[Goose]

On the other hand, the offense was bad this year. And it was probably worse than the other bad years (even years).

Fully agree. I think it was even worse than it appears because CM and BLove made up for a lot of problems elsewhere.

Thinking about why that was, and what should be done about it, are the kind of things that keep message boards alive.

I am fairly convinced that the key common feature in the up and down nature of Stanford offenses over the past several years is that they ask a lot of the QB and OL, both in experience and performance. We have had a strange series lately where the QB and the OL have been at their peak in odd years, off in even years.

I absolutely agree.

That leads me to believe that at least in the off-years, there is too much complexity in the offense for our own good. I think it ought to be possible to simplify when the experience is low and build it back up when higher

We absolutely do simplify the offense when we have a new quarterback. We have no choice. The inexperienced guy won't be able to make all the reads he needs to. The problem is, when we simplify the offense, all other things being equal, it doesn't work as well. If you have an Andrew Luck, this effect is mitigated by the QB being so physically talented he can make a non-optimal play work pretty well. If the QB isn't that talented, not so much. Now, if we ran a spread and the coaches made most of the reads and we only had 15 basic plays in the playbook, experience would matter less. But then physical talent matters much more. Even in these offenses, most quarterbacks take a while before the game "slows down" for them. That is also why most rookie quarterbacks don't do so well in the pros. Same learning curve. You only learn to read defenses by reading defenses.  Nobody so far has beat that system. If we could, the NFL would pay a fortune for it.

- and if that is too delicate a balance I would probably sacrifice a little of the highs for better lows.

I don't think you can. Experience matters. Also, would you prefer (12-1), (8,-5) or (10-3), (10-3)? YMMV, but I prefer a conference championship every other year. I dare not write (14-0) because it would offend the woofing gods.

I fear the step-up from 2016 to 2017 might be tougher than what we had from 2014 to 2015.
First of all, we might have a new QB again.

Absolutely correct. I fear this as well.

Secondly, the OL issues in 2014 appeared to be strongly a function of cohesion rather than guys getting beat one on one. This year, there was a mix but more one one one troubles. That would seem harder to fix.

I agree. This idea doesn't seem to be getting much traction on this board, but I think we do have an issue here.

Thirdly, the offense's struggles in 2014 seemed to be more specifically screw-ups at key moments. We had some of those this year as well (as reflected in the red zone struggles) but also a more general inability to move the ball. In that sense, this was more like 2012.

I mostly agree. However, I think most of our red zone problems come back to the fact we don't win the one-on-one battles, and that in the red zone, there are fewer alternatives to brute force.

[Goose]

On the other hand, the offense was bad this year. And it was probably worse than the other bad years (even years).

Fully agree. I think it was even worse than it appears because CM and BLove made up for a lot of problems elsewhere.

Thinking about why that was, and what should be done about it, are the kind of things that keep message boards alive.

I am fairly convinced that the key common feature in the up and down nature of Stanford offenses over the past several years is that they ask a lot of the QB and OL, both in experience and performance. We have had a strange series lately where the QB and the OL have been at their peak in odd years, off in even years.

I absolutely agree.

That leads me to believe that at least in the off-years, there is too much complexity in the offense for our own good. I think it ought to be possible to simplify when the experience is low and build it back up when higher

We absolutely do simplify the offense when we have a new quarterback. We have no choice. The inexperienced guy won't be able to make all the reads he needs to. The problem is, when we simplify the offense, all other things being equal, it doesn't work as well. If you have an Andrew Luck, this effect is mitigated by the QB being so physically talented he can make a non-optimal play work pretty well. If the QB isn't that talented, not so much. Now, if we ran a spread and the coaches made most of the reads and we only had 15 basic plays in the playbook, experience would matter less. But then physical talent matters much more. Even in these offenses, most quarterbacks take a while before the game "slows down" for them. That is also why most rookie quarterbacks don't do so well in the pros. Same learning curve. You only learn to read defenses by reading defenses.  Nobody so far has beat that system. If we could, the NFL would pay a fortune for it.

- and if that is too delicate a balance I would probably sacrifice a little of the highs for better lows.

I don't think you can. Experience matters. Also, would you prefer (12-1), (8,-5) or (10-3), (10-3)? YMMV, but I prefer a conference championship every other year. I dare not write (14-0) because it would offend the woofing gods.

I fear the step-up from 2016 to 2017 might be tougher than what we had from 2014 to 2015.
First of all, we might have a new QB again.

Absolutely correct. I fear this as well.

Secondly, the OL issues in 2014 appeared to be strongly a function of cohesion rather than guys getting beat one on one. This year, there was a mix but more one one one troubles. That would seem harder to fix.

I agree. This idea doesn't seem to be getting much traction on this board, but I think we do have an issue here.

Thirdly, the offense's struggles in 2014 seemed to be more specifically screw-ups at key moments. We had some of those this year as well (as reflected in the red zone struggles) but also a more general inability to move the ball. In that sense, this was more like 2012.

I mostly agree. However, I think most of our red zone problems come back to the fact we don't win the one-on-one battles, and that in the red zone, there are fewer alternatives to brute force.