Bloomgren to Rice? - Printable Version

Bloomgren to Rice? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Bloomgren to Rice? (/thread-15169.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - lex24 - 12-09-2017

First , a great post by RedState. Absolutely nails it. Second, yes Oregon came back in the 4th - on the strength of a blocked FG they took back for a TD
That was the most efficient game of keep away Ive ever seen.

(12-09-2017, 11:04 AM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=Red State link=topic=18293.msg217629#msg217629 date=1512839858]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18293.msg217603#msg217603 date=1512801682]
I'm not following your logic, Red State.Â The Stanford D was bad; the O was great; ergo, the Pac 10 was the laughingstock of the country.Â
Plus, an undermanned Cardinal team went toe-to-toe with Wisconsin from the Mighty Big 10, and I think the Cardinal wins if McLaughlin and Walters are healthy.

But regardless, I have yet to see why Stanford cannot have a good defense and a dominant pro style offense, circa 1999/2001.Â More fundamentally, I don't know why anyone would want Stanford to strive for any other kind of offense.Â It's freaking mind-boggling.Â

Expand your horizons, Cardinal Fans.Â Yes, the team's W/L record has been very good under this regime.Â But guess what?Â It could have/should have been better.Â It's okay to believe that.Â Really, it is . . .

A number of people really dislike Stanford's offense, say, since 2012, which was the first of Shaw's 3 Rose Bowls. The biggest disdain is not from Stanford's fan base, however, but mostly from coaches, players and fans of opposing teams. Over the past few seasons I've read and listened to comments from Oregon, U$C, UCLA and UW people who HATE Stanford's offense, not so much because of what it does to their defense, but rather what it does to their offense.

This is not Todd Husak era football. With so many P12 teams running spread, high tempo, run-oriented offenses that feature a lot of speed, Shaw and Staff have smartly countered those schemes with the very best antidote: Keeping them off the field. Stanford's Power O ball control offense drains the clock and protects an often depth-challenged D. But at its best, what it does is frustrate opposing offenses that thrive on playing fast, running A LOT of plays, and getting into a rhythm. I've seen it happen many times, the opposing offense on the sideline for 6, 7, 8 minutes, and then pressing and making mistakes, especially when they've fallen behind.

The most striking example of this was Oregon '13, which was the highest profile game to be played at Stanford in over 40 years. #3 Oregon was riding high with Marcus Mariota and their high-powered offense. How did Stanford win? Brutally. Tyler Gaffney carried 45 times and Stanford held the ball for 43 Minutes. Absolutely Beautiful. I saw Oregon players in tears, and droves of silent Duck fans, most of them were gone before Q4. Do I think Stanford could have won that game with any other kind of offense that night? Absolutely not. And Stanford wouldn't have gone to Rose Bowl, either.

Is Stanford's Power O offense better/more efficient some seasons than others? Yeah, just like any other offense. Do I think the offense could be tweaked or have a new wrinkle? Depending on the personnel available, yes. Do I think this offense should be scrapped in favor of a more finesse, crowd-pleasing O? Hell, No. That would be a sad goodbye to Intellectual Brutality.

Sorry, Teejers, the Stanford yesteryear offense is not coming back, certainly not as long as Shaw is HC. You're just going to have to find solace in 9-10+ win seasons, P12 Titles and major bowl games.
[/quote]

The Duck fans who left in Q3 missed a pretty exciting finish. Oregon came to life in the fourth quarter and we had to hold on by our nails for the victory.
[/quote]

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - lex24 - 12-09-2017

Teejers - I suspect HusakÂ would be a good coach. If he wants to coach. But I dont quite get the idea of bringing someone from the booth that has not coached into an OC position.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Hurlburt88 - 12-09-2017

(12-09-2017, 10:17 AM)Red State link Wrote:Is Stanford's Power O offense better/more efficient some seasons than others? Yeah, just like any other offense. Do I think the offense could be tweaked or have a new wrinkle? Depending on the personnel available, yes. Do I think this offense should be scrapped in favor of a more finesse, crowd-pleasing O? Hell, No. That would be a sad goodbye to Intellectual Brutality.

Sounds more like "Emotional Brutality" on the opposing players versus "intellectual" . . . although that kind of takes us off a key branding theme.Â

Re: Hmmmmmm - Mick - 12-09-2017

(12-08-2017, 11:27 AM)Redrum link Wrote:Travel budget: 2 big (flights involved) trips in 2018 budget

#1Â Football home game at Stanford
#2Â Kaui with friends and family...no, wait!Â I could go to San Antonio to see a game in the Alamo Dome.Â Hmmmmm choices, choices...

Would you rather watch the game or Kauai on TV?

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Mick - 12-09-2017

(12-08-2017, 06:51 PM)Red State link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18293.msg217544#msg217544 date=1512774480]
C'mon now Red State, that Rose Bowl team was crippled due to injuries.Â Think both the "ironman" center and Walters were hurt and either didn't play or shouldn't have played.Â [IIRC, the OL played one snap and then sat; Walters was hobbling around out there with some kind of injury].

The bottom line is that the O was not the same squad we saw all season.

But I'll give you that Wiscy controlled the ball more - as did a lot of team that year against Stanford, which had a mediocre (occasional big-play) D.Â The O carried that team to the Rose Bowl.Â Imagine that . . .

Stanford's defense was statistically horrible, among the bottom 10 in the country. The pass defense was especially bad. The O did carry the team, and that tells you how bad the P10 was in '99. The laughing stock of the country.
[/quote]

Maybe.Â It tells you something that the cream of the B10 scored just 17 points on the statistically horrible, etc.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Mick - 12-09-2017

(12-09-2017, 12:23 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Last point.Â The 2001 (35.2) and 1999 (34.8 ppg) offenses would rank 3rd and 4th had they been David Shaw's seasons, behind 2015 (37.7 ppg) and 2010 (40.3 ppg); and those were Willingham's two best seasons.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - lex24 - 12-09-2017

Even as an unabashed Shaw supporter I have to admit the points number is skewed on part by rule and style changes. There are more points now. What Id be curious to see Mick is where Stanfords defenses these last 7 years fall historically. Keeping the same thought in mind re the changed game.

(12-09-2017, 02:51 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18293.msg217615#msg217615 date=1512804208]
Last point.Â The 2001 (35.2) and 1999 (34.8 ppg) offenses would rank 3rd and 4th had they been David Shaw's seasons, behind 2015 (37.7 ppg) and 2010 (40.3 ppg); and those were Willingham's two best seasons.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Mick - 12-09-2017

(12-09-2017, 04:45 PM)lex24 link Wrote:Even as an unabashed Shaw supporter I have to admit the points number is skewed on part by rule and style changes. There are more points now. What Id be curious to see Mick is where Stanfords defenses these last 7 years fall historically. Keeping the same thought in mind re the changed game.

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18293.msg217654#msg217654 date=1512856314]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18293.msg217615#msg217615 date=1512804208]
Last point.Â The 2001 (35.2) and 1999 (34.8 ppg) offenses would rank 3rd and 4th had they been David Shaw's seasons, behind 2015 (37.7 ppg) and 2010 (40.3 ppg); and those were Willingham's two best seasons.

Some other points:
1)Â Most points given up in a season, 1993's team coached by Bill Walsh gave up 389 points.Â His 1994 team gave up 359 points, fifth most in Stanford history.
2)Â Amazing to me that the 1999 team got into the Rose Bowl having given up the 4th most points in Stanford's history.
3)Â Willingham had a strong defense in 1996, only giving up 229 points.Â The rest of his defenses were among the worst in Stanford's history, including #4 (1998, 365 pts), #5 (1999, 364), #8 (2001, 339), #13 (1997, 317), #16 (1995, 307), #18 (2000, 294).Â Of the 121 seasons, TW had six of the worst defenses.Â But he beat Ca.l every year, so...
4)Â Shaw has all five of the top five most points in a season, three as HC (11, 13, 15), two as OC. (09, 10).
[/quote]
[/quote]

Tough call.Â If you're talking about the modern-ish era, John Ralston's 1971 team gave up just 11.3 ppg, the best from any team after 1950.Â The first half of last century were either low scoring affairs, or great defenses.

Walsh's 10-3 1992 team gave up 15.1 ppg.Â Jack Elway's 1986 team gave up 15.9 ppg.Â Shaw's 2014 defense gave up 213 points or 16.4 ppg, the third-best of any team after 1971 and the best of any team after 1992.Â Intriguingly, that was Shaw's 8-5 team, the worst percentage winner had the best defense.Â Shaw's 2012 team was right behind at 17.2 ppg, then Harbaugh's 2010 team which was also 17.2 ppg.

Let's look at it this way.Â What is the point scoring differential on a per-game basis?Â Shaw tends to be conservative at game end, so that probably restricts him.Â Here's the scoop:

Aside from teams in the first half of last century, Shaw has five of the top eight differential seasons, and Harbaugh has one of the remaining three.Â the other two were Ralston in 1969 and 1970.Â Ralston had four of the top ten, Elway was #13, #15 and #17.Â But Harbaugh, Elway and Ralston had their share of clinkers in the bottom half of the list.Â The thing that amazes me about Shaw is that he has coached six complete seasons, and five of those six are in the top eight in scoring differential, another was Harbaugh's last season.Â Even Shaw's clinker year -- last year -- was a terrific year.Â And this year, 2017 isn't listed, but it would be Top 10 for Shaw, right between Ralston's #9 and #10 ratings.

Let's face it folks, our coach is probably a college football hall of fame coach, right up there with the other five.

Here's the list, post-1950.Â I've highlighted Harbaugh and Shaw:

2010 Jim Harbaugh 22.9
2011 David Shaw 21.2
1969 John Ralston 17.7
2015 David Shaw 15.2
2013 David Shaw 13.3
1970 John Ralston 11.4
2014 David Shaw 10.8
2012 David Shaw 10.6
1968 John Ralston 10.6
1971 John Ralston 10.5
1991 Dennis Green 10.2
1953 Charles A. Taylor 9.8
1992 Bill Walsh 9.5
2009 Jim Harbaugh 8.9
1978 Bill Walsh 8.8
1972 Jack Christiansen 7.5
1986 Jack Elway 7.3
2001 Tyrone Willingham 6.9
1957 Charles A. Taylor 6.9
1950 Marchmont Schwartz 6.5
1955 Charles A. Taylor 6.3
2016 David Shaw 5.9
1999 Tyrone Willingham 4.5
1951 Charles A. Taylor 4.4
1975 Jack Christiansen 3.9
1980 Paul Wiggin 3.4
1995 Tyrone Willingham 3.1
1981 Paul Wiggin 3.0
1982 Paul Wiggin 2.8
1988 Jack Elway 2.0
1979 Rod Dowhower 1.8
1996 Tyrone Willingham 1.5
1964 John Ralston 1.2
2004 Buddy Teevens 0.8
1956 Charles A. Taylor 0.5
1977 Bill Walsh 0.5
1973 Jack Christiansen 0.4
1966 John Ralston 0.3
1965 John Ralston -0.5
1987 Jack Elway -0.5
2008 Jim Harbaugh -1.2
1990 Dennis Green -1.9
1967 John Ralston -2.2
1974 Jack Christiansen -2.8
1959 Jack C. Curtice -2.9
1994 Bill Walsh -2.9
2000 Tyrone Willingham -3.0
1984 Jack Elway -3.6
1997 Tyrone Willingham -3.7
1952 Charles A. Taylor -3.9
1976 Jack Christiansen -4.1
1963 John Ralston -4.5
1962 Jack C. Curtice -5.0
1961 Jack C. Curtice -5.8
1985 Jack Elway -6.2
2005 Walt Harris -6.2
1989 Dennis Green -6.5
2007 Jim Harbaugh -8.7
1993 Bill Walsh -8.9
1998 Tyrone Willingham -9.5
1954 Charles A. Taylor -10.6
1983 Paul Wiggin -12.2
2003 Buddy Teevens -12.5
1958 Jack C. Curtice -13.3
2002 Buddy Teevens -13.8
1960 Jack C. Curtice -14.3
2006 Walt Harris -20.8

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - CTcard - 12-09-2017

A few thoughts on the offense, good bad and trends.

The offenses of 1999 and 2001 were both very good. They were the best two offenses of the Willingham era.
They weren't as good as the best two offenses of the Shaw era (2011 and 2015), but pretty close. By a far wider margin the offenses of the Willingham era (covers 7 years) were not as good as the offenses under Shaw (7 years). I posted a run down of these a couple of months ago, and copy and update that below.

Perhaps more relevant, Willingham tried to run an offense much like the one Shaw has been running, though not so extreme on the slow-down. Particularly in 2001, the offense was quite similar to a Shaw offense - with 2013 probably the closest comparison. Both ran about 60% of the time. The run game was power-oriented, with some stretch plays wide (like the early Gaffney TD in the conference chempionship game). Both focused the pass game on big-play down field throws. In 2001 we averaged 4.35 yds/rush, 8.3 yds/pass att; in 2013 4.97 yds/rush, 8.9 yds/pass attempt.
Probably the main difference was pace of play - 2001 we ran 76.4 plays/gm whereas in 2013 we ran 63.9 plays per game (not including the bowl game for any 2001 stat - bowl games weren't officially included in the stats back then and I'm skipping the effort to track the Seattle Bowl game stats down and add them in).

Over the entire course of the Willingham era, despite trying to have a run-heavy offense, Willingham teams did pass a higher percentage than have Shaw teams so far. But that was as much because of the run game struggling and often being way behind as design.

Willingham*
1995: 381 yds/gm; 5.42 yds/play; 58% run plays; 73.2 plays/gm; 28.7 pts/gm
1996: 330 yds/gm; 4.62 yds/play; 53% run plays; 68.4 plays/gm; 20.6 pts/gm
1997: 363 yds/gm; 5.01 yds/play; 51% run plays; 72.4 plays/gm; 25.1 pts/gm
1998: 395 yds/gm; 5.06 yds/play; 40% run plays; 78.1 plays/gm; 23.7 pts/gm
1999: 450 yds/gm; 6.48 yds/play; 51% run plays; 72.1 plays/gm; 34.8 pts/gm
2000: 376 yds/gm; 4.94 yds/play; 54% run plays; 76.1 plays/gm; 23.7 pts/gm
2001: 443 yds/gm; 5.91 yds/play; 60% run plays; 76.4 plays.gm; 35.2 pts/gm

* yds/gm and pts/gm numbers come from Stanford media guide and include bowls. Other numbers come from sportsreference.com, and do not include bowls per NCAA policy.

Shaw
2011: 489 yds/gm; 6.80 yds/play; 55% run plays; 71.9 plays/gm; 43.2 pts/gm
2012: 374 yds/gm; 5.53 yds/play; 58% run plays; 67.7 plays/gm; 27.9 pts/gm
2013: 406 yds/gm; 6.35 yds/play; 65% run plays; 63.9 plays/gm; 32.3 pts/gm
2014: 389 yds/gm; 5.89 yds/play; 55% run plays; 66.0 plays/gm; 27.2 pts/gm
2015: 436 yds/gm; 6.57 yds/play; 66% run plays; 66.3 plays/gm; 37.8 pts/gm
2016: 367 yds/gm; 5.77 yds/play; 63% run plays; 63.6 plays/gm; 26.3 pts/gm
2017: 390 yds/gm; 6.49 yds/play; 57% run plays; 60.2 plays/gm; 32.0 pts/gm

--------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps of some interest, this years team is on pace to smash the all time Stanford season record for yds per rush attempt. According to the media guide (but with somewhat different numbers than other sources like cfbstats), the top Stanford teams in yds/rush attempt were:
1. 2009 - 5.293
2. 2011 - 5.286
3. 2016 - 5.203
4. 2010 - 5.194
5. 2015 - 5.134
6. 2013 - 4.973
...
12. 2001 - 4.294 (best Willingham year)

Right now Stanford sits at 6.0000 yds/rush (really, exactly 6). That is a brobdingnagian jump over the current record.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Card Fan in OR - 12-09-2017

Holy cow. I dont want to overstate, but the Harbaugh numbers, chronologically, are nothing short of astounding. Thanks for that, Mr. Harbaugh.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - cardcrimson - 12-09-2017

On the negative side, a few jump out:

Denny Green 1989: -6.5
Bill Walsh 1993: -8.9

and Walt Harris 2006 at -20.6.
Man the depths that we had to climb out of.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - teejers1 - 12-09-2017

Many/most of you are letting the W/L record cloud your view of Stanford's offense under Shaw.

The W/L record was what it was due in large part to some of the best defenses ever (which in turn, make the paltry offensive output even more head-scratching).

Many/most of your are not accounting for the roster talent on O when making your proclamations that the Shaw offenses were better than the 2000 and 2001 years.Â I could not disagree more (but I will acknowledge that in 2000 the conference was not particularly strong).

Do you see dominant DL in Stanford's pipeline?Â Neither do I.Â And it has almost always been the case that Stanford's great defenses were anchored by stellar DL's, particularly the recent ones.

So while many/most of you clutch on the "stay the course" mantra, the proverbial chickens will come home to roost . . . unless the O picks up significantly.Â An internal hire with Shaw in control of the headsets and the laminated play card will guarantee that the O will NOT get better.Â Maybe some incremental improvement due to more experienced players, but I don't see any of that making up for the singular, explosive talent that is Bryce Love.

We'll all find out soon enough.Â One year from now we'll have a better idea; two years from now, even better still.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - d4cohn - 12-09-2017

(12-09-2017, 09:34 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:So while many/most of you clutch on the "stay the course" mantra, the proverbial chickens will come home to roost . . . unless the O picks up significantly.Â

Stanford rated 13th in the country in offensive efficiency according to ESPN FPI. The offense can certainly perform better on the road, but it is always tough to perform as efficiently on the road than at home. In 6 home games this year, Stanford scored 58, 34, 49, 30, 17, and 38 points. And that low point total of 17 was more due to Cal playing time-possession, keep-away football rather than any inefficiency on our part.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - stupac2 - 12-09-2017

(12-09-2017, 09:34 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Many/most of you are letting the W/L record cloud your view of Stanford's offense under Shaw.

The W/L record was what it was due in large part to some of the best defenses ever (which in turn, make the paltry offensive output even more head-scratching).

Many/most of your are not accounting for the roster talent on O when making your proclamations that the Shaw offenses were better than the 2000 and 2001 years.Â I could not disagree more (but I will acknowledge that in 2000 the conference was not particularly strong).

Do you see dominant DL in Stanford's pipeline?Â Neither do I.Â And it has almost always been the case that Stanford's great defenses were anchored by stellar DL's, particularly the recent ones.

So while many/most of you clutch on the "stay the course" mantra, the proverbial chickens will come home to roost . . . unless the O picks up significantly.Â An internal hire with Shaw in control of the headsets and the laminated play card will guarantee that the O will NOT get better.Â Maybe some incremental improvement due to more experienced players, but I don't see any of that making up for the singular, explosive talent that is Bryce Love.

We'll all find out soon enough.Â One year from now we'll have a better idea; two years from now, even better still.

I know that it's hard, when presented with incontrovertible evidence that you're wrong, to admit it and change your mind, but you should at least consider that, rather than imprinting on the early aughts offenses as the platonic ideal, the current regime is doing remarkably well. Your continued insistence that, statistics be damned, things used to be better when you were younger, things were definitely better, ignore the trophies and the stats, is just embarrassing. At some point one has to take off the rose colored glasses and face up to reality.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - lex24 - 12-09-2017

You say this every year. I suppose one day you will be rightÂ If memory serves you used the Giants crash as a precursor to things to come. Didnt happen this year.

Those defenses were helped considerably be the ball control offenses. Synergy. Also in 2 of the three RB years the offense wasÂ very efficient 13) and excellent (15). The outlier was 12. Which I still hold as one of the great coaching jobs Ive ever seen.

They have 2 jobs to fill. I suspect Shaw will bring in someone from the outside for the o-line , elavate Gould to OC and bring in someone to work with Tavita in the passing game. Husak would be an interesting but I doubt that. Gould has been an HC and has incredible success with the running game. They need someone to beef up the passing game. As for calling plays - your guess is as good as mine.

(12-09-2017, 09:34 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Many/most of you are letting the W/L record cloud your view of Stanford's offense under Shaw.

The W/L record was what it was due in large part to some of the best defenses ever (which in turn, make the paltry offensive output even more head-scratching).

Many/most of your are not accounting for the roster talent on O when making your proclamations that the Shaw offenses were better than the 2000 and 2001 years.Â I could not disagree more (but I will acknowledge that in 2000 the conference was not particularly strong).

Do you see dominant DL in Stanford's pipeline?Â Neither do I.Â And it has almost always been the case that Stanford's great defenses were anchored by stellar DL's, particularly the recent ones.

So while many/most of you clutch on the "stay the course" mantra, the proverbial chickens will come home to roost . . . unless the O picks up significantly.Â An internal hire with Shaw in control of the headsets and the laminated play card will guarantee that the O will NOT get better.Â Maybe some incremental improvement due to more experienced players, but I don't see any of that making up for the singular, explosive talent that is Bryce Love.

We'll all find out soon enough.Â One year from now we'll have a better idea; two years from now, even better still.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - CowboyIndian - 12-09-2017

(12-09-2017, 09:34 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:We'll all find out soon enough.Â One year from now we'll have a better idea; two years from now, even better still.

And how many years have you been saying this?

A run like we're on is a VERY rare thing for any and all programs...and for Stanford it's positively unique.So, of course, it's going to end sometime and you'll be right. Hope you'll feel better then.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - lex24 - 12-09-2017

Since 11.

(12-09-2017, 11:35 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18293.msg217717#msg217717 date=1512880491]
We'll all find out soon enough.Â One year from now we'll have a better idea; two years from now, even better still.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - TreesAndBirds - 12-10-2017

Bloomgren to coach in Alamo Bowl for Stanford

Class all around, and probably a little extra motivation for our guys to send him out a winner.

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/Bloomgren-will-coordinate-Stanford-offense-in-12418593.php

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - terry - 12-10-2017

(12-09-2017, 08:17 PM)CTcard link Wrote:A few thoughts on the offense, good bad and trends.

The offenses of 1999 and 2001 were both very good. They were the best two offenses of the Willingham era.
They weren't as good as the best two offenses of the Shaw era (2011 and 2015), but pretty close. By a far wider margin the offenses of the Willingham era (covers 7 years) were not as good as the offenses under Shaw (7 years). I posted a run down of these a couple of months ago, and copy and update that below.

Perhaps more relevant, Willingham tried to run an offense much like the one Shaw has been running, though not so extreme on the slow-down. Particularly in 2001, the offense was quite similar to a Shaw offense - with 2013 probably the closest comparison. Both ran about 60% of the time. The run game was power-oriented, with some stretch plays wide (like the early Gaffney TD in the conference chempionship game). Both focused the pass game on big-play down field throws. In 2001 we averaged 4.35 yds/rush, 8.3 yds/pass att; in 2013 4.97 yds/rush, 8.9 yds/pass attempt.
Probably the main difference was pace of play - 2001 we ran 76.4 plays/gm whereas in 2013 we ran 63.9 plays per game (not including the bowl game for any 2001 stat - bowl games weren't officially included in the stats back then and I'm skipping the effort to track the Seattle Bowl game stats down and add them in).

Over the entire course of the Willingham era, despite trying to have a run-heavy offense, Willingham teams did pass a higher percentage than have Shaw teams so far. But that was as much because of the run game struggling and often being way behind as design.

Willingham*
1995: 381 yds/gm; 5.42 yds/play; 58% run plays; 73.2 plays/gm; 28.7 pts/gm
1996: 330 yds/gm; 4.62 yds/play; 53% run plays; 68.4 plays/gm; 20.6 pts/gm
1997: 363 yds/gm; 5.01 yds/play; 51% run plays; 72.4 plays/gm; 25.1 pts/gm
1998: 395 yds/gm; 5.06 yds/play; 40% run plays; 78.1 plays/gm; 23.7 pts/gm
1999: 450 yds/gm; 6.48 yds/play; 51% run plays; 72.1 plays/gm; 34.8 pts/gm
2000: 376 yds/gm; 4.94 yds/play; 54% run plays; 76.1 plays/gm; 23.7 pts/gm
2001: 443 yds/gm; 5.91 yds/play; 60% run plays; 76.4 plays.gm; 35.2 pts/gm

* yds/gm and pts/gm numbers come from Stanford media guide and include bowls. Other numbers come from sportsreference.com, and do not include bowls per NCAA policy.

Shaw
2011: 489 yds/gm; 6.80 yds/play; 55% run plays; 71.9 plays/gm; 43.2 pts/gm
2012: 374 yds/gm; 5.53 yds/play; 58% run plays; 67.7 plays/gm; 27.9 pts/gm
2013: 406 yds/gm; 6.35 yds/play; 65% run plays; 63.9 plays/gm; 32.3 pts/gm
2014: 389 yds/gm; 5.89 yds/play; 55% run plays; 66.0 plays/gm; 27.2 pts/gm
2015: 436 yds/gm; 6.57 yds/play; 66% run plays; 66.3 plays/gm; 37.8 pts/gm
2016: 367 yds/gm; 5.77 yds/play; 63% run plays; 63.6 plays/gm; 26.3 pts/gm
2017: 390 yds/gm; 6.49 yds/play; 57% run plays; 60.2 plays/gm; 32.0 pts/gm

Good analysis, CTcard.

The good old days always look better in hindsight, through the mists of nostalgia. But when you do the analysis, it's pretty clear that the Stanford offenses of 2011 and 2015 were better than any of the Willingham offenses. I would add that the 2010 offense (Harbaugh head coach, Shaw offensive coordinator) also was better than any of the Willingham offenses. And Stanford's 2013 offense, while not as good as Willingham's best, was at least comparable to Willingham's second best.

Re: Bloomgren to Rice? - Hulk01 - 12-10-2017

This pining of our days of offensive glory seems very odd to me.Â Perhaps it goes back to Walsh's big year on his return, when we went 10-3 and ranked in the top ten in the country.Â (It almost has to, because Green's teams did it on defense, Wlllingham's did it by the skin of their teeth, and Teevens and Harris didn't do it at all.)

That was a great Stanford season.Â And it was great to have The Genius back.Â But that talented team, led by the genius, averaged 24.6 points per game.Â That's more than seven points fewer than this year's offense averaged.