[CTcard]

A few comments on Stupac's questions that largely lineup with some of the other comments.

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

We do run a more complicated offense than do most teams, and that includes both formations, personnel packages and actual plays. It may be that the number more plays isn't as high as the number of more formations (as in we may have four times the formations of some other teams, but only twice the plays).

Stanford runs empty backfield, five wide sets and nominally zero receiver, 9 linemenish heavy sets, and just about everything in between. We run a slew of different run plays, and while we don't pass often there are lots of different routes (many that go unexploited some will say). Compare to what Oregon had been running. Basically one formation and about four plays. Most of the variation is all on the same basic play that allows for options depending upon the after-snap reads made by the QB.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

I tend to agree with the sentiment here.

Despite some prominent examples, starting true frosh QBs is rather rare overall. The fact Stanford hasn't done so in six years under Shaw isn't dispositive of anything. Shaw did replace a fourth year player with a RS frosh midseason without turning to a third year highly rated recruit, and the offense got much simpler but better. So, I don't think that Shaw is all that against playing younger players, and while experience is better than not it clearly cannot completely trump ability.

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? Throughout this season we've had a continual chicken-egg discussion about whether the problem was the QBs or the OL, and frankly I think it starts with the OL. 2014 is the best indication of this, Hogan didn't suddenly become 0.3 points/drive worse, but our OL sure did have some turnover. This year we started with a pretty darn effective offense (IIRC the first two games were >3 points/drive, which is great!) and then we got a ton of injuries and started to suck. It's a team game, it all feeds into each other.

Our system asks a lot of both the OL and the QB. It seems to me that the up years (odd years) have been characterized by experience and quality on both, and notable deficits on either have led to the down years.

2014 had some particular differences, along with lack of experience on the OL. One is that the coaches tried to change the offense a lot that year - the most obvious thing is that we were passing the ball a ton more (until the final three games) which was combined with a run game geared more toward attacking the dges. That simply wasn't the strength of anyone on that team.
I also thought Hogan was a little down that year, but it may be projecting thoughts about how hard it would be do deal with the situation of his father.

We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

To some extent we have this board to try to decipher them. So, I certainly think it is interesting to try.

I have come to the conclusion that 1) we do have a more complicated offense than do most teams, 2) that is at least a factor in poor production in years with lesser experience on the OL and/or QB, but that 3) the offensive philosophy we use is helpful in producing very good teams when the OL/QB situation is optimal.

I would like to think it would be possible to simplify at low experience times and put things back in when the experience and ability warrant. To some extent that is what happened when Hogan came in in 2012. But it hasn't worked all the time, certainly not in 2016, and I am not sure just how reasonable it would be to crank up and down the offensive complexity on a whim.

[CTcard]

A few comments on Stupac's questions that largely lineup with some of the other comments.

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

We do run a more complicated offense than do most teams, and that includes both formations, personnel packages and actual plays. It may be that the number more plays isn't as high as the number of more formations (as in we may have four times the formations of some other teams, but only twice the plays).

Stanford runs empty backfield, five wide sets and nominally zero receiver, 9 linemenish heavy sets, and just about everything in between. We run a slew of different run plays, and while we don't pass often there are lots of different routes (many that go unexploited some will say). Compare to what Oregon had been running. Basically one formation and about four plays. Most of the variation is all on the same basic play that allows for options depending upon the after-snap reads made by the QB.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

I tend to agree with the sentiment here.

Despite some prominent examples, starting true frosh QBs is rather rare overall. The fact Stanford hasn't done so in six years under Shaw isn't dispositive of anything. Shaw did replace a fourth year player with a RS frosh midseason without turning to a third year highly rated recruit, and the offense got much simpler but better. So, I don't think that Shaw is all that against playing younger players, and while experience is better than not it clearly cannot completely trump ability.

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? Throughout this season we've had a continual chicken-egg discussion about whether the problem was the QBs or the OL, and frankly I think it starts with the OL. 2014 is the best indication of this, Hogan didn't suddenly become 0.3 points/drive worse, but our OL sure did have some turnover. This year we started with a pretty darn effective offense (IIRC the first two games were >3 points/drive, which is great!) and then we got a ton of injuries and started to suck. It's a team game, it all feeds into each other.

Our system asks a lot of both the OL and the QB. It seems to me that the up years (odd years) have been characterized by experience and quality on both, and notable deficits on either have led to the down years.

2014 had some particular differences, along with lack of experience on the OL. One is that the coaches tried to change the offense a lot that year - the most obvious thing is that we were passing the ball a ton more (until the final three games) which was combined with a run game geared more toward attacking the dges. That simply wasn't the strength of anyone on that team.
I also thought Hogan was a little down that year, but it may be projecting thoughts about how hard it would be do deal with the situation of his father.

We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

To some extent we have this board to try to decipher them. So, I certainly think it is interesting to try.

I have come to the conclusion that 1) we do have a more complicated offense than do most teams, 2) that is at least a factor in poor production in years with lesser experience on the OL and/or QB, but that 3) the offensive philosophy we use is helpful in producing very good teams when the OL/QB situation is optimal.

I would like to think it would be possible to simplify at low experience times and put things back in when the experience and ability warrant. To some extent that is what happened when Hogan came in in 2012. But it hasn't worked all the time, certainly not in 2016, and I am not sure just how reasonable it would be to crank up and down the offensive complexity on a whim.