[washingtonismoney]

I think offensive criticism is just easier for armchair QB's.  There's intrinsically a better understanding of offensive playcalling (e.g. run versus pass, some of the different routes, etc.).  Assessments of the defensive playcalling tend to fall along the lines of "should have blitzed" and "I hate when we only rush three", but rarely even some big things like whether we should be in the base defense or the nickel and whether we are in zone or man-to-man.

BC

Right, though I think there are some factors peculiar to Stanford that predispose fans to focus on the offense:
1) historically, Stanford has been a better offensive team than defensive one. Therefore fans have higher expectations of the offense.
2) Shaw's selection came over Greg Roman, who many people thought at the time was the superior offensive mind. Combine that with rumors that Jim Harbaugh didn't think much of Shaw's offensive acumen, and you train a lot of people to fixate on the offense.

[washingtonismoney]

I think offensive criticism is just easier for armchair QB's.  There's intrinsically a better understanding of offensive playcalling (e.g. run versus pass, some of the different routes, etc.).  Assessments of the defensive playcalling tend to fall along the lines of "should have blitzed" and "I hate when we only rush three", but rarely even some big things like whether we should be in the base defense or the nickel and whether we are in zone or man-to-man.

BC

Right, though I think there are some factors peculiar to Stanford that predispose fans to focus on the offense:
1) historically, Stanford has been a better offensive team than defensive one. Therefore fans have higher expectations of the offense.
2) Shaw's selection came over Greg Roman, who many people thought at the time was the superior offensive mind. Combine that with rumors that Jim Harbaugh didn't think much of Shaw's offensive acumen, and you train a lot of people to fixate on the offense.