Warning:Â many old timers can skip this post as it restates a long-held position.
Stanford football is in serious trouble because the offense isn't just bad . . . it's unwatchable. Nothing kills a fan base more quickly than this - and there isn't much of a fan base here to begin with. If this team goes sub .500 this year - which looks likely right now - then there will be even more wide open swaths of empty seats in the stands in 2018 (the "off year" from a home scheduling standpoint).
The offense has been mediocre to bad for the entirety of this regime, save the Andrew Luck season and the Kevin Hogan 5th Year season. And those teams had overwhelming/superior offensive talent to their defensive opponents. (I'd argue that even in those seasons the team underperformed to talent on offense). It is clear that this Stanford team (and the ones in the foreseeable future) will NOT be superior - let alone overwhelmingly superior - from a talent perspective than their opponents. There is no Andrew Luck or C-Mac on this roster, nor is there an OL that can impose its will on all comers. And because there is no overwhelming talent on O, we see (and will continue to see) what we've been seeing from Stanford's offense of late: mediocrity/unwatchability defined. It's entirely predictable.
Will replacing Chryst with Costello help? Yeah, maybe . . . a bit . . . on the margin.
But THAT is just re-arranging deck chairs (to borrow from BC's recent post).
Until the head guy puts up a mirror in his house and sees where the problem lies and takes appropriate action, then we're all just saying prayers for delivery from things that go bump in the night. For the love of God, please do what great CEOs do and hire a talented OC to run a real college offense and get out of the way!Â
It never, ever should have descended to this point.
P.S. Rocky, ERRR AncientCityIndian, beeg dawg, and other 'leg refugees have been on this train for years. Lex, are you now on it, too? The Cardboard population has always had a higher Shawpology Coefficient, but even that wall is breaking.Â
P.P.S. Again, we're only talking on the O side of the ball, which unfortunately is the most public face of coaching, which has the most fan enjoyment impact. In all other respects, Coach Shaw has been (and is) great for Stanford football.
P.P.P.S. Watched a fair amount of the Denver Broncos in Week 1. Now THAT is an offense that has a defense on its heels. Impressive. [Don't know how they looked in Week 2, but I did see that they rolled the Cowboys, which is itself an impressive feat]. We need an O like that . . . or like the 2000/2001 Stanford offense.
P.P.P.P.S. Add: Bryce Love is an extraordinarily gifted player. Where would "the O" be without him? I can't even bear to think about the game stat line without this guy working his magic.
Stanford football is in serious trouble because the offense isn't just bad . . . it's unwatchable. Nothing kills a fan base more quickly than this - and there isn't much of a fan base here to begin with. If this team goes sub .500 this year - which looks likely right now - then there will be even more wide open swaths of empty seats in the stands in 2018 (the "off year" from a home scheduling standpoint).
The offense has been mediocre to bad for the entirety of this regime, save the Andrew Luck season and the Kevin Hogan 5th Year season. And those teams had overwhelming/superior offensive talent to their defensive opponents. (I'd argue that even in those seasons the team underperformed to talent on offense). It is clear that this Stanford team (and the ones in the foreseeable future) will NOT be superior - let alone overwhelmingly superior - from a talent perspective than their opponents. There is no Andrew Luck or C-Mac on this roster, nor is there an OL that can impose its will on all comers. And because there is no overwhelming talent on O, we see (and will continue to see) what we've been seeing from Stanford's offense of late: mediocrity/unwatchability defined. It's entirely predictable.
Will replacing Chryst with Costello help? Yeah, maybe . . . a bit . . . on the margin.
But THAT is just re-arranging deck chairs (to borrow from BC's recent post).
Until the head guy puts up a mirror in his house and sees where the problem lies and takes appropriate action, then we're all just saying prayers for delivery from things that go bump in the night. For the love of God, please do what great CEOs do and hire a talented OC to run a real college offense and get out of the way!Â
It never, ever should have descended to this point.
P.S. Rocky, ERRR AncientCityIndian, beeg dawg, and other 'leg refugees have been on this train for years. Lex, are you now on it, too? The Cardboard population has always had a higher Shawpology Coefficient, but even that wall is breaking.Â
P.P.S. Again, we're only talking on the O side of the ball, which unfortunately is the most public face of coaching, which has the most fan enjoyment impact. In all other respects, Coach Shaw has been (and is) great for Stanford football.
P.P.P.S. Watched a fair amount of the Denver Broncos in Week 1. Now THAT is an offense that has a defense on its heels. Impressive. [Don't know how they looked in Week 2, but I did see that they rolled the Cowboys, which is itself an impressive feat]. We need an O like that . . . or like the 2000/2001 Stanford offense.
P.P.P.P.S. Add: Bryce Love is an extraordinarily gifted player. Where would "the O" be without him? I can't even bear to think about the game stat line without this guy working his magic.