has been solid at best this year.)

2) Better recruiting! The Shaw regime has brought in -- by recruiting rankings, anyway -- better players than ever. Still, if you want to get up to the playoff stratosphere Shaw likely needs to lift recruiting to an even higher level. For example right now both lines aren't ideal, and that's likely traceable to OK-ish recruiting at the lines between 2013-2015.

Developing, right now, is a hole at RB. Stanford's never relied on so few running backs -- we could've used Barry J, to be honest, this year. Next year, with McCaffrey presumably gone, there's Love and... what, precisely? Speight is a question mark; Scarlett hasn't exactly been encouraging in his rare carries. Sadly the 2017 class isn't providing relief; Lund, if accepted, will go on his mission.

Now obviously there's an element of admissions difficulty. Brandon Stephens, rejected and now at UCLA, is getting some carries for the Bruins. That's a solid enough beginning to his career. Beau Bisharat has gotten occasional difficulties. Nevertheless in the immortal words of Rich Sherman, coaches need to freaking adapt and fill holes before they ever open.

[Phogge]

Not so sure about Macaffrey. Scarlett had a two year injury recovery. Don't think he can be projected as a failure just yet.

#1 schitcan the " Wildcaff" or throw off it.
#2 throw off the Ogre formation.
#3 Are Marx hands made of stone? For variety alone try the dump off even if he drops it.

The Niners first drive today featured the read option and it threw off the Cowboys of a bit.

Stop being soooooooooo predictable Shawgren.

[Phogge]

Not so sure about Macaffrey. Scarlett had a two year injury recovery. Don't think he can be projected as a failure just yet.

#1 schitcan the " Wildcaff" or throw off it.
#2 throw off the Ogre formation.
#3 Are Marx hands made of stone? For variety alone try the dump off even if he drops it.

The Niners first drive today featured the read option and it threw off the Cowboys of a bit.

Stop being soooooooooo predictable Shawgren.

[Phogge]

Not so sure about Macaffrey. Scarlett had a two year injury recovery. Don't think he can be projected as a failure just yet.

#1 schitcan the " Wildcaff" or throw off it.
#2 throw off the Ogre formation.
#3 Are Marx hands made of stone? For variety alone try the dump off even if he drops it.

The Niners first drive today featured the read option and it threw off the Cowboys of a bit.

Stop being soooooooooo predictable Shawgren.

[Phogge]

Not so sure about Macaffrey. Scarlett had a two year injury recovery. Don't think he can be projected as a failure just yet.

#1 schitcan the " Wildcaff" or throw off it.
#2 throw off the Ogre formation.
#3 Are Marx hands made of stone? For variety alone try the dump off even if he drops it.

The Niners first drive today featured the read option and it threw off the Cowboys of a bit.

Stop being soooooooooo predictable Shawgren.

[Viking_Guy]

You know one thing I'd love to see?  Do we have enough healthy tight ends to run a version of power or the ogre with tight ends in some spots as eligible receivers?  Or start in a tight formation, then split people out?  Something to make eyes have to leave #5 in the backfield and at least think about another ball-handler more often?

I'd love to see what McCaffrey could do running out of a spread formation, or even 4 wide.  Heck, even a standard XYZ formation. If his strongest attribute is change of direction and acceleration, I'd love to see what would happen if the other team was forced to defend him in a dime package for a few downs, instead of hoping that the other team will whiff on a tackle or two once he waits long enough for a crease to develop in the 15 or so players clogging the field inside the tackles.

Even if we just threw out of the wildcat or ogre once...  Or how about motioning Marx out of the backfield?

Hope it's more than a pipe dream,

VG

[Viking_Guy]

You know one thing I'd love to see?  Do we have enough healthy tight ends to run a version of power or the ogre with tight ends in some spots as eligible receivers?  Or start in a tight formation, then split people out?  Something to make eyes have to leave #5 in the backfield and at least think about another ball-handler more often?

I'd love to see what McCaffrey could do running out of a spread formation, or even 4 wide.  Heck, even a standard XYZ formation. If his strongest attribute is change of direction and acceleration, I'd love to see what would happen if the other team was forced to defend him in a dime package for a few downs, instead of hoping that the other team will whiff on a tackle or two once he waits long enough for a crease to develop in the 15 or so players clogging the field inside the tackles.

Even if we just threw out of the wildcat or ogre once...  Or how about motioning Marx out of the backfield?

Hope it's more than a pipe dream,

VG

[Viking_Guy]

You know one thing I'd love to see?  Do we have enough healthy tight ends to run a version of power or the ogre with tight ends in some spots as eligible receivers?  Or start in a tight formation, then split people out?  Something to make eyes have to leave #5 in the backfield and at least think about another ball-handler more often?

I'd love to see what McCaffrey could do running out of a spread formation, or even 4 wide.  Heck, even a standard XYZ formation. If his strongest attribute is change of direction and acceleration, I'd love to see what would happen if the other team was forced to defend him in a dime package for a few downs, instead of hoping that the other team will whiff on a tackle or two once he waits long enough for a crease to develop in the 15 or so players clogging the field inside the tackles.

Even if we just threw out of the wildcat or ogre once...  Or how about motioning Marx out of the backfield?

Hope it's more than a pipe dream,

VG

[Viking_Guy]

You know one thing I'd love to see?  Do we have enough healthy tight ends to run a version of power or the ogre with tight ends in some spots as eligible receivers?  Or start in a tight formation, then split people out?  Something to make eyes have to leave #5 in the backfield and at least think about another ball-handler more often?

I'd love to see what McCaffrey could do running out of a spread formation, or even 4 wide.  Heck, even a standard XYZ formation. If his strongest attribute is change of direction and acceleration, I'd love to see what would happen if the other team was forced to defend him in a dime package for a few downs, instead of hoping that the other team will whiff on a tackle or two once he waits long enough for a crease to develop in the 15 or so players clogging the field inside the tackles.

Even if we just threw out of the wildcat or ogre once...  Or how about motioning Marx out of the backfield?

Hope it's more than a pipe dream,

VG

[fullmetal]

I want Shaw to see Phoenix's point of view.  That's all.

[fullmetal]

I want Shaw to see Phoenix's point of view.  That's all.

[fullmetal]

I want Shaw to see Phoenix's point of view.  That's all.

[fullmetal]

I want Shaw to see Phoenix's point of view.  That's all.

[CTcard]

I have been away from the internet for a few days - partly because of a busy weekend out of reach and partly for my own mental health after a terribly disappointing game. So, my apologies if this comment misses the character of things said so far.

On the topic of this thread, I have to say I am amazed that anyone could pin the proximate cause of this most recent debacle on details of play calling or offensive strategy. First of all, we got pounded in so many aspects of the game (i.e. all aspects) focusing on any one seems pointless. Secondly, there is no strategy that produces positive results when your line is getting beaten that badly and the whole team is constantly screwing around on the details (among other things see penalty yardage in that one game equaling the rest of the season combined). Thirdly, what Shaw is typically roasted for, stubbornly sticking to a power-type running game when it is not working, is not what happened here. Stanford called at least 35 pass plays to 22 runs (assumes all non-sack QB carries were called runs), which is a lot of passing. Of course he did that because the run game wasn't working and we were losing, but that is rather the point.

That in no way gives an excuse to the coaching staff. The team didn't show up to play, and the staff's #1 obligation is to have the team ready to play. That's a big failing, I just don't see the failing to be one of offensive approach.


-------------
Of course that leads a much larger question as to whether overall, Stanford's offensive approach is either optimal or even good. I would argue that Stanford's overall approach is at least a good way to proceed, with the caveat of wondering whether there is a better adjustment when key offensive personnel are inexperienced.

There are a bunch of obvious positives that we all remember in the good times. The identity helps with recruiting, helps with consistency of training, helps with presenting opponents something different from what they normally see. These things matter if it is a system that can be successful.

Well, the Stanford offense clearly can be good, but has strong year to year variation. For example, in 2015 Stanford had at least one of the handful of best offenses in the country. Other years it has ranged from quite good to pretty rough.

I think the best overall statistics are per drive, that cancels out most issues of pace and style. So, for the years under Shaw we find:
points per drive
2011 - 3.56  (2nd, Wisc #1)
2012 - 2.08  (71st)
2013 - 2.67  (30th)
2014 - 2.30  (50th)
2015 - 3.58  (2nd, 1st Power 5)
[2016 - 2.03  (73rd)  - but incomplete and not comparable straight up.]
Available Yards gained per drive
2011 - 63%  (4th)
2012 - 45%  (68th)
2013 - 54%  (23rd)
2014 - 49%  (40th)
2015 - 65%  (1st)
[2016 - not available]

In 2011 and 2015 the offense was great. Both years it featured experienced OL and QB.
In 2012 the offense was poor. The OL and moreso the QB were inexperienced.
In 2013 the offense was ... good. OL much more experienced, QB developing.
In 2014, the offense took a step back. The OL inexperienced, QB had tough issues to deal with.
In 2016, we have an inexperienced OL and QB. That seems to be a tough situation for us. I think the offense will prove to be better than 2012, though that isn't clear at the moment.


So, is there a strategy adjustment for the years when the OL and QB are inexperienced that would allow for a more productive offense but still develop the traits that make it great with experience?

There are lots of plays and strategies that I can fantasize about working great, but I have to admit I just don't know. That's a hard mix to attain.


One thing I am somewhat concerned about is that it appears to me as if the staff often takes a while to identify their own team's strengths and weaknesses. It's quite possible that these things are only obvious in hindsight, but still at least a few of them seem glaring now.
Examples:
In 2012, could Hogan have come in earlier?
In 2013, could we have had a better intermediate/short passing game? I think it was within Hogan's skill set.
In 2014 we tried to turn Hogan into a high volume passer. Not his strength.
In 2014/early 2015 we seemed to take a long time to figure out just how good McCaffrey really is. 
In 2014/early 2015 taking awhile to figure out OL and McCaffrey did well with zone blocking.
In 2016, maybe 2015, taking awhile to figure out Irwin best receiver.

[CTcard]

I have been away from the internet for a few days - partly because of a busy weekend out of reach and partly for my own mental health after a terribly disappointing game. So, my apologies if this comment misses the character of things said so far.

On the topic of this thread, I have to say I am amazed that anyone could pin the proximate cause of this most recent debacle on details of play calling or offensive strategy. First of all, we got pounded in so many aspects of the game (i.e. all aspects) focusing on any one seems pointless. Secondly, there is no strategy that produces positive results when your line is getting beaten that badly and the whole team is constantly screwing around on the details (among other things see penalty yardage in that one game equaling the rest of the season combined). Thirdly, what Shaw is typically roasted for, stubbornly sticking to a power-type running game when it is not working, is not what happened here. Stanford called at least 35 pass plays to 22 runs (assumes all non-sack QB carries were called runs), which is a lot of passing. Of course he did that because the run game wasn't working and we were losing, but that is rather the point.

That in no way gives an excuse to the coaching staff. The team didn't show up to play, and the staff's #1 obligation is to have the team ready to play. That's a big failing, I just don't see the failing to be one of offensive approach.


-------------
Of course that leads a much larger question as to whether overall, Stanford's offensive approach is either optimal or even good. I would argue that Stanford's overall approach is at least a good way to proceed, with the caveat of wondering whether there is a better adjustment when key offensive personnel are inexperienced.

There are a bunch of obvious positives that we all remember in the good times. The identity helps with recruiting, helps with consistency of training, helps with presenting opponents something different from what they normally see. These things matter if it is a system that can be successful.

Well, the Stanford offense clearly can be good, but has strong year to year variation. For example, in 2015 Stanford had at least one of the handful of best offenses in the country. Other years it has ranged from quite good to pretty rough.

I think the best overall statistics are per drive, that cancels out most issues of pace and style. So, for the years under Shaw we find:
points per drive
2011 - 3.56  (2nd, Wisc #1)
2012 - 2.08  (71st)
2013 - 2.67  (30th)
2014 - 2.30  (50th)
2015 - 3.58  (2nd, 1st Power 5)
[2016 - 2.03  (73rd)  - but incomplete and not comparable straight up.]
Available Yards gained per drive
2011 - 63%  (4th)
2012 - 45%  (68th)
2013 - 54%  (23rd)
2014 - 49%  (40th)
2015 - 65%  (1st)
[2016 - not available]

In 2011 and 2015 the offense was great. Both years it featured experienced OL and QB.
In 2012 the offense was poor. The OL and moreso the QB were inexperienced.
In 2013 the offense was ... good. OL much more experienced, QB developing.
In 2014, the offense took a step back. The OL inexperienced, QB had tough issues to deal with.
In 2016, we have an inexperienced OL and QB. That seems to be a tough situation for us. I think the offense will prove to be better than 2012, though that isn't clear at the moment.


So, is there a strategy adjustment for the years when the OL and QB are inexperienced that would allow for a more productive offense but still develop the traits that make it great with experience?

There are lots of plays and strategies that I can fantasize about working great, but I have to admit I just don't know. That's a hard mix to attain.


One thing I am somewhat concerned about is that it appears to me as if the staff often takes a while to identify their own team's strengths and weaknesses. It's quite possible that these things are only obvious in hindsight, but still at least a few of them seem glaring now.
Examples:
In 2012, could Hogan have come in earlier?
In 2013, could we have had a better intermediate/short passing game? I think it was within Hogan's skill set.
In 2014 we tried to turn Hogan into a high volume passer. Not his strength.
In 2014/early 2015 we seemed to take a long time to figure out just how good McCaffrey really is. 
In 2014/early 2015 taking awhile to figure out OL and McCaffrey did well with zone blocking.
In 2016, maybe 2015, taking awhile to figure out Irwin best receiver.

[CTcard]

I have been away from the internet for a few days - partly because of a busy weekend out of reach and partly for my own mental health after a terribly disappointing game. So, my apologies if this comment misses the character of things said so far.

On the topic of this thread, I have to say I am amazed that anyone could pin the proximate cause of this most recent debacle on details of play calling or offensive strategy. First of all, we got pounded in so many aspects of the game (i.e. all aspects) focusing on any one seems pointless. Secondly, there is no strategy that produces positive results when your line is getting beaten that badly and the whole team is constantly screwing around on the details (among other things see penalty yardage in that one game equaling the rest of the season combined). Thirdly, what Shaw is typically roasted for, stubbornly sticking to a power-type running game when it is not working, is not what happened here. Stanford called at least 35 pass plays to 22 runs (assumes all non-sack QB carries were called runs), which is a lot of passing. Of course he did that because the run game wasn't working and we were losing, but that is rather the point.

That in no way gives an excuse to the coaching staff. The team didn't show up to play, and the staff's #1 obligation is to have the team ready to play. That's a big failing, I just don't see the failing to be one of offensive approach.


-------------
Of course that leads a much larger question as to whether overall, Stanford's offensive approach is either optimal or even good. I would argue that Stanford's overall approach is at least a good way to proceed, with the caveat of wondering whether there is a better adjustment when key offensive personnel are inexperienced.

There are a bunch of obvious positives that we all remember in the good times. The identity helps with recruiting, helps with consistency of training, helps with presenting opponents something different from what they normally see. These things matter if it is a system that can be successful.

Well, the Stanford offense clearly can be good, but has strong year to year variation. For example, in 2015 Stanford had at least one of the handful of best offenses in the country. Other years it has ranged from quite good to pretty rough.

I think the best overall statistics are per drive, that cancels out most issues of pace and style. So, for the years under Shaw we find:
points per drive
2011 - 3.56  (2nd, Wisc #1)
2012 - 2.08  (71st)
2013 - 2.67  (30th)
2014 - 2.30  (50th)
2015 - 3.58  (2nd, 1st Power 5)
[2016 - 2.03  (73rd)  - but incomplete and not comparable straight up.]
Available Yards gained per drive
2011 - 63%  (4th)
2012 - 45%  (68th)
2013 - 54%  (23rd)
2014 - 49%  (40th)
2015 - 65%  (1st)
[2016 - not available]

In 2011 and 2015 the offense was great. Both years it featured experienced OL and QB.
In 2012 the offense was poor. The OL and moreso the QB were inexperienced.
In 2013 the offense was ... good. OL much more experienced, QB developing.
In 2014, the offense took a step back. The OL inexperienced, QB had tough issues to deal with.
In 2016, we have an inexperienced OL and QB. That seems to be a tough situation for us. I think the offense will prove to be better than 2012, though that isn't clear at the moment.


So, is there a strategy adjustment for the years when the OL and QB are inexperienced that would allow for a more productive offense but still develop the traits that make it great with experience?

There are lots of plays and strategies that I can fantasize about working great, but I have to admit I just don't know. That's a hard mix to attain.


One thing I am somewhat concerned about is that it appears to me as if the staff often takes a while to identify their own team's strengths and weaknesses. It's quite possible that these things are only obvious in hindsight, but still at least a few of them seem glaring now.
Examples:
In 2012, could Hogan have come in earlier?
In 2013, could we have had a better intermediate/short passing game? I think it was within Hogan's skill set.
In 2014 we tried to turn Hogan into a high volume passer. Not his strength.
In 2014/early 2015 we seemed to take a long time to figure out just how good McCaffrey really is. 
In 2014/early 2015 taking awhile to figure out OL and McCaffrey did well with zone blocking.
In 2016, maybe 2015, taking awhile to figure out Irwin best receiver.

[CTcard]

I have been away from the internet for a few days - partly because of a busy weekend out of reach and partly for my own mental health after a terribly disappointing game. So, my apologies if this comment misses the character of things said so far.

On the topic of this thread, I have to say I am amazed that anyone could pin the proximate cause of this most recent debacle on details of play calling or offensive strategy. First of all, we got pounded in so many aspects of the game (i.e. all aspects) focusing on any one seems pointless. Secondly, there is no strategy that produces positive results when your line is getting beaten that badly and the whole team is constantly screwing around on the details (among other things see penalty yardage in that one game equaling the rest of the season combined). Thirdly, what Shaw is typically roasted for, stubbornly sticking to a power-type running game when it is not working, is not what happened here. Stanford called at least 35 pass plays to 22 runs (assumes all non-sack QB carries were called runs), which is a lot of passing. Of course he did that because the run game wasn't working and we were losing, but that is rather the point.

That in no way gives an excuse to the coaching staff. The team didn't show up to play, and the staff's #1 obligation is to have the team ready to play. That's a big failing, I just don't see the failing to be one of offensive approach.


-------------
Of course that leads a much larger question as to whether overall, Stanford's offensive approach is either optimal or even good. I would argue that Stanford's overall approach is at least a good way to proceed, with the caveat of wondering whether there is a better adjustment when key offensive personnel are inexperienced.

There are a bunch of obvious positives that we all remember in the good times. The identity helps with recruiting, helps with consistency of training, helps with presenting opponents something different from what they normally see. These things matter if it is a system that can be successful.

Well, the Stanford offense clearly can be good, but has strong year to year variation. For example, in 2015 Stanford had at least one of the handful of best offenses in the country. Other years it has ranged from quite good to pretty rough.

I think the best overall statistics are per drive, that cancels out most issues of pace and style. So, for the years under Shaw we find:
points per drive
2011 - 3.56  (2nd, Wisc #1)
2012 - 2.08  (71st)
2013 - 2.67  (30th)
2014 - 2.30  (50th)
2015 - 3.58  (2nd, 1st Power 5)
[2016 - 2.03  (73rd)  - but incomplete and not comparable straight up.]
Available Yards gained per drive
2011 - 63%  (4th)
2012 - 45%  (68th)
2013 - 54%  (23rd)
2014 - 49%  (40th)
2015 - 65%  (1st)
[2016 - not available]

In 2011 and 2015 the offense was great. Both years it featured experienced OL and QB.
In 2012 the offense was poor. The OL and moreso the QB were inexperienced.
In 2013 the offense was ... good. OL much more experienced, QB developing.
In 2014, the offense took a step back. The OL inexperienced, QB had tough issues to deal with.
In 2016, we have an inexperienced OL and QB. That seems to be a tough situation for us. I think the offense will prove to be better than 2012, though that isn't clear at the moment.


So, is there a strategy adjustment for the years when the OL and QB are inexperienced that would allow for a more productive offense but still develop the traits that make it great with experience?

There are lots of plays and strategies that I can fantasize about working great, but I have to admit I just don't know. That's a hard mix to attain.


One thing I am somewhat concerned about is that it appears to me as if the staff often takes a while to identify their own team's strengths and weaknesses. It's quite possible that these things are only obvious in hindsight, but still at least a few of them seem glaring now.
Examples:
In 2012, could Hogan have come in earlier?
In 2013, could we have had a better intermediate/short passing game? I think it was within Hogan's skill set.
In 2014 we tried to turn Hogan into a high volume passer. Not his strength.
In 2014/early 2015 we seemed to take a long time to figure out just how good McCaffrey really is. 
In 2014/early 2015 taking awhile to figure out OL and McCaffrey did well with zone blocking.
In 2016, maybe 2015, taking awhile to figure out Irwin best receiver.

[stupac2]

This seems kind of silly to me, but how much of it is our schedule? Starting in 2011 we've been bad in even years and good in odd years, and not coincidentally in even years almost all our hard games are on the road, while the opposite is true in even years. Do we suck at traveling for some reason? It's obviously not 1:1 since we do lose at home sometimes, but it's worth asking if that plays a factor. And if it does, that's probably at least a bit on the staff.

[stupac2]

This seems kind of silly to me, but how much of it is our schedule? Starting in 2011 we've been bad in even years and good in odd years, and not coincidentally in even years almost all our hard games are on the road, while the opposite is true in even years. Do we suck at traveling for some reason? It's obviously not 1:1 since we do lose at home sometimes, but it's worth asking if that plays a factor. And if it does, that's probably at least a bit on the staff.

[stupac2]

This seems kind of silly to me, but how much of it is our schedule? Starting in 2011 we've been bad in even years and good in odd years, and not coincidentally in even years almost all our hard games are on the road, while the opposite is true in even years. Do we suck at traveling for some reason? It's obviously not 1:1 since we do lose at home sometimes, but it's worth asking if that plays a factor. And if it does, that's probably at least a bit on the staff.

[stupac2]

This seems kind of silly to me, but how much of it is our schedule? Starting in 2011 we've been bad in even years and good in odd years, and not coincidentally in even years almost all our hard games are on the road, while the opposite is true in even years. Do we suck at traveling for some reason? It's obviously not 1:1 since we do lose at home sometimes, but it's worth asking if that plays a factor. And if it does, that's probably at least a bit on the staff.

[washingtonismoney]

SOS per Sagarin:

2011: 36
2012: 22
2013: 1
2014: 27
2015: 12
2016: 2

[washingtonismoney]

SOS per Sagarin:

2011: 36
2012: 22
2013: 1
2014: 27
2015: 12
2016: 2

[washingtonismoney]

SOS per Sagarin:

2011: 36
2012: 22
2013: 1
2014: 27
2015: 12
2016: 2

[washingtonismoney]

SOS per Sagarin:

2011: 36
2012: 22
2013: 1
2014: 27
2015: 12
2016: 2

[stupac2]

Does Sagarin's SOS take into account home/away? I assume it does, but I was positing that perhaps we're particularly bad at playing away from home, which it wouldn't fully account for. (It also presumably counts CCGs and bowls, which aren't part of the consideration at all.)

[stupac2]

Does Sagarin's SOS take into account home/away? I assume it does, but I was positing that perhaps we're particularly bad at playing away from home, which it wouldn't fully account for. (It also presumably counts CCGs and bowls, which aren't part of the consideration at all.)

[stupac2]

Does Sagarin's SOS take into account home/away? I assume it does, but I was positing that perhaps we're particularly bad at playing away from home, which it wouldn't fully account for. (It also presumably counts CCGs and bowls, which aren't part of the consideration at all.)

[stupac2]

Does Sagarin's SOS take into account home/away? I assume it does, but I was positing that perhaps we're particularly bad at playing away from home, which it wouldn't fully account for. (It also presumably counts CCGs and bowls, which aren't part of the consideration at all.)

[washingtonismoney]

Does Sagarin's SOS take into account home/away? I assume it does, but I was positing that perhaps we're particularly bad at playing away from home, which it wouldn't fully account for. (It also presumably counts CCGs and bowls, which aren't part of the consideration at all.)

Yes, dunno.

[washingtonismoney]

Does Sagarin's SOS take into account home/away? I assume it does, but I was positing that perhaps we're particularly bad at playing away from home, which it wouldn't fully account for. (It also presumably counts CCGs and bowls, which aren't part of the consideration at all.)

Yes, dunno.

[washingtonismoney]

Does Sagarin's SOS take into account home/away? I assume it does, but I was positing that perhaps we're particularly bad at playing away from home, which it wouldn't fully account for. (It also presumably counts CCGs and bowls, which aren't part of the consideration at all.)

Yes, dunno.

[washingtonismoney]

Does Sagarin's SOS take into account home/away? I assume it does, but I was positing that perhaps we're particularly bad at playing away from home, which it wouldn't fully account for. (It also presumably counts CCGs and bowls, which aren't part of the consideration at all.)

Yes, dunno.

[oman]

Hind tit is still tit.

[oman]

Hind tit is still tit.

[oman]

Hind tit is still tit.

[oman]

Hind tit is still tit.