[81alum]

I think it has been 2 (or is it 3?) years since I called for Bloomgren to move back to just coaching the O-Line, for the replacement of Tavita with someone who can truly develop our quarterbacks, and for the hiring of a more dynamic Offensive Coordinator.  Then the improvement of Hogan and the success of CMac made it all unnecessary and I felt foolish.

I am going to wait two more games before making up my own mind about calling for such changes again (not that what I call for makes the slightest difference!).  Beating UCLA and ASU is vital to our chance of having even a sub-par but winning season.  We win those two and get some problems ironed out in the meantime, and then Utah and Oregon begin to look like we might have a chance.  We lose one of those two and it will probably be too late to salvage anything at all from the season.

As for watchability--we are a long way from descending to the Walt Harris era on offense.  The truth is that we were ahead in our latest game until the last few minutes, and that there were a few electric plays from Love along the way.  Not good enough by a long shot--but vastly more entertaining than the dull, grinding, lengthy drubbings that we received in that earlier circle of hell.

When The Shaw/Bloomgren system is working--which is utterly dependent on the O-Line--it is very satisfying to watch.  Making your opponent helpless up front and toying with them with play action passes can be wonderfully fun for a spectator.  Toby was fun to watch even though he was radically different from Love.  So when the system is successful, watchability is not a problem.  The observation is correct, however, that when the system is NOT successful that watchability is very poor.  A gunslinging program that loses 60-40 is certainly more "watchable" than what we have right now.

The problem is not so much watchability but whether this particular power oriented system is well suited to our recruiting base.  I have felt for years that this system is too easy to gum up and stop when DCs know what they are doing--like Michigan State--unless we have an overwhelming physical advantage.  I think that Shaw has really NOT fully embraced the philosophy of his mentor Walsh, who stressed running when a pass was expected and passing when a run was expected, and being sufficiently unpredictable as to force the defense to be prepared for anything on any play.  The Walsh philosophy is better suited for an offense that is not physically dominant--but it benefits of course if we are physically dominant. 

So, I'll give it a little more time before coming to any conclusion in my own mind.  My concerns are longstanding but Shaw has had a way of disarming them.  I'll see if he can do it again.

[81alum]

I think it has been 2 (or is it 3?) years since I called for Bloomgren to move back to just coaching the O-Line, for the replacement of Tavita with someone who can truly develop our quarterbacks, and for the hiring of a more dynamic Offensive Coordinator.  Then the improvement of Hogan and the success of CMac made it all unnecessary and I felt foolish.

I am going to wait two more games before making up my own mind about calling for such changes again (not that what I call for makes the slightest difference!).  Beating UCLA and ASU is vital to our chance of having even a sub-par but winning season.  We win those two and get some problems ironed out in the meantime, and then Utah and Oregon begin to look like we might have a chance.  We lose one of those two and it will probably be too late to salvage anything at all from the season.

As for watchability--we are a long way from descending to the Walt Harris era on offense.  The truth is that we were ahead in our latest game until the last few minutes, and that there were a few electric plays from Love along the way.  Not good enough by a long shot--but vastly more entertaining than the dull, grinding, lengthy drubbings that we received in that earlier circle of hell.

When The Shaw/Bloomgren system is working--which is utterly dependent on the O-Line--it is very satisfying to watch.  Making your opponent helpless up front and toying with them with play action passes can be wonderfully fun for a spectator.  Toby was fun to watch even though he was radically different from Love.  So when the system is successful, watchability is not a problem.  The observation is correct, however, that when the system is NOT successful that watchability is very poor.  A gunslinging program that loses 60-40 is certainly more "watchable" than what we have right now.

The problem is not so much watchability but whether this particular power oriented system is well suited to our recruiting base.  I have felt for years that this system is too easy to gum up and stop when DCs know what they are doing--like Michigan State--unless we have an overwhelming physical advantage.  I think that Shaw has really NOT fully embraced the philosophy of his mentor Walsh, who stressed running when a pass was expected and passing when a run was expected, and being sufficiently unpredictable as to force the defense to be prepared for anything on any play.  The Walsh philosophy is better suited for an offense that is not physically dominant--but it benefits of course if we are physically dominant. 

So, I'll give it a little more time before coming to any conclusion in my own mind.  My concerns are longstanding but Shaw has had a way of disarming them.  I'll see if he can do it again.