[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18390.msg218862#msg218862 date=1513885080]
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.
[/quote]

These are all good points, but one is missing. It appears to me as if pace of play has a large effect on perception. No matter what people may understand intellectually, it's hard to get over thinking a higher scoring game has bad defense/good offense and a lower scoring game has good defense/bad offense.
Even more for football than other sports (notably basketball), people just aren't used to thinking in terms of efficiency.

Even harder is to get a proper discussion of degree when the most basic statement of common wisdom is true: the defense has on average been better than the offense under Shaw. The issue, as far as I am concerned, is that the defense hasn't been better than the offense each year and the defense hasn't been as much better as the offense as the commentary often indicates.

As an example, here are Stanford's offense and defense FEI numbers and rankings under Shaw.
The defense on average has been better - but only by 23rd vs 33rd.
The defense has been higher ranked than the offense in only 4 of 7 years.
The defense has been more consistent - with a big worrying drop off this year.

year	  O-FEIÂ	  O-rankÂ	  D-FEIÂ	  D-rankÂ
2011	  1.16	  6	  0.68	13
2012	  0.15	  54	  0.87	10
2013	  0.60	  27	  0.71	11
2014	  0.20	  50	  0.81	6
2015	  1.45	  2	  0.22	45
2016	  -0.21	  79	  0.61	11
2017*	  3.01	  16	  2.17	62

AVG

        -      Â

  33

          -      Â

23

* In 2017 Fremeau clearly changed the detailed formula for FEI offense and FEI defense, though I didn't see any specific discussion of this on the bcf web site. So, I cannot do an average of the FEI number itself, only the ranking.

Data from bcftoys.com

[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18390.msg218862#msg218862 date=1513885080]
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.
[/quote]

These are all good points, but one is missing. It appears to me as if pace of play has a large effect on perception. No matter what people may understand intellectually, it's hard to get over thinking a higher scoring game has bad defense/good offense and a lower scoring game has good defense/bad offense.
Even more for football than other sports (notably basketball), people just aren't used to thinking in terms of efficiency.

Even harder is to get a proper discussion of degree when the most basic statement of common wisdom is true: the defense has on average been better than the offense under Shaw. The issue, as far as I am concerned, is that the defense hasn't been better than the offense each year and the defense hasn't been as much better as the offense as the commentary often indicates.

As an example, here are Stanford's offense and defense FEI numbers and rankings under Shaw.
The defense on average has been better - but only by 23rd vs 33rd.
The defense has been higher ranked than the offense in only 4 of 7 years.
The defense has been more consistent - with a big worrying drop off this year.

year	  O-FEIÂ	  O-rankÂ	  D-FEIÂ	  D-rankÂ
2011	  1.16	  6	  0.68	13
2012	  0.15	  54	  0.87	10
2013	  0.60	  27	  0.71	11
2014	  0.20	  50	  0.81	6
2015	  1.45	  2	  0.22	45
2016	  -0.21	  79	  0.61	11
2017*	  3.01	  16	  2.17	62

AVG

        -      Â

  33

          -      Â

23

* In 2017 Fremeau clearly changed the detailed formula for FEI offense and FEI defense, though I didn't see any specific discussion of this on the bcf web site. So, I cannot do an average of the FEI number itself, only the ranking.

Data from bcftoys.com