[stupac2]

This is the central paradox for me and I don't have an answer - how can Stanford have such a complicated playbook that it can take years (literally) to master and yet run an offense that opposing coaches say is easy to prepare for?  Even with Chryst at QB earlier in the season, SDSU knew exactly what was coming.  WSU too.  U.SC looked ready for everything Stanford did.

My understanding is the reason that happens is that you only do certain things with certain personnel/looks. The best offenses (in the NFL at least) often look complicated but are actually simple because they run the same few plays out of a bunch of looks with minor tweaks. Player options help too, though I think most people can spot them (they're just hard to defend if run correctly).

Also, to some extent plays can differ in terms of whether predictability matters. We love the story about the "what's your deal?" game where the USC guy tapped out because they knew exactly what was coming but couldn't stop it. It's possible we're over-relying on that a bit.

But, again, this offense isn't bad. We're ranked #24 by FEI and #28 by S&P+. That's not a bad offense! It's not elite, but it's pretty good. I think that Stanford fans have a weird neurosis where they know, just know, that the offense is bad. So games like our last two weigh very heavily on their minds, while completely steamrolling a good Oregon defenses washes away like water off a duck. It's strange.

[stupac2]

This is the central paradox for me and I don't have an answer - how can Stanford have such a complicated playbook that it can take years (literally) to master and yet run an offense that opposing coaches say is easy to prepare for?  Even with Chryst at QB earlier in the season, SDSU knew exactly what was coming.  WSU too.  U.SC looked ready for everything Stanford did.

My understanding is the reason that happens is that you only do certain things with certain personnel/looks. The best offenses (in the NFL at least) often look complicated but are actually simple because they run the same few plays out of a bunch of looks with minor tweaks. Player options help too, though I think most people can spot them (they're just hard to defend if run correctly).

Also, to some extent plays can differ in terms of whether predictability matters. We love the story about the "what's your deal?" game where the USC guy tapped out because they knew exactly what was coming but couldn't stop it. It's possible we're over-relying on that a bit.

But, again, this offense isn't bad. We're ranked #24 by FEI and #28 by S&P+. That's not a bad offense! It's not elite, but it's pretty good. I think that Stanford fans have a weird neurosis where they know, just know, that the offense is bad. So games like our last two weigh very heavily on their minds, while completely steamrolling a good Oregon defenses washes away like water off a duck. It's strange.

[Goose]

And if they are focusing on the basics for Costello, why does Stanford still run out the play clock trying to call a play and snap the ball?

I don't know enough about football to say that the offensive schema needs an overhaul. But it sure does appear to me that the coaches are not giving the players the best chance to be successful, especially against good, well-coached defenses.

I am mystified by this as well. It seems so "un-Shaw". Normally, when you call a given play, you pretty much know the range of outcomes to expect. You should be looking ahead to the next call when a given play is run. There are only relatively few plays on that big playsheet that make sense in any game situation. Shaw should have those memorized. This seems like basic preparation. Also, in lots of cases, it doesn't really much matter which one you call. They are all similar, as dictated by the game plan and game situation. So why the delay? OK, on 1st and 10, there are lots of options. After that, not so many. 2nd and 8 should mostly be automatic. OK, maybe you go "out of the box" every so often, but that can be premeditated too, like "next second and 8 we run an end-around". When that happens, you do it. No need for so much time to elapse. Maybe on 3rd and short, you need to know how short, but in that case you already are down to very few choices.

[Goose]

And if they are focusing on the basics for Costello, why does Stanford still run out the play clock trying to call a play and snap the ball?

I don't know enough about football to say that the offensive schema needs an overhaul. But it sure does appear to me that the coaches are not giving the players the best chance to be successful, especially against good, well-coached defenses.

I am mystified by this as well. It seems so "un-Shaw". Normally, when you call a given play, you pretty much know the range of outcomes to expect. You should be looking ahead to the next call when a given play is run. There are only relatively few plays on that big playsheet that make sense in any game situation. Shaw should have those memorized. This seems like basic preparation. Also, in lots of cases, it doesn't really much matter which one you call. They are all similar, as dictated by the game plan and game situation. So why the delay? OK, on 1st and 10, there are lots of options. After that, not so many. 2nd and 8 should mostly be automatic. OK, maybe you go "out of the box" every so often, but that can be premeditated too, like "next second and 8 we run an end-around". When that happens, you do it. No need for so much time to elapse. Maybe on 3rd and short, you need to know how short, but in that case you already are down to very few choices.