[OutsiderFan]

I'm more inclined to think limited YAC numbers across the board indicate a quarterback failing to put his receivers in position to run after the catch.

It's also the routes themselves.  Lots of comebacks, outs, and fades that aren't conducive to running after the catch.  Not a whole lot in the middle of the field, and very few crossing patterns.  Even the slants that have been thrown are mostly so low the receivers have to slide to catch them.  Moreover, the execution and blocking on all manner of screens has generally been abysmal.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm more inclined to think limited YAC numbers across the board indicate a quarterback failing to put his receivers in position to run after the catch.

It's also the routes themselves.  Lots of comebacks, outs, and fades that aren't conducive to running after the catch.  Not a whole lot in the middle of the field, and very few crossing patterns.  Even the slants that have been thrown are mostly so low the receivers have to slide to catch them.  Moreover, the execution and blocking on all manner of screens has generally been abysmal.

[dabigv13]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15988.msg177226#msg177226 date=1477479135]
[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=15988.msg177225#msg177225 date=1477470227]
[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15988.msg177223#msg177223 date=1477465104]
It's pretty damning that a player in his 3rd year with the program is described as having a limited understanding of the playbook. Damning of who or what I am not precisely sure, but that shouldn't be the case.

Are you referring to the email eric posted? If so, I don't see where it refers to his understanding of the playbook as "limited." It says that his understanding is not as advanced as that of Burns -- which is to be expected, considering Burns has had an extra year in the program.
[/quote]
Understanding of the offense being limited versus understanding not as advanced is pretty much the same thing right?
[/quote]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15988.msg177226#msg177226 date=1477479135]
[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=15988.msg177225#msg177225 date=1477470227]
[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15988.msg177223#msg177223 date=1477465104]
It's pretty damning that a player in his 3rd year with the program is described as having a limited understanding of the playbook. Damning of who or what I am not precisely sure, but that shouldn't be the case.

Are you referring to the email eric posted? If so, I don't see where it refers to his understanding of the playbook as "limited." It says that his understanding is not as advanced as that of Burns -- which is to be expected, considering Burns has had an extra year in the program.
[/quote]
Understanding of the offense being limited versus understanding not as advanced is pretty much the same thing right?
[/quote]

His understanding being limited would seem to imply that it's not where it should be, independent of anyone else's understanding. Considering you specified "in his 3rd year," it's pretty apparent that was your implication. The email, on the other hand, simply said it's not where Burns's is. And considering Burns is in his fourth year, that's to be expected.
[/quote]

His understanding being limited would seem to imply that it's not where it should be, independent of anyone else's understanding. Considering you specified "in his 3rd year," it's pretty apparent that was your implication. The email, on the other hand, simply said it's not where Burns's is. And considering Burns is in his fourth year, that's to be expected.
[/quote]

We're not talking particle physics, we're talking about a college offense. If a veteran, 3rd year player, who was in the running to start since the spring, needs to have the offense tuned down for him, I think that's a problem. Either a problem with Chryst or a problem with the offense.

Also describing Burns as having any mastery of the offense is just wrong. If that's what mastery looks like we're truly doomed.

[dabigv13]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15988.msg177226#msg177226 date=1477479135]
[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=15988.msg177225#msg177225 date=1477470227]
[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15988.msg177223#msg177223 date=1477465104]
It's pretty damning that a player in his 3rd year with the program is described as having a limited understanding of the playbook. Damning of who or what I am not precisely sure, but that shouldn't be the case.

Are you referring to the email eric posted? If so, I don't see where it refers to his understanding of the playbook as "limited." It says that his understanding is not as advanced as that of Burns -- which is to be expected, considering Burns has had an extra year in the program.
[/quote]
Understanding of the offense being limited versus understanding not as advanced is pretty much the same thing right?
[/quote]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15988.msg177226#msg177226 date=1477479135]
[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=15988.msg177225#msg177225 date=1477470227]
[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15988.msg177223#msg177223 date=1477465104]
It's pretty damning that a player in his 3rd year with the program is described as having a limited understanding of the playbook. Damning of who or what I am not precisely sure, but that shouldn't be the case.

Are you referring to the email eric posted? If so, I don't see where it refers to his understanding of the playbook as "limited." It says that his understanding is not as advanced as that of Burns -- which is to be expected, considering Burns has had an extra year in the program.
[/quote]
Understanding of the offense being limited versus understanding not as advanced is pretty much the same thing right?
[/quote]

His understanding being limited would seem to imply that it's not where it should be, independent of anyone else's understanding. Considering you specified "in his 3rd year," it's pretty apparent that was your implication. The email, on the other hand, simply said it's not where Burns's is. And considering Burns is in his fourth year, that's to be expected.
[/quote]

His understanding being limited would seem to imply that it's not where it should be, independent of anyone else's understanding. Considering you specified "in his 3rd year," it's pretty apparent that was your implication. The email, on the other hand, simply said it's not where Burns's is. And considering Burns is in his fourth year, that's to be expected.
[/quote]

We're not talking particle physics, we're talking about a college offense. If a veteran, 3rd year player, who was in the running to start since the spring, needs to have the offense tuned down for him, I think that's a problem. Either a problem with Chryst or a problem with the offense.

Also describing Burns as having any mastery of the offense is just wrong. If that's what mastery looks like we're truly doomed.

[Mick]

I hope you are right, but I doubt it.  We saw Hogan come in on packages and make brilliant plays.  We have yet to see that out of Chryst.

It seems that the more appropriate hopeful analogy is is that Hogan was to Nunes/Nottingham as Costello will be to Burns/Chryst.

It's a disparate move.  No clear analogy.

[Mick]

I hope you are right, but I doubt it.  We saw Hogan come in on packages and make brilliant plays.  We have yet to see that out of Chryst.

It seems that the more appropriate hopeful analogy is is that Hogan was to Nunes/Nottingham as Costello will be to Burns/Chryst.

It's a disparate move.  No clear analogy.

[Langdude]

It's a disparate move.

ICWUDT!

-m.

[Langdude]

It's a disparate move.

ICWUDT!

-m.

[Bruce Wang]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=15988.msg177234#msg177234 date=1477489861]
It's a disparate move.

ICWUDT!

-m.
[/quote]

It's nice to see a reminder of why I love this place.  I had almost forgotten during this annus horibilis.

I tried to think of a precedent that give us hope for Chryst.  The best I can come up with is Jimmy Garoppolo.  He looked terrible in the pre-season, but in a game and half played well enough that people talked about trading Brady.

[Bruce Wang]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=15988.msg177234#msg177234 date=1477489861]
It's a disparate move.

ICWUDT!

-m.
[/quote]

It's nice to see a reminder of why I love this place.  I had almost forgotten during this annus horibilis.

I tried to think of a precedent that give us hope for Chryst.  The best I can come up with is Jimmy Garoppolo.  He looked terrible in the pre-season, but in a game and half played well enough that people talked about trading Brady.

[BobK]

Thank you ATLcard.  I don't think from comments here and on other Boards people understand it's not just the Play Book but the ability to call the play at the line of scrimmage.  Is it Play A or Play B once at the line or is it an audiable.  Most think when the QB is flapping his arms it's to calm players down.  LOL LOL it's changing from one play to another.

Also Harbaugh started this, with Luck, Shaw has cotinued it.  Worked great with Luck and Hogan.     

[BobK]

Thank you ATLcard.  I don't think from comments here and on other Boards people understand it's not just the Play Book but the ability to call the play at the line of scrimmage.  Is it Play A or Play B once at the line or is it an audiable.  Most think when the QB is flapping his arms it's to calm players down.  LOL LOL it's changing from one play to another.

Also Harbaugh started this, with Luck, Shaw has cotinued it.  Worked great with Luck and Hogan.     

[washingtonismoney]

Chryst throws a prettier ball with a shorter delivery.

I suppose but my defining impression of Chryst's throws (dating back to spring practice) is his tendency to bounce-pass to intended receivers.

[washingtonismoney]

Chryst throws a prettier ball with a shorter delivery.

I suppose but my defining impression of Chryst's throws (dating back to spring practice) is his tendency to bounce-pass to intended receivers.

[French Rage]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15988.msg177215#msg177215 date=1477448385]
Chryst throws a prettier ball with a shorter delivery.

I suppose but my defining impression of Chryst's throws (dating back to spring practice) is his tendency to bounce-pass to intended receivers.
[/quote]

If he's gonna underthrow, better to the ground than to the defender.  So already an improvement from the last game!

[French Rage]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15988.msg177215#msg177215 date=1477448385]
Chryst throws a prettier ball with a shorter delivery.

I suppose but my defining impression of Chryst's throws (dating back to spring practice) is his tendency to bounce-pass to intended receivers.
[/quote]

If he's gonna underthrow, better to the ground than to the defender.  So already an improvement from the last game!

[Row80Critic]

"We're not talking particle physics, we're talking about a college offense. If a veteran, 3rd year player, who was in the running to start since the spring, needs to have the offense tuned down for him, I think that's a problem. Either a problem with Chryst or a problem with the offense.

Also describing Burns as having any mastery of the offense is just wrong. If that's what mastery looks like we're truly doomed."


Couldn't agree more.  People become lawyers in 3 years.  College is over in 4.  If it takes more than 3 years to learn a college football offense, that's just not going to work.

[Row80Critic]

"We're not talking particle physics, we're talking about a college offense. If a veteran, 3rd year player, who was in the running to start since the spring, needs to have the offense tuned down for him, I think that's a problem. Either a problem with Chryst or a problem with the offense.

Also describing Burns as having any mastery of the offense is just wrong. If that's what mastery looks like we're truly doomed."


Couldn't agree more.  People become lawyers in 3 years.  College is over in 4.  If it takes more than 3 years to learn a college football offense, that's just not going to work.

[CrazedZooChimp]

Opposing teams have at least 1-2 players spying on CMac.  UofA will do this again to us this weekend.  Now that CMac and Love are reasonably healthy, I'm hopeful that Shaw and co are working in some plays where they are both on the field.  Faking to one and pitching or throwing to the other should cause some match-up issues and allow for some solid gains.    Play action should also help out, although Burns struggled with this last week as he couldn't find his receivers in time and seemed to jerk his head to locate them.    I'm glad we are trying Chryst and hope he does get into the flow and finds his confidence.  That first series will be a big one.  I'm thankful we are playing the MildCats as we should have a reasonable chance to score.  Ideally the defense scores yet again!

The problem with play action (or really any kind of misdirection play) is that it tends to require more time to develop. If your line isn't playing well, the extra beats it takes to fake the handoff can easily lead to your QB getting sacked as soon as he turns around to make a pass (or worse, when he pulls back to throw the defenders who realized CMac doesn't have the ball are knocking it out of the QBs hand). Sadly while play-action should work really well, as it often did in better years, it is not a good option when you're looking for ways of getting the ball out of the QBs hands quickly.

Of course, the defenses we're going to be playing the next few weeks are a lot shittier, so maybe it will work. Or CMac can just score on runs instead of needing to fake to him.

[CrazedZooChimp]

Opposing teams have at least 1-2 players spying on CMac.  UofA will do this again to us this weekend.  Now that CMac and Love are reasonably healthy, I'm hopeful that Shaw and co are working in some plays where they are both on the field.  Faking to one and pitching or throwing to the other should cause some match-up issues and allow for some solid gains.    Play action should also help out, although Burns struggled with this last week as he couldn't find his receivers in time and seemed to jerk his head to locate them.    I'm glad we are trying Chryst and hope he does get into the flow and finds his confidence.  That first series will be a big one.  I'm thankful we are playing the MildCats as we should have a reasonable chance to score.  Ideally the defense scores yet again!

The problem with play action (or really any kind of misdirection play) is that it tends to require more time to develop. If your line isn't playing well, the extra beats it takes to fake the handoff can easily lead to your QB getting sacked as soon as he turns around to make a pass (or worse, when he pulls back to throw the defenders who realized CMac doesn't have the ball are knocking it out of the QBs hand). Sadly while play-action should work really well, as it often did in better years, it is not a good option when you're looking for ways of getting the ball out of the QBs hands quickly.

Of course, the defenses we're going to be playing the next few weeks are a lot shittier, so maybe it will work. Or CMac can just score on runs instead of needing to fake to him.

[BostonCard]

"We're not talking particle physics, we're talking about a college offense. If a veteran, 3rd year player, who was in the running to start since the spring, needs to have the offense tuned down for him, I think that's a problem. Either a problem with Chryst or a problem with the offense.

Also describing Burns as having any mastery of the offense is just wrong. If that's what mastery looks like we're truly doomed."


Couldn't agree more.  People become lawyers in 3 years.  College is over in 4.  If it takes more than 3 years to learn a college football offense, that's just not going to work.

Would you want a lawyer fresh out of law school representing you?  Would you want a surgeon fresh out of med school operating on your brain?

There is a brobdingnagian difference between knowledge and experience, and right now, Chryst is like your medical intern.  He knows the stuff, but hasn't taken enough live action snaps against college defenses that he has the experience to handle the entire playbook.

[BostonCard]

"We're not talking particle physics, we're talking about a college offense. If a veteran, 3rd year player, who was in the running to start since the spring, needs to have the offense tuned down for him, I think that's a problem. Either a problem with Chryst or a problem with the offense.

Also describing Burns as having any mastery of the offense is just wrong. If that's what mastery looks like we're truly doomed."


Couldn't agree more.  People become lawyers in 3 years.  College is over in 4.  If it takes more than 3 years to learn a college football offense, that's just not going to work.

Would you want a lawyer fresh out of law school representing you?  Would you want a surgeon fresh out of med school operating on your brain?

There is a brobdingnagian difference between knowledge and experience, and right now, Chryst is like your medical intern.  He knows the stuff, but hasn't taken enough live action snaps against college defenses that he has the experience to handle the entire playbook.

[dabigv13]

Experience certainly matters, but these guys should know the offense, or the offense is too complex. They're not true freshman. They've been practicing these plays for years. And they have the VR thingy!

The starter and the backup should be able to execute the offense, bottom line. I'm surprised a lot of you folks don't agree.

It's college football, most QBs are starters for one or two years. If our offense requires 3 years as a starter to run well, that's not going to fly.

[dabigv13]

Experience certainly matters, but these guys should know the offense, or the offense is too complex. They're not true freshman. They've been practicing these plays for years. And they have the VR thingy!

The starter and the backup should be able to execute the offense, bottom line. I'm surprised a lot of you folks don't agree.

It's college football, most QBs are starters for one or two years. If our offense requires 3 years as a starter to run well, that's not going to fly.

[OutsiderFan]

Experience certainly matters, but these guys should know the offense, or the offense is too complex. They're not true freshman. They've been practicing these plays for years. And they have the VR thingy!

The starter and the backup should be able to execute the offense, bottom line. I'm surprised a lot of you folks don't agree.

There isn't anything more fundamental to winning than getting your best players on the field to play as soon as possible.  The more complex the schemes are, the more difficult it is for them to play sooner.  To put a finer point on this, not being physically able to play (not big, strong, skilled enough) should be the main reason guys don't play early.  It shouldn't take more than one year to learn an offense or defense.  If most guys can't do it in one year, it's too complex.

[OutsiderFan]

Experience certainly matters, but these guys should know the offense, or the offense is too complex. They're not true freshman. They've been practicing these plays for years. And they have the VR thingy!

The starter and the backup should be able to execute the offense, bottom line. I'm surprised a lot of you folks don't agree.

There isn't anything more fundamental to winning than getting your best players on the field to play as soon as possible.  The more complex the schemes are, the more difficult it is for them to play sooner.  To put a finer point on this, not being physically able to play (not big, strong, skilled enough) should be the main reason guys don't play early.  It shouldn't take more than one year to learn an offense or defense.  If most guys can't do it in one year, it's too complex.

[jayasena]

Would you want a lawyer fresh out of law school representing you?  Would you want a surgeon fresh out of med school operating on your brain?

There is a of exceedingly large proportions difference between knowledge and experience, and right now, Chryst is like your medical intern.  He knows the stuff, but hasn't taken enough live action snaps against college defenses that he has the experience to handle the entire playbook.

Experience is certainly important but I can't help wondering why Burns was not like a medical intern when he started this year. Why was the offense not simplified for him? Is there something specific about Chryst that requires a simplification? And, given that experience is so crucial, why weren't either of these guys given the opportunity to get some experience last year?

Again, I'm not disagreeing with simplifying the play book for Chryst, or any new starter, if that is what is needed. I am (as I presume are some of the other posters) confused about why this is an issue at this point in these players' careers and at this point in the season.

[jayasena]

Would you want a lawyer fresh out of law school representing you?  Would you want a surgeon fresh out of med school operating on your brain?

There is a of exceedingly large proportions difference between knowledge and experience, and right now, Chryst is like your medical intern.  He knows the stuff, but hasn't taken enough live action snaps against college defenses that he has the experience to handle the entire playbook.

Experience is certainly important but I can't help wondering why Burns was not like a medical intern when he started this year. Why was the offense not simplified for him? Is there something specific about Chryst that requires a simplification? And, given that experience is so crucial, why weren't either of these guys given the opportunity to get some experience last year?

Again, I'm not disagreeing with simplifying the play book for Chryst, or any new starter, if that is what is needed. I am (as I presume are some of the other posters) confused about why this is an issue at this point in these players' careers and at this point in the season.

[CTcard]

... If most guys can't do it in one year, it's too complex.

Too complex for what - one might ask.

Don't forget that way back in 2015 Stanford had somewhere between the best and one of the best offenses in the country.* Part of the reason for that was scheme - while we had recruited well we certainly didn't just out-athlete U$C, Alabama, etc.

I don't want to throw away those highs unnecessarily, but of course I would like to see the lows smoothed upwards. It seems to me that the coaching staff has to learn more about how to handle that balance. In fact, mostly they haven't faced such a combination of inexperience at both the OL and QB plus the load of injuries from this year - but they do have to figure that out.

Some of the other low-experience years were rough, but less bad.
In 2012 the offense with Hogan was at least okay. Over the year, Stanford was #54 in offense FEI.
In 2014 the offense was constantly shooting itself in the foot, wasn't playing to Hogan's strengths, and didn't realize what they had in McCaffrey. Still, it rated #50 in offense FEI.

Right now we're sitting at #84 in offense FEI - which is actually better than I would have expected. Presumably a major factor here is opponent adjustment.


* The above statement was meant to be quantitative, based upon stats that take into account pace of play. So, we find the following from 2015.
FEI Offense - Stanford #2 behind Navy.
S&P+ Offense - Stanford #5 (as noted previously, Stanford doesn't do as well in play based metrics)
Points per Drive - Stanford #2 behind Western Kentucky
% Yards per Drive - Stanford #1

[CTcard]

... If most guys can't do it in one year, it's too complex.

Too complex for what - one might ask.

Don't forget that way back in 2015 Stanford had somewhere between the best and one of the best offenses in the country.* Part of the reason for that was scheme - while we had recruited well we certainly didn't just out-athlete U$C, Alabama, etc.

I don't want to throw away those highs unnecessarily, but of course I would like to see the lows smoothed upwards. It seems to me that the coaching staff has to learn more about how to handle that balance. In fact, mostly they haven't faced such a combination of inexperience at both the OL and QB plus the load of injuries from this year - but they do have to figure that out.

Some of the other low-experience years were rough, but less bad.
In 2012 the offense with Hogan was at least okay. Over the year, Stanford was #54 in offense FEI.
In 2014 the offense was constantly shooting itself in the foot, wasn't playing to Hogan's strengths, and didn't realize what they had in McCaffrey. Still, it rated #50 in offense FEI.

Right now we're sitting at #84 in offense FEI - which is actually better than I would have expected. Presumably a major factor here is opponent adjustment.


* The above statement was meant to be quantitative, based upon stats that take into account pace of play. So, we find the following from 2015.
FEI Offense - Stanford #2 behind Navy.
S&P+ Offense - Stanford #5 (as noted previously, Stanford doesn't do as well in play based metrics)
Points per Drive - Stanford #2 behind Western Kentucky
% Yards per Drive - Stanford #1

[OutsiderFan]

Before anyone can be right or wrong about where Stanford should be on the offensive complexity - simplicity continuum, there first needs to be agreement on what the objective is.

Is the objective to compete annually for a conference crown?  Is it to play entertaining football and be in the running to play in a championship annually? Is it to win a Pac-12 championship every 2-3 years?  Is it to win a national championship at some point?

I mean if the objective is to compete for championships annually or pay an entertaining style of football fans want to see, then the offense can't really be too complex. But if the objective is to make a push to win one every 2-3 years and if it happens other years, great, then having a complex system that requires an experienced OL and QB makes a good deal of sense.

[OutsiderFan]

Before anyone can be right or wrong about where Stanford should be on the offensive complexity - simplicity continuum, there first needs to be agreement on what the objective is.

Is the objective to compete annually for a conference crown?  Is it to play entertaining football and be in the running to play in a championship annually? Is it to win a Pac-12 championship every 2-3 years?  Is it to win a national championship at some point?

I mean if the objective is to compete for championships annually or pay an entertaining style of football fans want to see, then the offense can't really be too complex. But if the objective is to make a push to win one every 2-3 years and if it happens other years, great, then having a complex system that requires an experienced OL and QB makes a good deal of sense.

[dabigv13]

I think that's an interesting way of looking at it. And I'm not really convinced the problem is the offensive complexity- maybe Chryst and Burns just don't have what it takes? I personally think that's a more likely explanation.

Also, the premise of Stanford's offense being really really complex may be wrong; we just know what the media tells us, none of us have a copy of the playbook in hand. Seems to me our offense on balance has been less complex the past couple years, but maybe that's more about execution.

[dabigv13]

I think that's an interesting way of looking at it. And I'm not really convinced the problem is the offensive complexity- maybe Chryst and Burns just don't have what it takes? I personally think that's a more likely explanation.

Also, the premise of Stanford's offense being really really complex may be wrong; we just know what the media tells us, none of us have a copy of the playbook in hand. Seems to me our offense on balance has been less complex the past couple years, but maybe that's more about execution.

[OutsiderFan]

The WCO is complex.  Not only are there a lot of different plays period, the terminology and how plays are called is vastly more complicated than how plays are called and run in a no-huddle.

In the WCO, the QB gets the play from the coach, or in Stanford's case, he gets three to choose from and is expected to chose the right one based on what the defense presents pre-snap.

Then, the QB must call the play in the huddle.  It includes personnel grouping, where to lineup, and directions for all the players, from runs, to pass protections to routes.  Here's a good breakdown: http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/4/8/293332...nker-drive

In the no huddle systems, the players look to the sideline, see what the play is and what they are suppose to do, based on whatever the signals are suppose to represent.  The receivers and QBs have to recognize the coverage being played and receivers are expected to run routes to defeat the coverage they see after the ball is snapped.  The QB still needs to read the coverage the defense employs, but he doesn't have the overhead of learning so many formations, personnel groupings, and the associated terminology, so he can be ready to play sooner.

[OutsiderFan]

The WCO is complex.  Not only are there a lot of different plays period, the terminology and how plays are called is vastly more complicated than how plays are called and run in a no-huddle.

In the WCO, the QB gets the play from the coach, or in Stanford's case, he gets three to choose from and is expected to chose the right one based on what the defense presents pre-snap.

Then, the QB must call the play in the huddle.  It includes personnel grouping, where to lineup, and directions for all the players, from runs, to pass protections to routes.  Here's a good breakdown: http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/4/8/293332...nker-drive

In the no huddle systems, the players look to the sideline, see what the play is and what they are suppose to do, based on whatever the signals are suppose to represent.  The receivers and QBs have to recognize the coverage being played and receivers are expected to run routes to defeat the coverage they see after the ball is snapped.  The QB still needs to read the coverage the defense employs, but he doesn't have the overhead of learning so many formations, personnel groupings, and the associated terminology, so he can be ready to play sooner.

[CTcard]

Also, the premise of Stanford's offense being really really complex may be wrong; we just know what the media tells us, none of us have a copy of the playbook in hand. Seems to me our offense on balance has been less complex the past couple years, but maybe that's more about execution.

We know more than what the media tells us, we can watch.

Stanford clearly runs more formations than just about anyone else in college football. We run everything from no WR super-heavy sets to empty backfield 5 WR sets; and just about everything in between.
We don't run quite as many different plays as the formations would imply, but still more than I see from other teams.

Over the past few years it seems to me that we have trended to more shotgun sets, more zone-scheme run plays, fewer middle of the field routes to WRs, generally backed off the over-the-top home run ball, more throws toward the boundaries.
Some of those changes I tend to like, some I don't - none seem to be described as less complex for the offense overall.

[CTcard]

Also, the premise of Stanford's offense being really really complex may be wrong; we just know what the media tells us, none of us have a copy of the playbook in hand. Seems to me our offense on balance has been less complex the past couple years, but maybe that's more about execution.

We know more than what the media tells us, we can watch.

Stanford clearly runs more formations than just about anyone else in college football. We run everything from no WR super-heavy sets to empty backfield 5 WR sets; and just about everything in between.
We don't run quite as many different plays as the formations would imply, but still more than I see from other teams.

Over the past few years it seems to me that we have trended to more shotgun sets, more zone-scheme run plays, fewer middle of the field routes to WRs, generally backed off the over-the-top home run ball, more throws toward the boundaries.
Some of those changes I tend to like, some I don't - none seem to be described as less complex for the offense overall.

[Viking_Guy]

Tangentially, this was one of my biggest gripes last week.

Just before halftime, Stanford trying to run a "one-minute" drill to at least get some offensive movement, if not score, in their last possession before halftime.  But Burns was still getting signs relayed in from the sidelines as if it was a normal sequence, and every dang play took 20 seconds to get going.  Stanford got two first downs in three plays, both of which stopped the clock, but only had 17 seconds left at the 35, leading to heaving the ball up and Colorado intercepting.

I just remember wanting them to try to do something, and watching the clock being wound after the first downs, and wondering why Stanford was still not at the line of scrimmage.  And then seeing a shot of Burns staring at the sideline for 3-4 seconds.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Tangentially, this was one of my biggest gripes last week.

Just before halftime, Stanford trying to run a "one-minute" drill to at least get some offensive movement, if not score, in their last possession before halftime.  But Burns was still getting signs relayed in from the sidelines as if it was a normal sequence, and every dang play took 20 seconds to get going.  Stanford got two first downs in three plays, both of which stopped the clock, but only had 17 seconds left at the 35, leading to heaving the ball up and Colorado intercepting.

I just remember wanting them to try to do something, and watching the clock being wound after the first downs, and wondering why Stanford was still not at the line of scrimmage.  And then seeing a shot of Burns staring at the sideline for 3-4 seconds.

VG