[washingtonismoney]

The knock on Willingham was that he was a "lazy" recruiter; that he was content to let Stanford recruit itself while he played golf (though that may have been an unfair knock on Willingham).  The other issue is that while Willingham recruited well at the high end, there was not a lot of depth.  As you point out, recruiting is much more opaque (and was even more opaque back then before recruits were self-publicizing on twitter and other social media), than things such as in-game play calling for which you know more or less what was called and what the circumstances were.

Here's the thing; while playcalling is the most visible thing a coach does (and the results for which can most easily be measured), it is the least important of the things that Stupac listed.  Recruiting, player development, and overall gameplan are all substantially more important.  So, you harping on the playcalling or "the offense" seems to be a bit of a misplaced emphasis.

Since it's back to "recapitulate old arguments," my main beef with playcalling is... the people who are good at it seem to change every year! I've forgotten where we are in the "Lane Kiffin is a good/bad playcaller" cycle, but it's turned a few times for sure.

It's also difficult to assess whether something is a good playcall not merely because it depends on players' execution (the common thing we've brought up over and over again), but because the expected value of a well-executed play can be hard to suss out. A good example, this year, is "running Bryce Love into a heavy box." Lots of complaints about that on Stanford fan boards. I don't even necessarily disagree with those complaints. Still, I think people should be pondering whether such seemingly futile play calls were the necessary price to pay for Love's spectacular runs. Putting your safeties in the box looks great when you stuff the run ... and not so great when you have zero angle against a full-speed Love.

[washingtonismoney]

The knock on Willingham was that he was a "lazy" recruiter; that he was content to let Stanford recruit itself while he played golf (though that may have been an unfair knock on Willingham).  The other issue is that while Willingham recruited well at the high end, there was not a lot of depth.  As you point out, recruiting is much more opaque (and was even more opaque back then before recruits were self-publicizing on twitter and other social media), than things such as in-game play calling for which you know more or less what was called and what the circumstances were.

Here's the thing; while playcalling is the most visible thing a coach does (and the results for which can most easily be measured), it is the least important of the things that Stupac listed.  Recruiting, player development, and overall gameplan are all substantially more important.  So, you harping on the playcalling or "the offense" seems to be a bit of a misplaced emphasis.

Since it's back to "recapitulate old arguments," my main beef with playcalling is... the people who are good at it seem to change every year! I've forgotten where we are in the "Lane Kiffin is a good/bad playcaller" cycle, but it's turned a few times for sure.

It's also difficult to assess whether something is a good playcall not merely because it depends on players' execution (the common thing we've brought up over and over again), but because the expected value of a well-executed play can be hard to suss out. A good example, this year, is "running Bryce Love into a heavy box." Lots of complaints about that on Stanford fan boards. I don't even necessarily disagree with those complaints. Still, I think people should be pondering whether such seemingly futile play calls were the necessary price to pay for Love's spectacular runs. Putting your safeties in the box looks great when you stuff the run ... and not so great when you have zero angle against a full-speed Love.