[Beeg_Dawg]

To your point about the wayward days of running power: that was 100% Jim Harbaugh. I could be wrong, but I don't think we ever ran it after he left. Or, at least we ran it a lot less.

I seem to remember a certain Rose Bowl against Michigan State where we ran the ball, was four straight times, into the middle of the line when we were trying to drive for a winning score. I think our coach, when pressed afterwards about the play calling, replied" "It's what we do". . . .

Of course, my memory is a bit hazy. . . .

No your memory is fine.  As I recall, there was just over a minute left in the game.  4th and 1, both teams called time out after lining up.  Maybe Stanford took two time outs.  Michigan State was packed at the LoS.  The play call was Ryan Hewitt over the right side.  Play got blown up.  Hogan could have faked the hand off and walked the ball into the endzone.  (OK, maybe not, but the first down was an easy stroll.)

To this day, I don't know why Hogan didn't audible out of the play.  Mich St. knew what was coming and had everyone on or near the LoS.

[Beeg_Dawg]

To your point about the wayward days of running power: that was 100% Jim Harbaugh. I could be wrong, but I don't think we ever ran it after he left. Or, at least we ran it a lot less.

I seem to remember a certain Rose Bowl against Michigan State where we ran the ball, was four straight times, into the middle of the line when we were trying to drive for a winning score. I think our coach, when pressed afterwards about the play calling, replied" "It's what we do". . . .

Of course, my memory is a bit hazy. . . .

No your memory is fine.  As I recall, there was just over a minute left in the game.  4th and 1, both teams called time out after lining up.  Maybe Stanford took two time outs.  Michigan State was packed at the LoS.  The play call was Ryan Hewitt over the right side.  Play got blown up.  Hogan could have faked the hand off and walked the ball into the endzone.  (OK, maybe not, but the first down was an easy stroll.)

To this day, I don't know why Hogan didn't audible out of the play.  Mich St. knew what was coming and had everyone on or near the LoS.

[gailtate]

To your point about the wayward days of running power: that was 100% Jim Harbaugh. I could be wrong, but I don't think we ever ran it after he left. Or, at least we ran it a lot less.

I seem to remember a certain Rose Bowl against Michigan State where we ran the ball, was four straight times, into the middle of the line when we were trying to drive for a winning score. I think our coach, when pressed afterwards about the play calling, replied" "It's what we do". . . .

Of course, my memory is a bit hazy. . . .

No, your memory is fine. And, yes, Shaw hammered home the "2 yard gains become 6 yard gains in the 4th quarter mantra."  I wonder what the mantra is today?  "Slow players need a slow mesh."

It starts and ends with the OL.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the slow mesh RPO (Wake Forest seems to run it just fine), except that our OL doesn’t push anyone back, so on many occasions a defensive linemen is up on the QB as soon as he pulls it down.  It reminds me a bit of the old Buddy Teabens shotgun draw. It’s the same offense that largely got Florida to a national title, but the problem was that while Florida’s linemen could put up gaping holes for their running backs, when we tried it, we often faced a linebacker in the backfield.

Ironically, a few years ago, I remember this board clamoring for Shawvita to institute an RPO and claiming he was stubborn for not doing so.

I’m not particularly enamored with the slow mesh, or RPO’s generally, but until we re-develop an offensive line that can push people back and keep passing lanes clear, we’re going to be hosed regardless of scheme.  We could go back to power, and realize that all our runs are getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage.  We could go to a a “raid” offense and McKee will get sacked 10 times a game.

We need to start winning the wars in the trenches, and you can draw a straight line between Stanford’s decline and our inability to do so on both offense and defense.

BC

It is no secret that McKee does NOT have the skill set to make a living on RPO.  Of course, opponent DCs know this an figured it out post haste. It's the new "jet-sweep", remember that club in Teevens' bag?  Stanford (AKA McKee) needs a O-line that can pass block and receivers who can catch, shake and bake every time that ball is close enough to touch. Oh, yes, and a big, fast, mean-ass front 7 on defense that can force turnovers, jar fillings loose from molars and terrorize hotshots like Pix and DTR. Stanford is a LONG way from those kind of studs... but there's no future without 'em.

[gailtate]

To your point about the wayward days of running power: that was 100% Jim Harbaugh. I could be wrong, but I don't think we ever ran it after he left. Or, at least we ran it a lot less.

I seem to remember a certain Rose Bowl against Michigan State where we ran the ball, was four straight times, into the middle of the line when we were trying to drive for a winning score. I think our coach, when pressed afterwards about the play calling, replied" "It's what we do". . . .

Of course, my memory is a bit hazy. . . .

No, your memory is fine. And, yes, Shaw hammered home the "2 yard gains become 6 yard gains in the 4th quarter mantra."  I wonder what the mantra is today?  "Slow players need a slow mesh."

It starts and ends with the OL.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the slow mesh RPO (Wake Forest seems to run it just fine), except that our OL doesn’t push anyone back, so on many occasions a defensive linemen is up on the QB as soon as he pulls it down.  It reminds me a bit of the old Buddy Teabens shotgun draw. It’s the same offense that largely got Florida to a national title, but the problem was that while Florida’s linemen could put up gaping holes for their running backs, when we tried it, we often faced a linebacker in the backfield.

Ironically, a few years ago, I remember this board clamoring for Shawvita to institute an RPO and claiming he was stubborn for not doing so.

I’m not particularly enamored with the slow mesh, or RPO’s generally, but until we re-develop an offensive line that can push people back and keep passing lanes clear, we’re going to be hosed regardless of scheme.  We could go back to power, and realize that all our runs are getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage.  We could go to a a “raid” offense and McKee will get sacked 10 times a game.

We need to start winning the wars in the trenches, and you can draw a straight line between Stanford’s decline and our inability to do so on both offense and defense.

BC

It is no secret that McKee does NOT have the skill set to make a living on RPO.  Of course, opponent DCs know this an figured it out post haste. It's the new "jet-sweep", remember that club in Teevens' bag?  Stanford (AKA McKee) needs a O-line that can pass block and receivers who can catch, shake and bake every time that ball is close enough to touch. Oh, yes, and a big, fast, mean-ass front 7 on defense that can force turnovers, jar fillings loose from molars and terrorize hotshots like Pix and DTR. Stanford is a LONG way from those kind of studs... but there's no future without 'em.

[Phogge]

Tamerlane, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy also did "it's what we do."

Nice to be in that company.

[Phogge]

Tamerlane, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy also did "it's what we do."

Nice to be in that company.

[JohnR34231]

The devolution of Stanford football. I did not. This is stunning, even for me. Wow.

In 2014 David Shaw stood in front of a room of Buck Club donors in NYC and said "I don't care about wins and losses." So yeah, I knew we were headed here. We've gone broke slowly, and now all at once.

Not familiar with the speech, but I suspect that it is being taken a bit out of context.
All coaches care about wins and losses, even at Stanford where the leash is longer than most Power Five schools.
Since it was 2014, I'm guessing what he said was something like "We have just been to four straight NY6 Bowl Games and that's great, but I don't care about wins and losses if it means we have to compromise on our admissions standards and Stanford values".

[JohnR34231]

The devolution of Stanford football. I did not. This is stunning, even for me. Wow.

In 2014 David Shaw stood in front of a room of Buck Club donors in NYC and said "I don't care about wins and losses." So yeah, I knew we were headed here. We've gone broke slowly, and now all at once.

Not familiar with the speech, but I suspect that it is being taken a bit out of context.
All coaches care about wins and losses, even at Stanford where the leash is longer than most Power Five schools.
Since it was 2014, I'm guessing what he said was something like "We have just been to four straight NY6 Bowl Games and that's great, but I don't care about wins and losses if it means we have to compromise on our admissions standards and Stanford values".

[slide]

Regarding the offensive line and its push, I continue to think the issue is less the OL effectiveness per se and more the fundamental issue on offense continuously over the last decade: Shaw isn't a good offensive mind and our offense is always less than the sum of its parts.

teejers -- have you been kidnapped?  please signal.  the BisonicInfinitumWhoGrazesUponTheGrass is geared up and ready to lead the rescue.

[slide]

Regarding the offensive line and its push, I continue to think the issue is less the OL effectiveness per se and more the fundamental issue on offense continuously over the last decade: Shaw isn't a good offensive mind and our offense is always less than the sum of its parts.

teejers -- have you been kidnapped?  please signal.  the BisonicInfinitumWhoGrazesUponTheGrass is geared up and ready to lead the rescue.

[AlbanyCardinal]

Yes, I think many saw it coming. For years my tailgate buddies and I wondered and worried about Shaw's shortcomings, which have been dissected on this site for years now. While we saw some of his positives, the consensus was that when his program would eventually begin a steady descent, it could be years until the University would properly address the matter. 

That's what we saw coming: that by the time he left or was fired, the program would be in tatters, having been left to regress longer than it would have at other universities. B/c he had such relative success to start his career, b/c he's a native son who "gets Stanford," and b/c Stanford admin would turn a blind eye.

[AlbanyCardinal]

Yes, I think many saw it coming. For years my tailgate buddies and I wondered and worried about Shaw's shortcomings, which have been dissected on this site for years now. While we saw some of his positives, the consensus was that when his program would eventually begin a steady descent, it could be years until the University would properly address the matter. 

That's what we saw coming: that by the time he left or was fired, the program would be in tatters, having been left to regress longer than it would have at other universities. B/c he had such relative success to start his career, b/c he's a native son who "gets Stanford," and b/c Stanford admin would turn a blind eye.

[lex24]

Regarding the offensive line and its push, I continue to think the issue is less the OL effectiveness per se and more the fundamental issue on offense continuously over the last decade: Shaw isn't a good offensive mind and our offense is always less than the sum of its parts.

teejers -- have you been kidnapped?  please signal.  the BisonicInfinitumWhoGrazesUponTheGrass is geared up and ready to lead the rescue.

Lol.

[lex24]

Regarding the offensive line and its push, I continue to think the issue is less the OL effectiveness per se and more the fundamental issue on offense continuously over the last decade: Shaw isn't a good offensive mind and our offense is always less than the sum of its parts.

teejers -- have you been kidnapped?  please signal.  the BisonicInfinitumWhoGrazesUponTheGrass is geared up and ready to lead the rescue.

Lol.