(07-27-2016, 10:16 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:Maybe we don't always pull a lot of 4-star wideouts, but as long as we keep landing 4- or 5-star QBs, TEs, RBs, and offensive linemen, I kinda think our offense just might be OK.
This is getting beyond the strict thrust of this thread, but it will be interesting to see how the offense does going forward - though of course bringing in 4/5 star QBs, TEs, RBs, and OLs goes a long way towards making an offense OK despite anything else.
However, in 5 years of David Shaw, I would probably break down the offenses as 2 that were really good (2011, 2015), two that were poor (2012, 2014), and one that was ... okay (2013).
The pessimistic view is that with a fourth year starter Hogan, an OL that was returning 4 of 5 and three 5 stars, a 4 star and a 3 star, and the emergence of McCaffrey as the best threat in the nation - the offense basically had to be good despite any possible deficiencies in scheme, play calling, etc.
A year ago there was a storyline out there (that I didn't believe, but wouldn't reject out of hand) that we had an offense that was extremely complicated. This might be fine for a senior, multi-year starter QB and a bunch of experienced guys but would collapse with less experience.
This year our experience level at QB and the OL takes a nosedive. It may be a good test of this theory.
------------------
And as to your actual point on wide outs, I think this is true. Stanford runs an offense that probably is not overly appealing to a budding star WR, in just the same sense that it is appealing to RBs and TEs. But, Stanford's offense also relies on star wide outs less than most - so that is a reasonable trade off.
