[washingtonismoney]

Sure. Compare what Stanford fans think of Greg Roman to what 49ers fans think of him.

Or, hell, Harbaugh. Take this article:

▪ Your Harbaugh has been designed for offense and will require many high-end parts to run said offense. Yet his defense will be better than his offense. This paradox has not been explained.

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-fra...rylink=cpy

[washingtonismoney]

Sure. Compare what Stanford fans think of Greg Roman to what 49ers fans think of him.

Or, hell, Harbaugh. Take this article:

▪ Your Harbaugh has been designed for offense and will require many high-end parts to run said offense. Yet his defense will be better than his offense. This paradox has not been explained.

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-fra...rylink=cpy

[teejers1]

I'm talking about that 2nd Quarter drive, when Stanford was up by 7 (not Q4, when Stanford pounded SC into submission with power after power).

If you and Terry want to believe that offensive play calling under this regime qualitatively resembles what we see on that drive - especially in terms of telegraphing the play - well . . . go right ahead.  There's no point in having further discussion - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[teejers1]

I'm talking about that 2nd Quarter drive, when Stanford was up by 7 (not Q4, when Stanford pounded SC into submission with power after power).

If you and Terry want to believe that offensive play calling under this regime qualitatively resembles what we see on that drive - especially in terms of telegraphing the play - well . . . go right ahead.  There's no point in having further discussion - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[CTcard]

There's no point in having further discussion - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You resort to more or less this phrase quite often, which I guess is part of the problem of the "eyeball test". If two people's eyeballs tell them different things, where do you go?

One place I have an impression that would agree with you (or at least agree with what I think you have been stating) is that Stanford under Shaw runs out of run formations and passes out of pass formations more often than under Harbaugh. That's formations - not a down and distance issue.

I haven't yet had the patience and time to check if that's really true or more based in my own changing expectations. Back in 2009 (season of this video) I was so ecstatic for Stanford to have an offense that could ever drive the length of the field that everything seemed quite wondrous. But if I am ever laid up sick at home I might start chomping through game tapes to see if that impression holds any water.

[CTcard]

There's no point in having further discussion - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You resort to more or less this phrase quite often, which I guess is part of the problem of the "eyeball test". If two people's eyeballs tell them different things, where do you go?

One place I have an impression that would agree with you (or at least agree with what I think you have been stating) is that Stanford under Shaw runs out of run formations and passes out of pass formations more often than under Harbaugh. That's formations - not a down and distance issue.

I haven't yet had the patience and time to check if that's really true or more based in my own changing expectations. Back in 2009 (season of this video) I was so ecstatic for Stanford to have an offense that could ever drive the length of the field that everything seemed quite wondrous. But if I am ever laid up sick at home I might start chomping through game tapes to see if that impression holds any water.

[JJJ]

Sure. Compare what Stanford fans think of Greg Roman to what 49ers fans think of him.

Or, hell, Harbaugh. Take this article:

▪ Your Harbaugh has been designed for offense and will require many high-end parts to run said offense. Yet his defense will be better than his offense. This paradox has not been explained.

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-fra...rylink=cpy

Thank you for sharing this entertaining piece. Sept 5 can't come soon enough!

[JJJ]

Sure. Compare what Stanford fans think of Greg Roman to what 49ers fans think of him.

Or, hell, Harbaugh. Take this article:

▪ Your Harbaugh has been designed for offense and will require many high-end parts to run said offense. Yet his defense will be better than his offense. This paradox has not been explained.

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-fra...rylink=cpy

Thank you for sharing this entertaining piece. Sept 5 can't come soon enough!

[CTcard]

By my count, 12 players on that Stanford offense are still on NFL rosters, including all three receivers.

Let's see if I can do the count.

Starting that game vs S.-C. were
Luck, Gerhart, Whalen, Whalen, Owusu, Fleener, DeCastro. That's 7.
Appearing in backup roles were Taylor, Gaffney, EDIT: [thanks kuz] Dray.
So, for that game we got 10.

Also on the roster in 2009 were:
Jeremy Stewart (played in only four games due to injury), Zach Ertz (redshirting), Levine Toilolo (injured), Ryan Hewitt (redshirting).

So, that's 14 players on the roster on offense in 2009 who are still on NFL rosters.

Two other guys had significant presence on an NFL roster but are no longer there: Marecic and Martin. [Martin was a starter in the S.-C. game, Marecic didn't start but obviously played a lot.]

Anyone else?

[CTcard]

By my count, 12 players on that Stanford offense are still on NFL rosters, including all three receivers.

Let's see if I can do the count.

Starting that game vs S.-C. were
Luck, Gerhart, Whalen, Whalen, Owusu, Fleener, DeCastro. That's 7.
Appearing in backup roles were Taylor, Gaffney, EDIT: [thanks kuz] Dray.
So, for that game we got 10.

Also on the roster in 2009 were:
Jeremy Stewart (played in only four games due to injury), Zach Ertz (redshirting), Levine Toilolo (injured), Ryan Hewitt (redshirting).

So, that's 14 players on the roster on offense in 2009 who are still on NFL rosters.

Two other guys had significant presence on an NFL roster but are no longer there: Marecic and Martin. [Martin was a starter in the S.-C. game, Marecic didn't start but obviously played a lot.]

Anyone else?

[kuz]

Jim Dray?

[kuz]

Jim Dray?

[FarmBoy]

It really makes you wonder how many of those guys on offense's NFL careers are due to Luck. When you play with an NFL quality QB, it's got to train you well for the NFL. And of course the additional TV exposure and NFL scouts attending games, etc. Or many of them would have been drafted in later rounds and made less money.

[FarmBoy]

It really makes you wonder how many of those guys on offense's NFL careers are due to Luck. When you play with an NFL quality QB, it's got to train you well for the NFL. And of course the additional TV exposure and NFL scouts attending games, etc. Or many of them would have been drafted in later rounds and made less money.

[CowboyIndian]

There's no point in having further discussion - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You promise?

[CowboyIndian]

There's no point in having further discussion - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You promise?

[terry]

I'm talking about that 2nd Quarter drive, when Stanford was up by 7 (not Q4, when Stanford pounded SC into submission with power after power).

If you and Terry want to believe that offensive play calling under this regime qualitatively resembles what we see on that drive - especially in terms of telegraphing the play - well . . . go right ahead.  There's no point in having further discussion - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

My comment was directed at offensive approach and emphasis, not at playcalling tendencies. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[terry]

I'm talking about that 2nd Quarter drive, when Stanford was up by 7 (not Q4, when Stanford pounded SC into submission with power after power).

If you and Terry want to believe that offensive play calling under this regime qualitatively resembles what we see on that drive - especially in terms of telegraphing the play - well . . . go right ahead.  There's no point in having further discussion - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

My comment was directed at offensive approach and emphasis, not at playcalling tendencies. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[BostonCard]

There is also confirmation bias going on, something all of us are prone to.  We've come to a conclusion about something, in this case the relative merits of the two coaching regimes, and the data (especially the subjective data that comes from the eyeball test) confirms the conclusions we've already made.

That being said, although we don't have a crossover study where we can have Harbaugh and Shaw each coach the same 5 years and see how we went, we do have the advantage that each coach has had Andrew Luck for at least a year, and has had a QB other than Andrew Luck for at least a year.  The offense in 2011 (under Shaw, with Luck) was about as good as the offense in 2010 under Harbaugh with Luck and a little better than the offense in 2009 under Harbaugh and with Luck (as a RS freshman).  The ypp numbers were:

2009 (Harbaugh/Luck): 6.54 ypp
2010 (Harbaugh/Luck): 6.71 ypp
2011 (Shaw/Luck): 6.8 ypp

If anything Shaw's year with Luck was the best of the three, which you maybe expect when you have a third year first round draft pick directing the offense.

We also have some years without Luck
2008 (Harbaugh/Pritchard): 5.43 ypp (a full yard per play lower than Luck as a redshirt freshman)
2012 (Shaw/Nunes and Hogan): 5.53 ypp (a 1.3 yard drop from when Shaw had Luck)
2013 (Shaw/Hogan): 6.35 ypp
2014 (Shaw/Hogan): 5.89 ypp

So, what happened... did Harbaugh become a genious from 2008 to 2009 or was Luck responsible for a dramatic improvement in our offense.  Likewise, what happened between 2011 and 2012?  Did Shaw forget how to coach, or was the fact that Luck went on to become the first pick of the 2012 draft make the offense lose a bit of its punch.

BC

[BostonCard]

There is also confirmation bias going on, something all of us are prone to.  We've come to a conclusion about something, in this case the relative merits of the two coaching regimes, and the data (especially the subjective data that comes from the eyeball test) confirms the conclusions we've already made.

That being said, although we don't have a crossover study where we can have Harbaugh and Shaw each coach the same 5 years and see how we went, we do have the advantage that each coach has had Andrew Luck for at least a year, and has had a QB other than Andrew Luck for at least a year.  The offense in 2011 (under Shaw, with Luck) was about as good as the offense in 2010 under Harbaugh with Luck and a little better than the offense in 2009 under Harbaugh and with Luck (as a RS freshman).  The ypp numbers were:

2009 (Harbaugh/Luck): 6.54 ypp
2010 (Harbaugh/Luck): 6.71 ypp
2011 (Shaw/Luck): 6.8 ypp

If anything Shaw's year with Luck was the best of the three, which you maybe expect when you have a third year first round draft pick directing the offense.

We also have some years without Luck
2008 (Harbaugh/Pritchard): 5.43 ypp (a full yard per play lower than Luck as a redshirt freshman)
2012 (Shaw/Nunes and Hogan): 5.53 ypp (a 1.3 yard drop from when Shaw had Luck)
2013 (Shaw/Hogan): 6.35 ypp
2014 (Shaw/Hogan): 5.89 ypp

So, what happened... did Harbaugh become a genious from 2008 to 2009 or was Luck responsible for a dramatic improvement in our offense.  Likewise, what happened between 2011 and 2012?  Did Shaw forget how to coach, or was the fact that Luck went on to become the first pick of the 2012 draft make the offense lose a bit of its punch.

BC

[teejers1]

You promise?

For you, CI, most definitely. 

[teejers1]

You promise?

For you, CI, most definitely.