[stupac2]

Many/most of you are letting the W/L record cloud your view of Stanford's offense under Shaw.

The W/L record was what it was due in large part to some of the best defenses ever (which in turn, make the paltry offensive output even more head-scratching).

Many/most of your are not accounting for the roster talent on O when making your proclamations that the Shaw offenses were better than the 2000 and 2001 years.  I could not disagree more (but I will acknowledge that in 2000 the conference was not particularly strong).

Do you see dominant DL in Stanford's pipeline?  Neither do I.  And it has almost always been the case that Stanford's great defenses were anchored by stellar DL's, particularly the recent ones.

So while many/most of you clutch on the "stay the course" mantra, the proverbial chickens will come home to roost . . . unless the O picks up significantly.  An internal hire with Shaw in control of the headsets and the laminated play card will guarantee that the O will NOT get better.  Maybe some incremental improvement due to more experienced players, but I don't see any of that making up for the singular, explosive talent that is Bryce Love.

We'll all find out soon enough.  One year from now we'll have a better idea; two years from now, even better still.

I know that it's hard, when presented with incontrovertible evidence that you're wrong, to admit it and change your mind, but you should at least consider that, rather than imprinting on the early aughts offenses as the platonic ideal, the current regime is doing remarkably well. Your continued insistence that, statistics be damned, things used to be better when you were younger, things were definitely better, ignore the trophies and the stats, is just embarrassing. At some point one has to take off the rose colored glasses and face up to reality.

[stupac2]

Many/most of you are letting the W/L record cloud your view of Stanford's offense under Shaw.

The W/L record was what it was due in large part to some of the best defenses ever (which in turn, make the paltry offensive output even more head-scratching).

Many/most of your are not accounting for the roster talent on O when making your proclamations that the Shaw offenses were better than the 2000 and 2001 years.  I could not disagree more (but I will acknowledge that in 2000 the conference was not particularly strong).

Do you see dominant DL in Stanford's pipeline?  Neither do I.  And it has almost always been the case that Stanford's great defenses were anchored by stellar DL's, particularly the recent ones.

So while many/most of you clutch on the "stay the course" mantra, the proverbial chickens will come home to roost . . . unless the O picks up significantly.  An internal hire with Shaw in control of the headsets and the laminated play card will guarantee that the O will NOT get better.  Maybe some incremental improvement due to more experienced players, but I don't see any of that making up for the singular, explosive talent that is Bryce Love.

We'll all find out soon enough.  One year from now we'll have a better idea; two years from now, even better still.

I know that it's hard, when presented with incontrovertible evidence that you're wrong, to admit it and change your mind, but you should at least consider that, rather than imprinting on the early aughts offenses as the platonic ideal, the current regime is doing remarkably well. Your continued insistence that, statistics be damned, things used to be better when you were younger, things were definitely better, ignore the trophies and the stats, is just embarrassing. At some point one has to take off the rose colored glasses and face up to reality.