[stupac2]

Being at odds with Shtup on another subject only gives me greater comfort/confidence in my position.

Some of the all time worst offensive performances ever under this regime - and probably the several of the worst, if you account for roster talent and rules changes - and you all act like this is the greatest O this side of New England.

Whatever.  I'm tired of repeating the same old, same old.  I hope you're all right and that we remain "efficient" and lose 3-4 games every year (2 of which we shouldn't).

First, no one is arguing that the current regime's offensive success is the best ever. What's being argued is that it's the best that Stanford has ever seen. And nothing you've said has countered that at all.

Second, since Shaw has take over we've lost 3 or more games less than half the time. Very few coaches can say that.

But, really, the question here is what is the alternative? What do you actually want the offense to do? You've said that you liked the offense during Willingham's Rose Bowl year, but not what that offense did that this offense doesn't. This discussion is about an OC, what do you want an OC to do?

The argument that the team loses games that they shouldn't is ridiculous. Every team does. Shit happens. But, again, what do you want to do? Clean house every time we have an off game? What is the actual remedy here? It's not like I like sitting through games like Colorado last year or Oregon State this year, but why myopically focus on those? I really, really like sitting through Rose Bowls and Pac-12 CGs, of which we've had a historic number under Shaw.

So I just don't understand what you're trying to say here. I'm with BC, it's either uninformed nostalgia or trolling, and either way I expect more from a regular poster on this board.

[stupac2]

Being at odds with Shtup on another subject only gives me greater comfort/confidence in my position.

Some of the all time worst offensive performances ever under this regime - and probably the several of the worst, if you account for roster talent and rules changes - and you all act like this is the greatest O this side of New England.

Whatever.  I'm tired of repeating the same old, same old.  I hope you're all right and that we remain "efficient" and lose 3-4 games every year (2 of which we shouldn't).

First, no one is arguing that the current regime's offensive success is the best ever. What's being argued is that it's the best that Stanford has ever seen. And nothing you've said has countered that at all.

Second, since Shaw has take over we've lost 3 or more games less than half the time. Very few coaches can say that.

But, really, the question here is what is the alternative? What do you actually want the offense to do? You've said that you liked the offense during Willingham's Rose Bowl year, but not what that offense did that this offense doesn't. This discussion is about an OC, what do you want an OC to do?

The argument that the team loses games that they shouldn't is ridiculous. Every team does. Shit happens. But, again, what do you want to do? Clean house every time we have an off game? What is the actual remedy here? It's not like I like sitting through games like Colorado last year or Oregon State this year, but why myopically focus on those? I really, really like sitting through Rose Bowls and Pac-12 CGs, of which we've had a historic number under Shaw.

So I just don't understand what you're trying to say here. I'm with BC, it's either uninformed nostalgia or trolling, and either way I expect more from a regular poster on this board.