[CTcard]

CTC, I respectfully note in response to your "Stanford-tries-to gain-an-edge-with-personnel-groupings-even-if-cost-of-that-is-tipping" that in college, when an offense substitutes players, the refs sit on the ball to ensure the D has time to bring in substitutions, if desired.  Thus, I think the chances of improving odds with personnel groupings are not that great.

That is (more or less) the rule in the NFL as well.

I was only describing what Stanford was doing. I was not commenting on whether it is good or bad.
[Well, I did make a few points about the trade-offs.]

I respectfully submit that every citation to "Chip Kelly's offense" or his ilk (see UCF) is a red herring.  Respectfully, no one is suggesting that Stanford implement that kind of hurry-up, no-huddle, the-play-should-be-called-from-the-sidelines-by-the-coaches-after-they-see-the-defensive-alignment, for a variety of reasons. 

I meant no comment upon anybody else's preferred offense for Stanford. Again, the point was to describe what Stanford was doing. As far as I can tell, on the matter of tempo and player substitutions, the Chip Kelly Oregon offense is about as polar opposite to the Stanford offense as any I know. It is also an offense that is well known to Stanford fans. Thus it seemed a helpful reference point for discussing the nature of different approaches. 

Rather, the more appropriate comparisons would be to pro teams that run more traditional pro offenses.  And while I'm sure there is a less accomplished offense somewhere in NFL land, I'm also pretty sure that there are numerous teams with better approach/strategy/etc., starting with the ones in the Bay Area.

Actually, I think that the more appropriate comparisons for teams running something kind of similar to what Stanford does are college teams with a more power-run, pass downfield/for first downs approach. That was why I included Alabama, U$C, and UW in the comparison for things like run percentage on first down, QB success passing on first down, etc.

-----------
Anyway, don't be so defensive. To the extent that post was on the topic of your bete noir, it was promoting the ideas that a) Stanford does tend to tip its plays by formation, and b) there may be a systematic issue with the first down passing game - ideas that would seem to align with your predilections.

[CTcard]

CTC, I respectfully note in response to your "Stanford-tries-to gain-an-edge-with-personnel-groupings-even-if-cost-of-that-is-tipping" that in college, when an offense substitutes players, the refs sit on the ball to ensure the D has time to bring in substitutions, if desired.  Thus, I think the chances of improving odds with personnel groupings are not that great.

That is (more or less) the rule in the NFL as well.

I was only describing what Stanford was doing. I was not commenting on whether it is good or bad.
[Well, I did make a few points about the trade-offs.]

I respectfully submit that every citation to "Chip Kelly's offense" or his ilk (see UCF) is a red herring.  Respectfully, no one is suggesting that Stanford implement that kind of hurry-up, no-huddle, the-play-should-be-called-from-the-sidelines-by-the-coaches-after-they-see-the-defensive-alignment, for a variety of reasons. 

I meant no comment upon anybody else's preferred offense for Stanford. Again, the point was to describe what Stanford was doing. As far as I can tell, on the matter of tempo and player substitutions, the Chip Kelly Oregon offense is about as polar opposite to the Stanford offense as any I know. It is also an offense that is well known to Stanford fans. Thus it seemed a helpful reference point for discussing the nature of different approaches. 

Rather, the more appropriate comparisons would be to pro teams that run more traditional pro offenses.  And while I'm sure there is a less accomplished offense somewhere in NFL land, I'm also pretty sure that there are numerous teams with better approach/strategy/etc., starting with the ones in the Bay Area.

Actually, I think that the more appropriate comparisons for teams running something kind of similar to what Stanford does are college teams with a more power-run, pass downfield/for first downs approach. That was why I included Alabama, U$C, and UW in the comparison for things like run percentage on first down, QB success passing on first down, etc.

-----------
Anyway, don't be so defensive. To the extent that post was on the topic of your bete noir, it was promoting the ideas that a) Stanford does tend to tip its plays by formation, and b) there may be a systematic issue with the first down passing game - ideas that would seem to align with your predilections.