[OutsiderFan]

Reading the Tara V. story in another thread made me think about coaches who went out of their comfort zone to improve or adapt their teams.  So who seems to have made a big performance jump in college football this season?  How about the one that put up 82 points last week? 

Last year TCU had a terrible offense.  Their starting QB was injured and they had to play a backup.  They had a power running, play-action style similar to Stanford, and were similarly ineffective as Stanford in 2014.

After that bad offense led to a forgettable 2013 season, coach Gary Patterson realized he had to make some changes.  So he brought in a new offensive coordinator, got out of his way, and let him do his job.  Now, with the same QB who was quite ineffective last year, TCU's offense is potent. 

As a defensive-minded coach it's probably easy to hand the offense off to someone else.  David Shaw would find that very difficult as an offensive-minded coach (which might be part of the problem with Stanford's offense).  Doing something different doesn't mean going to a spread as TCU has, but I would argue huddles and west-coast offense language is a dinosaur that needs to be put in the dust bin of history.  You can still be a ball control team without a huddle and lengthy play calls.  Anyway, really interesting article that I purposely found from Spring, before TCU's 2014 offense was a proven commodity.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/...ying-field

[OutsiderFan]

Reading the Tara V. story in another thread made me think about coaches who went out of their comfort zone to improve or adapt their teams.  So who seems to have made a big performance jump in college football this season?  How about the one that put up 82 points last week? 

Last year TCU had a terrible offense.  Their starting QB was injured and they had to play a backup.  They had a power running, play-action style similar to Stanford, and were similarly ineffective as Stanford in 2014.

After that bad offense led to a forgettable 2013 season, coach Gary Patterson realized he had to make some changes.  So he brought in a new offensive coordinator, got out of his way, and let him do his job.  Now, with the same QB who was quite ineffective last year, TCU's offense is potent. 

As a defensive-minded coach it's probably easy to hand the offense off to someone else.  David Shaw would find that very difficult as an offensive-minded coach (which might be part of the problem with Stanford's offense).  Doing something different doesn't mean going to a spread as TCU has, but I would argue huddles and west-coast offense language is a dinosaur that needs to be put in the dust bin of history.  You can still be a ball control team without a huddle and lengthy play calls.  Anyway, really interesting article that I purposely found from Spring, before TCU's 2014 offense was a proven commodity.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/...ying-field

[washingtonismoney]

Well, you know, it's easy to say a switch helps and all that good stuff. Sometimes it works really well, no question about it, and you've spotlighted a good example. But a deeper look at history reveals more uncertain benefits.

Tedford, of course, switched OCs (and supposedly the underlying system) a few times.
Tommy Tuberville got in that brobdingnagian fight with Tony Franklin (now the 59ers' offensive coordinator), which eventually led to Franklin's firing.
Kyle Whittingham has gone through a carousel of different offensive coordinators and systems since his move to the Pac-12. It finally looks like they've got some traction now.

You've got a high degree of certainty on this one, and I don't think it's at all warranted. It might help...but then again it might not.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, you know, it's easy to say a switch helps and all that good stuff. Sometimes it works really well, no question about it, and you've spotlighted a good example. But a deeper look at history reveals more uncertain benefits.

Tedford, of course, switched OCs (and supposedly the underlying system) a few times.
Tommy Tuberville got in that brobdingnagian fight with Tony Franklin (now the 59ers' offensive coordinator), which eventually led to Franklin's firing.
Kyle Whittingham has gone through a carousel of different offensive coordinators and systems since his move to the Pac-12. It finally looks like they've got some traction now.

You've got a high degree of certainty on this one, and I don't think it's at all warranted. It might help...but then again it might not.

[OutsiderFan]

Some people don't believe in the book, but my takeaways from "The Innovator's Dilemma" guide my thinking on innovation in competitive environments.  If you don't evolve, and stay the same, you risk being surpassed by others who are open to new ideas.

[OutsiderFan]

Some people don't believe in the book, but my takeaways from "The Innovator's Dilemma" guide my thinking on innovation in competitive environments.  If you don't evolve, and stay the same, you risk being surpassed by others who are open to new ideas.

[stupac2]

Some people don't believe in the book, but my takeaways from "The Innovator's Dilemma" guide my thinking on innovation in competitive environments.  If you don't evolve, and stay the same, you risk being surpassed by others who are open to new ideas.

Hasn't this coaching staff by now shown that they're willing to evolve? You can argue that it came too late, but I can see why Shaw was hesitant. The offense basically worked against USC, we just had an extremely unfortunate series of essentially unrelated disasters. I think if we switch the Army and USC games we probably beat USC by 2 scores just from the extra time to get the kinks out. And the loss to ND was against a top-10 team, on the road, and we nearly won. After the WSU game where we moved the ball well enough, how clear was it that we had a problem with the base offense and not a simple execution issue?

It seems obvious from our end, because we've been complaining about the offense for over a year now, but I can see why the staff would think, up to that point, that it was basically okay. It took a complete disaster of a game to really prove that the basic approach needed some rework, and they immediately did it. My suspicion is that, going forward into future seasons, the look we saw against Oregon State will be something that the coaching staff is willing to pull out when they think it will work.

[stupac2]

Some people don't believe in the book, but my takeaways from "The Innovator's Dilemma" guide my thinking on innovation in competitive environments.  If you don't evolve, and stay the same, you risk being surpassed by others who are open to new ideas.

Hasn't this coaching staff by now shown that they're willing to evolve? You can argue that it came too late, but I can see why Shaw was hesitant. The offense basically worked against USC, we just had an extremely unfortunate series of essentially unrelated disasters. I think if we switch the Army and USC games we probably beat USC by 2 scores just from the extra time to get the kinks out. And the loss to ND was against a top-10 team, on the road, and we nearly won. After the WSU game where we moved the ball well enough, how clear was it that we had a problem with the base offense and not a simple execution issue?

It seems obvious from our end, because we've been complaining about the offense for over a year now, but I can see why the staff would think, up to that point, that it was basically okay. It took a complete disaster of a game to really prove that the basic approach needed some rework, and they immediately did it. My suspicion is that, going forward into future seasons, the look we saw against Oregon State will be something that the coaching staff is willing to pull out when they think it will work.

[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=11016.msg103832#msg103832 date=1414594276]Some people don't believe in the book, but my takeaways from "The Innovator's Dilemma" guide my thinking on innovation in competitive environments.  If you don't evolve, and stay the same, you risk being surpassed by others who are open to new ideas.

Hasn't this coaching staff by now shown that they're willing to evolve? 
[/quote]

The myth that won't die: David Shaw won't allow any changes to the Stanford offense.

Of course the problem with that is that the Stanford offense has been changing a ton both year to year, and notably in 2012 within the year.

2011 we had a very balanced offense with a power (and Power) running game and a passing game that hit all levels of the field. The latter was a little heavy on the tight ends and light on WRs, but that was the talent we had and not excessively so. It was also probably the best offense in Stanford history.

2012 part 1. We cut way back on the throwing. The run game was still primarily power, but we started to see  the jet sweep with some regularity. The passing game was almost exclusively the long ball - which tended not to be caught.

2012 part 2. Hogan comes in with a different skill set. We see the emergence of the read-option. Lots of short, safe throws - almost dink and dunk. Ertz becomes something approaching an exclusive target. Classic Power is basically gone and zone blocking plays pop up in the run game - partly because we don't have guards who can pull (remember Yankey was playing left tackle).

2013. Hogan and Shaw say Hogan needs to work on his deep ball during the summer. He obviously does. Tight ends are gone. WR starts to look viable. Power run game starts to come back as Yankey is back at guard and the line gains experience. Still a fair amount of read option. Overall scheme appears to be designed specifically to pull in a loaded box then go over their heads for the killer strike. Hogan averages a 14.6 yds/completion (vs 10.0 the year before).

2014. Running game is put out to pasture (we're running on about 50% of our plays, that's the lowest percentage since we tried to play BuddyBall). When we do run, we don't run Power much as it seems we don't have the guards for it. The long ball is there, but not particularly prominent. Lots of midrange and short passing, much more towards the sidelines. Tight ends are back. Read-option seems to be mostly gone. And now supposedly we're in no-huddle half the game.

-----------------
A lot of those changes I don't like - and a few seem quite hideously bad.
But saying these aren't changes is just ... weird.
At the moment Stanford is more in danger of simply losing having any identity on offense than in getting mired in what we used to do.

[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=11016.msg103832#msg103832 date=1414594276]Some people don't believe in the book, but my takeaways from "The Innovator's Dilemma" guide my thinking on innovation in competitive environments.  If you don't evolve, and stay the same, you risk being surpassed by others who are open to new ideas.

Hasn't this coaching staff by now shown that they're willing to evolve? 
[/quote]

The myth that won't die: David Shaw won't allow any changes to the Stanford offense.

Of course the problem with that is that the Stanford offense has been changing a ton both year to year, and notably in 2012 within the year.

2011 we had a very balanced offense with a power (and Power) running game and a passing game that hit all levels of the field. The latter was a little heavy on the tight ends and light on WRs, but that was the talent we had and not excessively so. It was also probably the best offense in Stanford history.

2012 part 1. We cut way back on the throwing. The run game was still primarily power, but we started to see  the jet sweep with some regularity. The passing game was almost exclusively the long ball - which tended not to be caught.

2012 part 2. Hogan comes in with a different skill set. We see the emergence of the read-option. Lots of short, safe throws - almost dink and dunk. Ertz becomes something approaching an exclusive target. Classic Power is basically gone and zone blocking plays pop up in the run game - partly because we don't have guards who can pull (remember Yankey was playing left tackle).

2013. Hogan and Shaw say Hogan needs to work on his deep ball during the summer. He obviously does. Tight ends are gone. WR starts to look viable. Power run game starts to come back as Yankey is back at guard and the line gains experience. Still a fair amount of read option. Overall scheme appears to be designed specifically to pull in a loaded box then go over their heads for the killer strike. Hogan averages a 14.6 yds/completion (vs 10.0 the year before).

2014. Running game is put out to pasture (we're running on about 50% of our plays, that's the lowest percentage since we tried to play BuddyBall). When we do run, we don't run Power much as it seems we don't have the guards for it. The long ball is there, but not particularly prominent. Lots of midrange and short passing, much more towards the sidelines. Tight ends are back. Read-option seems to be mostly gone. And now supposedly we're in no-huddle half the game.

-----------------
A lot of those changes I don't like - and a few seem quite hideously bad.
But saying these aren't changes is just ... weird.
At the moment Stanford is more in danger of simply losing having any identity on offense than in getting mired in what we used to do.

[Redrum]

...just watch some of  his critics and be instructed on the subject of "stuck".  The "too inflexible" meme regarding Shaw is repeated like the Apostles Creed every Sunday in (fill in blank) church every Sunday.
What it boils down to is we are not winning like we used to and the hunt for the guilty is on.  Shaw has ultimate responsibility and he is burdened with some very apt criticism and criticism that has no basis in fact.  Hope he and Stanford get their act together soon.  Like in three days would be a good start.

[Redrum]

...just watch some of  his critics and be instructed on the subject of "stuck".  The "too inflexible" meme regarding Shaw is repeated like the Apostles Creed every Sunday in (fill in blank) church every Sunday.
What it boils down to is we are not winning like we used to and the hunt for the guilty is on.  Shaw has ultimate responsibility and he is burdened with some very apt criticism and criticism that has no basis in fact.  Hope he and Stanford get their act together soon.  Like in three days would be a good start.

[washingtonismoney]

What it boils down to is we are not winning like we used to and the hunt for the guilty is on.

I dunno, lots of people were on open season preemptively over the years. Not that that matters for this particular discussion, just an observation.

Anyway, I'm not sure the Innovator's Dilemma is the best cite here for someone advocating David Shaw adjustments. One persuasive reading of that book is that old institutions cannot change; they are replaced.

[washingtonismoney]

What it boils down to is we are not winning like we used to and the hunt for the guilty is on.

I dunno, lots of people were on open season preemptively over the years. Not that that matters for this particular discussion, just an observation.

Anyway, I'm not sure the Innovator's Dilemma is the best cite here for someone advocating David Shaw adjustments. One persuasive reading of that book is that old institutions cannot change; they are replaced.

[Stymie]

[quote author=Redrum link=topic=11016.msg103850#msg103850 date=1414601882]
What it boils down to is we are not winning like we used to and the hunt for the guilty is on.

I dunno, lots of people were on open season preemptively over the years. Not that that matters for this particular discussion, just an observation.

Anyway, I'm not sure the Innovator's Dilemma is the best cite here for someone advocating David Shaw adjustments. One persuasive reading of that book is that old institutions cannot change; they are replaced.
[/quote]

I think the Prisoner's Dilemma is more relevant, if we apply some subtle variations.  What frustrates many of us is that the coaching staff often seems to think they are not guilty of stereotypical and blunt offensive strategies, and worse think that if they continue to scheme within those stereotypes (e.g. Power) something good will come of it even though their opponents increasingly know what they are doing and can strategise against them successfully.  While Tit for Tat tends to win the simple Prisoner's Dilemma game, football is a far more complex endeavor, which values controlled uncertainty over pure execution.

[Stymie]

[quote author=Redrum link=topic=11016.msg103850#msg103850 date=1414601882]
What it boils down to is we are not winning like we used to and the hunt for the guilty is on.

I dunno, lots of people were on open season preemptively over the years. Not that that matters for this particular discussion, just an observation.

Anyway, I'm not sure the Innovator's Dilemma is the best cite here for someone advocating David Shaw adjustments. One persuasive reading of that book is that old institutions cannot change; they are replaced.
[/quote]

I think the Prisoner's Dilemma is more relevant, if we apply some subtle variations.  What frustrates many of us is that the coaching staff often seems to think they are not guilty of stereotypical and blunt offensive strategies, and worse think that if they continue to scheme within those stereotypes (e.g. Power) something good will come of it even though their opponents increasingly know what they are doing and can strategise against them successfully.  While Tit for Tat tends to win the simple Prisoner's Dilemma game, football is a far more complex endeavor, which values controlled uncertainty over pure execution.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11016.msg103851#msg103851 date=1414602168]
[quote author=Redrum link=topic=11016.msg103850#msg103850 date=1414601882]
What it boils down to is we are not winning like we used to and the hunt for the guilty is on.

I dunno, lots of people were on open season preemptively over the years. Not that that matters for this particular discussion, just an observation.

Anyway, I'm not sure the Innovator's Dilemma is the best cite here for someone advocating David Shaw adjustments. One persuasive reading of that book is that old institutions cannot change; they are replaced.
[/quote]

I think the Prisoner's Dilemma is more relevant, if we apply some subtle variations.  What frustrates many of us is that the coaching staff often seems to think they are not guilty of stereotypical and blunt offensive strategies, and worse think that if they continue to scheme within those stereotypes (e.g. Power) something good will come of it even though their opponents increasingly know what they are doing and can strategise against them successfully.  While Tit for Tat tends to win the simple Prisoner's Dilemma game, football is a far more complex endeavor, which values controlled uncertainty over pure execution.
[/quote]

Reread CT Card's post.  It seems it is not the coaching staff that is guilty of stereotypes, but rather many of the fans.  As CT noted, we are running MUCH LESS than we have in the past.  And when we do run, we run Power (the play that involves a pulling guard and a lead blocking fullback) a lot less than in the past.  And yet, many fans believe that the staff is clinging to old habits.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11016.msg103851#msg103851 date=1414602168]
[quote author=Redrum link=topic=11016.msg103850#msg103850 date=1414601882]
What it boils down to is we are not winning like we used to and the hunt for the guilty is on.

I dunno, lots of people were on open season preemptively over the years. Not that that matters for this particular discussion, just an observation.

Anyway, I'm not sure the Innovator's Dilemma is the best cite here for someone advocating David Shaw adjustments. One persuasive reading of that book is that old institutions cannot change; they are replaced.
[/quote]

I think the Prisoner's Dilemma is more relevant, if we apply some subtle variations.  What frustrates many of us is that the coaching staff often seems to think they are not guilty of stereotypical and blunt offensive strategies, and worse think that if they continue to scheme within those stereotypes (e.g. Power) something good will come of it even though their opponents increasingly know what they are doing and can strategise against them successfully.  While Tit for Tat tends to win the simple Prisoner's Dilemma game, football is a far more complex endeavor, which values controlled uncertainty over pure execution.
[/quote]

Reread CT Card's post.  It seems it is not the coaching staff that is guilty of stereotypes, but rather many of the fans.  As CT noted, we are running MUCH LESS than we have in the past.  And when we do run, we run Power (the play that involves a pulling guard and a lead blocking fullback) a lot less than in the past.  And yet, many fans believe that the staff is clinging to old habits.

BC

[Papa John]

I'm guessing that many readers on the CARDBoard remember Terry Donahue, the head football coach at UCLA from 1976 to 1995. Donahue compiled an overall coaching record of 151–74–8, including 8-4-1 in bowl games. His teams were champions or co-champions of the Pac-10 five times from 1982-1993 and he was voted conference COY two times. His coaching record in the Rose Bowl was 4-1. He resigned as the winningest coach in not just UCLA, but Pac-10, history. He had a winning record against every other team in the conference.

I started attending UCLA games at the Rose Bowl on a regular basis in the mid-80s, first to accompany my then-girlfriend (now-wife) and later on as a graduate student. I was amazed at the vitriol and discontent spewed in Donahue's direction every time a play didn't work or a player failed to execute. The general complaint was that Donahue had all this talent and didn't know how to (1) develop it or (2) use it effectively.

Don't believe me? Here's a sampling:

http://www.bruinsnation.com/2005/12/29/9028/2408

Even in the face of retirement, Donahue had to contend with his detractors:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-12-23/s...ry-donahue

In looking at how some fans are treating David Shaw, who has a better winning percentage than Pop Warner, all I can say is..."It's lonely at the top."

[Papa John]

I'm guessing that many readers on the CARDBoard remember Terry Donahue, the head football coach at UCLA from 1976 to 1995. Donahue compiled an overall coaching record of 151–74–8, including 8-4-1 in bowl games. His teams were champions or co-champions of the Pac-10 five times from 1982-1993 and he was voted conference COY two times. His coaching record in the Rose Bowl was 4-1. He resigned as the winningest coach in not just UCLA, but Pac-10, history. He had a winning record against every other team in the conference.

I started attending UCLA games at the Rose Bowl on a regular basis in the mid-80s, first to accompany my then-girlfriend (now-wife) and later on as a graduate student. I was amazed at the vitriol and discontent spewed in Donahue's direction every time a play didn't work or a player failed to execute. The general complaint was that Donahue had all this talent and didn't know how to (1) develop it or (2) use it effectively.

Don't believe me? Here's a sampling:

http://www.bruinsnation.com/2005/12/29/9028/2408

Even in the face of retirement, Donahue had to contend with his detractors:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-12-23/s...ry-donahue

In looking at how some fans are treating David Shaw, who has a better winning percentage than Pop Warner, all I can say is..."It's lonely at the top."

[OutsiderFan]

I don't get this "you are either for him or against him" mentality about Shaw.  I started this thread thinking there were two pretty good examples to share that demonstrate some coaches who are embracing new ideas that maybe go outside their comfort zone.  Why does any suggestion that Shaw can do a little better or benefit from going outside his, turn into this exercise in defensiveness?  Who knows, maybe he has done some things already that weren't that comfortable for him.

Change and ability to adapt or evolve obviously has different meanings for different people, but I don't see anybody calling for Shaw's head or otherwise criticizing him (on this board at least) on anything close to the level of Donahue.  All I'd like to see is a new OC who brings new ideas into the program, that can be given the room to succeed or fail on his own merits.  Is this some kind of outlier position of significance among the Stanford fan base, or in any way unreasonable?

[OutsiderFan]

I don't get this "you are either for him or against him" mentality about Shaw.  I started this thread thinking there were two pretty good examples to share that demonstrate some coaches who are embracing new ideas that maybe go outside their comfort zone.  Why does any suggestion that Shaw can do a little better or benefit from going outside his, turn into this exercise in defensiveness?  Who knows, maybe he has done some things already that weren't that comfortable for him.

Change and ability to adapt or evolve obviously has different meanings for different people, but I don't see anybody calling for Shaw's head or otherwise criticizing him (on this board at least) on anything close to the level of Donahue.  All I'd like to see is a new OC who brings new ideas into the program, that can be given the room to succeed or fail on his own merits.  Is this some kind of outlier position of significance among the Stanford fan base, or in any way unreasonable?

[stupac2]

All I'd like to see is a new OC who brings new ideas into the program, that can be given the room to succeed or fail on his own merits.  Is this some kind of outlier position of significance among the Stanford fan base, or in any way unreasonable?

I think it's just that our experience hasn't actually proved it's necessary, at least not yet. The pushback you're receiving is basically combinations of:

1) It's not actually clear that the offense braintrust is broken. We need to give it at least the rest of the season, but since we completely dominated what was the #2 defense in the conference after getting dominated by a terrible one, I think Bloomgren and co have earned a reprieve.

2) It's not actually clear that, if the braintrust were broken, bringing in new blood would be the answer. As WiM posted those changes fail as often as they succeed, and they seem to fail pretty miserably. Making a change could end up being significantly worse than staying the course.

So your calls for change just seem premature and overly risky given the state of the program.

[stupac2]

All I'd like to see is a new OC who brings new ideas into the program, that can be given the room to succeed or fail on his own merits.  Is this some kind of outlier position of significance among the Stanford fan base, or in any way unreasonable?

I think it's just that our experience hasn't actually proved it's necessary, at least not yet. The pushback you're receiving is basically combinations of:

1) It's not actually clear that the offense braintrust is broken. We need to give it at least the rest of the season, but since we completely dominated what was the #2 defense in the conference after getting dominated by a terrible one, I think Bloomgren and co have earned a reprieve.

2) It's not actually clear that, if the braintrust were broken, bringing in new blood would be the answer. As WiM posted those changes fail as often as they succeed, and they seem to fail pretty miserably. Making a change could end up being significantly worse than staying the course.

So your calls for change just seem premature and overly risky given the state of the program.

[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=11016.msg103865#msg103865 date=1414611264] All I'd like to see is a new OC who brings new ideas into the program, that can be given the room to succeed or fail on his own merits.  Is this some kind of outlier position of significance among the Stanford fan base, or in any way unreasonable?

I think it's just that our experience hasn't actually proved it's necessary, at least not yet. The pushback you're receiving is basically combinations of:

1) It's not actually clear that the offense braintrust is broken. 

2) It's not actually clear that, if the braintrust were broken, bringing in new blood would be the answer.
[/quote]

The pushback from me is not really either of the above. I have no problems with complaining about the offense or the coaches or anything else. However, I would like to promote correct criticism, i.e. grounded in reality, as much as possible.

And, no, the call for a new OC is certainly not an outlier position in the Stanford fanbase. Integrating over here and other sites, I would call it the common wisdom. That in itself tends to make me suspicious.

[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=11016.msg103865#msg103865 date=1414611264] All I'd like to see is a new OC who brings new ideas into the program, that can be given the room to succeed or fail on his own merits.  Is this some kind of outlier position of significance among the Stanford fan base, or in any way unreasonable?

I think it's just that our experience hasn't actually proved it's necessary, at least not yet. The pushback you're receiving is basically combinations of:

1) It's not actually clear that the offense braintrust is broken. 

2) It's not actually clear that, if the braintrust were broken, bringing in new blood would be the answer.
[/quote]

The pushback from me is not really either of the above. I have no problems with complaining about the offense or the coaches or anything else. However, I would like to promote correct criticism, i.e. grounded in reality, as much as possible.

And, no, the call for a new OC is certainly not an outlier position in the Stanford fanbase. Integrating over here and other sites, I would call it the common wisdom. That in itself tends to make me suspicious.

[BostonCard]

I think we are just challenging your premise that the offense has not changed.

A case can certainly be made that we should get ourselves a new Andrew Luck director of the offense, because the offense hasn't been elite since we had Andrew Luck (though maybe that says more about the QB than about the offensive coordinator).

But you keep harping on the need to get a new OC because we need to change, suggesting that our current OC is incapable of change.

Change is necessary, and certainly if you can anticipate changing circumstances and execute it, change can be very positive.  I read the parable, "Who moved my cheese" (Short read: http://www.mindwell.be/ebooks/WhoMovedMyCheese.pdf).  Although (pardon the pun) cheesy, it does show the important of being able to change and adapt to change.  But there is a fine line between adaptive change and panic, and it all boils down to whether the change that is instituted works.  Gavin has alluded to the Buddy Teevens fiasco.  Buddy certainly introduced change into the Stanford offense, but it was poorly executed and was a disaster.  That doesn't mean that someone more competent could not have pulled it off, but I question the idea of change just for change's sake.

I rather think of things from the perspective of "what kind of athletes can Stanford recruit well", and can we build an offense around it that can best use their skills, tailoring said offense to variations in strengths from year to year.

I don't think we want to be chasing the latest fad on offense, or going after what is hot now.  Nor do we want to entirely re-work our offense.  What I think we should do, and have been doing, is incorporating new ideas/plays, and changing the balance of plays to emphasize our strengths.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think we are just challenging your premise that the offense has not changed.

A case can certainly be made that we should get ourselves a new Andrew Luck director of the offense, because the offense hasn't been elite since we had Andrew Luck (though maybe that says more about the QB than about the offensive coordinator).

But you keep harping on the need to get a new OC because we need to change, suggesting that our current OC is incapable of change.

Change is necessary, and certainly if you can anticipate changing circumstances and execute it, change can be very positive.  I read the parable, "Who moved my cheese" (Short read: http://www.mindwell.be/ebooks/WhoMovedMyCheese.pdf).  Although (pardon the pun) cheesy, it does show the important of being able to change and adapt to change.  But there is a fine line between adaptive change and panic, and it all boils down to whether the change that is instituted works.  Gavin has alluded to the Buddy Teevens fiasco.  Buddy certainly introduced change into the Stanford offense, but it was poorly executed and was a disaster.  That doesn't mean that someone more competent could not have pulled it off, but I question the idea of change just for change's sake.

I rather think of things from the perspective of "what kind of athletes can Stanford recruit well", and can we build an offense around it that can best use their skills, tailoring said offense to variations in strengths from year to year.

I don't think we want to be chasing the latest fad on offense, or going after what is hot now.  Nor do we want to entirely re-work our offense.  What I think we should do, and have been doing, is incorporating new ideas/plays, and changing the balance of plays to emphasize our strengths.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

I'm pretty wishy-washy on this point. If you take the 3.75 years of the Shaw administration so far, we've got:

1) a really good year (when we should've had a really good year)
2) a mediocre year (that I think more-or-less fulfilled its talent level)
3) a solid year (again, more-or-less fulfilling its talent level)
4) an awful year (...with issues that don't seem easily reducible to a sentence-level summation as in previous years)

So my belief is that a change would be a pretty good idea, but I'm agnostic as to how this should be achieved. You see instances of switching OCs/systems working...and not working. You've also seen instances of switching systems without a staff overhaul (e.g. Sark's switch at UW to a no-huddle/spread,pro-stylish hybrid system).

Specifically, I think years 1-3's summations are a bit deceptive. That reflects the talent level available, but I'm convinced the staff can do a better job at getting more talent available. If 2014's TEs were available last year, does that result in an extra win? Considering the closeness of each three loss, that seems probable. You can go up an down the list. A lot of timing issues involved in our offense, with talent arriving at just slightly the wrong time.

Can that be fixed through scheme (e.g. a simpler scheme getting talent available more quickly)? Better recruitment? It seems like the Shaw regime is fine or even good at identifying and developing talent -- basically every position group has featured at least an above-Pac-12-average talent -- but that talent is not well-clustered enough. This suggests to me that recruiting is not quite right. Let's say we have the ideal scenario for the class of 2015: something like Irwin/Arcega-Whiteside/Scarlett/Warren/Love ... these are all good players. But no TE and QB. (Particularly disappointing since Tyler Petite was a local and the 2015 QB class was, apparently, loaded with players interested in us.)

This looks like the same pattern as in the latter parts of the Harbaugh era, where you'd get good players at some positions, followed by attempts to remedy that in future classes. This inevitably results in holes and steep dropoffs (that is, how you can go from Ertz/Toilolo/Navjar/Hewitt in one class...followed by several busts/holes).

I feel much more certain in this latter point than the scheme/teaching point, which requires more expertise and inside knowledge than I possess. But there's no reason we can't improve on both points, really.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm pretty wishy-washy on this point. If you take the 3.75 years of the Shaw administration so far, we've got:

1) a really good year (when we should've had a really good year)
2) a mediocre year (that I think more-or-less fulfilled its talent level)
3) a solid year (again, more-or-less fulfilling its talent level)
4) an awful year (...with issues that don't seem easily reducible to a sentence-level summation as in previous years)

So my belief is that a change would be a pretty good idea, but I'm agnostic as to how this should be achieved. You see instances of switching OCs/systems working...and not working. You've also seen instances of switching systems without a staff overhaul (e.g. Sark's switch at UW to a no-huddle/spread,pro-stylish hybrid system).

Specifically, I think years 1-3's summations are a bit deceptive. That reflects the talent level available, but I'm convinced the staff can do a better job at getting more talent available. If 2014's TEs were available last year, does that result in an extra win? Considering the closeness of each three loss, that seems probable. You can go up an down the list. A lot of timing issues involved in our offense, with talent arriving at just slightly the wrong time.

Can that be fixed through scheme (e.g. a simpler scheme getting talent available more quickly)? Better recruitment? It seems like the Shaw regime is fine or even good at identifying and developing talent -- basically every position group has featured at least an above-Pac-12-average talent -- but that talent is not well-clustered enough. This suggests to me that recruiting is not quite right. Let's say we have the ideal scenario for the class of 2015: something like Irwin/Arcega-Whiteside/Scarlett/Warren/Love ... these are all good players. But no TE and QB. (Particularly disappointing since Tyler Petite was a local and the 2015 QB class was, apparently, loaded with players interested in us.)

This looks like the same pattern as in the latter parts of the Harbaugh era, where you'd get good players at some positions, followed by attempts to remedy that in future classes. This inevitably results in holes and steep dropoffs (that is, how you can go from Ertz/Toilolo/Navjar/Hewitt in one class...followed by several busts/holes).

I feel much more certain in this latter point than the scheme/teaching point, which requires more expertise and inside knowledge than I possess. But there's no reason we can't improve on both points, really.

[jaymon]

One element of change, leadership, and team dynamics that seems to get overlooked is the human element. By that, I mean, it's never as easy as identifying what needs to change and then changing it. Team sports are a lot like parts of the business world that are team oriented (i work in start-ups). Group dynamics are complex. What seems like a simple change (e.g. stop running between the tackles so much) might be a heck of a lot more complex (e.g. loss of 'blue collar' identity, going back on a promise to offensive line recruits or RB recruits about what to expect at Stanford, rewarding a player(s) that hasn't been working at hard in practice as other(s)). One other point about Shaw in particular: we all love his principled nature. We don't have to worry about him compromising our shared ideals. Like all traits though, there's aways another side to the coin. Perhaps he just a little more loyal and a little less quick to change than a less principled man. /philosophical rant

[jaymon]

One element of change, leadership, and team dynamics that seems to get overlooked is the human element. By that, I mean, it's never as easy as identifying what needs to change and then changing it. Team sports are a lot like parts of the business world that are team oriented (i work in start-ups). Group dynamics are complex. What seems like a simple change (e.g. stop running between the tackles so much) might be a heck of a lot more complex (e.g. loss of 'blue collar' identity, going back on a promise to offensive line recruits or RB recruits about what to expect at Stanford, rewarding a player(s) that hasn't been working at hard in practice as other(s)). One other point about Shaw in particular: we all love his principled nature. We don't have to worry about him compromising our shared ideals. Like all traits though, there's aways another side to the coin. Perhaps he just a little more loyal and a little less quick to change than a less principled man. /philosophical rant

[CrazedZooChimp]

I'm pretty wishy-washy on this point. If you take the 3.75 years of the Shaw administration so far, we've got:

1) a really good year (when we should've had a really good year)
2) a mediocre year (that I think more-or-less fulfilled its talent level)
3) a solid year (again, more-or-less fulfilling its talent level)
4) an awful year (...with issues that don't seem easily reducible to a sentence-level summation as in previous years)

Wait, are you really saying that you look at the 2012 Stanford football roster and think "man, this is the most talented team we've ever had, 10-2 with a conference championship and #6 final ranking means the coaches were mediocre and we just played to our talent level."?  The year after we lost guys like Luck, DeCastro, and Martin?  I'm pretty sure the general belief even among fans was that we were going to slide back to 8-4 or so.  You can't seriously think that result was mediocre, can you?  Do you not remember all of the talent that was lost after 2011?

Steve Sarkisian must be the worst ***** coach of all time...

[CrazedZooChimp]

I'm pretty wishy-washy on this point. If you take the 3.75 years of the Shaw administration so far, we've got:

1) a really good year (when we should've had a really good year)
2) a mediocre year (that I think more-or-less fulfilled its talent level)
3) a solid year (again, more-or-less fulfilling its talent level)
4) an awful year (...with issues that don't seem easily reducible to a sentence-level summation as in previous years)

Wait, are you really saying that you look at the 2012 Stanford football roster and think "man, this is the most talented team we've ever had, 10-2 with a conference championship and #6 final ranking means the coaches were mediocre and we just played to our talent level."?  The year after we lost guys like Luck, DeCastro, and Martin?  I'm pretty sure the general belief even among fans was that we were going to slide back to 8-4 or so.  You can't seriously think that result was mediocre, can you?  Do you not remember all of the talent that was lost after 2011?

Steve Sarkisian must be the worst ***** coach of all time...

[washingtonismoney]

Wait, are you really saying that you look at the 2012 Stanford football roster and think "man, this is the most talented team we've ever had, 10-2 with a conference championship and #6 final ranking means the coaches were mediocre and we just played to our talent level."?  The year after we lost guys like Luck, DeCastro, and Martin?  I'm pretty sure the general belief even among fans was that we were going to slide back to 8-4 or so.  You can't seriously think that result was mediocre, can you?  Do you not remember all of the talent that was lost after 2011?

Offensively, the talent was mediocre and the result was the same.

Defense and special teams carried the team. Overall, of course, Shaw has exceeded Vegas expectations every year at the helm. With an 8.5 o/u this year, he'll probably come under. So a pretty good record, I'd say.

Probably could've made things more obvious, but since this thread's a discussion of the offense...

[washingtonismoney]

Wait, are you really saying that you look at the 2012 Stanford football roster and think "man, this is the most talented team we've ever had, 10-2 with a conference championship and #6 final ranking means the coaches were mediocre and we just played to our talent level."?  The year after we lost guys like Luck, DeCastro, and Martin?  I'm pretty sure the general belief even among fans was that we were going to slide back to 8-4 or so.  You can't seriously think that result was mediocre, can you?  Do you not remember all of the talent that was lost after 2011?

Offensively, the talent was mediocre and the result was the same.

Defense and special teams carried the team. Overall, of course, Shaw has exceeded Vegas expectations every year at the helm. With an 8.5 o/u this year, he'll probably come under. So a pretty good record, I'd say.

Probably could've made things more obvious, but since this thread's a discussion of the offense...

[Cardinal96]

I'm pretty wishy-washy on this point. If you take the 3.75 years of the Shaw administration so far, we've got:

1) a really good year (when we should've had a really good year)
2) a mediocre year (that I think more-or-less fulfilled its talent level)
3) a solid year (again, more-or-less fulfilling its talent level)
4) an awful year (...with issues that don't seem easily reducible to a sentence-level summation as in previous years)

So my belief is that a change would be a pretty good idea, but I'm agnostic as to how this should be achieved. You see instances of switching OCs/systems working...and not working. You've also seen instances of switching systems without a staff overhaul (e.g. Sark's switch at UW to a no-huddle/spread,pro-stylish hybrid system).

Specifically, I think years 1-3's summations are a bit deceptive. That reflects the talent level available, but I'm convinced the staff can do a better job at getting more talent available. If 2014's TEs were available last year, does that result in an extra win? Considering the closeness of each three loss, that seems probable. You can go up an down the list. A lot of timing issues involved in our offense, with talent arriving at just slightly the wrong time.

Can that be fixed through scheme (e.g. a simpler scheme getting talent available more quickly)? Better recruitment? It seems like the Shaw regime is fine or even good at identifying and developing talent -- basically every position group has featured at least an above-Pac-12-average talent -- but that talent is not well-clustered enough. This suggests to me that recruiting is not quite right. Let's say we have the ideal scenario for the class of 2015: something like Irwin/Arcega-Whiteside/Scarlett/Warren/Love ... these are all good players. But no TE and QB. (Particularly disappointing since Tyler Petite was a local and the 2015 QB class was, apparently, loaded with players interested in us.)

This looks like the same pattern as in the latter parts of the Harbaugh era, where you'd get good players at some positions, followed by attempts to remedy that in future classes. This inevitably results in holes and steep dropoffs (that is, how you can go from Ertz/Toilolo/Navjar/Hewitt in one class...followed by several busts/holes).

I feel much more certain in this latter point than the scheme/teaching point, which requires more expertise and inside knowledge than I possess. But there's no reason we can't improve on both points, really.

If a mediocre year equals a Rose Bowl title, I will take mediocrity all day long.

[Cardinal96]

I'm pretty wishy-washy on this point. If you take the 3.75 years of the Shaw administration so far, we've got:

1) a really good year (when we should've had a really good year)
2) a mediocre year (that I think more-or-less fulfilled its talent level)
3) a solid year (again, more-or-less fulfilling its talent level)
4) an awful year (...with issues that don't seem easily reducible to a sentence-level summation as in previous years)

So my belief is that a change would be a pretty good idea, but I'm agnostic as to how this should be achieved. You see instances of switching OCs/systems working...and not working. You've also seen instances of switching systems without a staff overhaul (e.g. Sark's switch at UW to a no-huddle/spread,pro-stylish hybrid system).

Specifically, I think years 1-3's summations are a bit deceptive. That reflects the talent level available, but I'm convinced the staff can do a better job at getting more talent available. If 2014's TEs were available last year, does that result in an extra win? Considering the closeness of each three loss, that seems probable. You can go up an down the list. A lot of timing issues involved in our offense, with talent arriving at just slightly the wrong time.

Can that be fixed through scheme (e.g. a simpler scheme getting talent available more quickly)? Better recruitment? It seems like the Shaw regime is fine or even good at identifying and developing talent -- basically every position group has featured at least an above-Pac-12-average talent -- but that talent is not well-clustered enough. This suggests to me that recruiting is not quite right. Let's say we have the ideal scenario for the class of 2015: something like Irwin/Arcega-Whiteside/Scarlett/Warren/Love ... these are all good players. But no TE and QB. (Particularly disappointing since Tyler Petite was a local and the 2015 QB class was, apparently, loaded with players interested in us.)

This looks like the same pattern as in the latter parts of the Harbaugh era, where you'd get good players at some positions, followed by attempts to remedy that in future classes. This inevitably results in holes and steep dropoffs (that is, how you can go from Ertz/Toilolo/Navjar/Hewitt in one class...followed by several busts/holes).

I feel much more certain in this latter point than the scheme/teaching point, which requires more expertise and inside knowledge than I possess. But there's no reason we can't improve on both points, really.

If a mediocre year equals a Rose Bowl title, I will take mediocrity all day long.

[washingtonismoney]

If a mediocre year equals a Rose Bowl title, I will take mediocrity all day long.

Post is about the offense.

[washingtonismoney]

If a mediocre year equals a Rose Bowl title, I will take mediocrity all day long.

Post is about the offense.