[lex24]

Let me respond to one comment - that running Love between the tackles was not the most prudent way to get him in space. Love averaged almost 9 yards a carry.  He set a Stanford rushing record. He had more 50 yard runs than almost every FBS team. And almost all was between the tackles.  Pretty successful. 

They did run wide some, albeit not a lot. But I don’t think when they did they were particularly successfull.  Which makes me wonder about the o-lines effectiveness pulling and blocking in space. The latter being one possible reason that the screen game was abysmal.

So I think running Love between the tackles WAS the best way this year to get him in space. Because if he got to the second level, a big play was usually coming. And the numbers are hard to argue with.

Having said that, improving the outside running game and improving the screen game (bubble and conventional) should be on the agenda come spring. I think whoever coaches the oline should have that on his plate.

I respectfully have no clue what you're referring to on being "defensive."  FTR, the Chip Kelly reference was not even in response to your post, but in response to Hulk saying Chip's offense is predictable but no one complains about that (or they might if it didn't succeed, as happened in NFL).  My respectful suggestion is that such a statement is a red herring because no one is talking about that.

I respectfully suggest that what Nick Saban does at Alabama is also a red herring, and certainly not something Stanford should aspire to . . . unless and until Stanford fills its two-deep with the number of 5*s Saban does at 'Bama.  But in the hypothetical world of Stanford playing 'Bama, how do you think the Cardinal would fare with Shaw's signature "this is what we do, try and stop us" approach?  Yeah, I don't think very well, either.  But that's okay - Swinney and Clemson couldn't do jack, either . . . but at least they tried.

Lastly, BC, I respectfully submit that I have not called for more pass plays on first down, per se (though I do think running the ball 60+% of the time is generally a bad idea - I'd go into more detail, but don't want to offend CI, Hulk, and others, who have heard the commentary numerous times).  So I'll just say this:  I respectfully have suggested that running Love between the tackles via pitchout or straight handoff is not the most prudent way to get the most dynamic player room in space.  And contrary to others, I found Stanford ranked 105 out of 130 teams on "stuff rate" to be rather alarming, and entirely consistent with what our eyes told us about repeatedly giving the ball to the RB between the tackles.

[lex24]

Let me respond to one comment - that running Love between the tackles was not the most prudent way to get him in space. Love averaged almost 9 yards a carry.  He set a Stanford rushing record. He had more 50 yard runs than almost every FBS team. And almost all was between the tackles.  Pretty successful. 

They did run wide some, albeit not a lot. But I don’t think when they did they were particularly successfull.  Which makes me wonder about the o-lines effectiveness pulling and blocking in space. The latter being one possible reason that the screen game was abysmal.

So I think running Love between the tackles WAS the best way this year to get him in space. Because if he got to the second level, a big play was usually coming. And the numbers are hard to argue with.

Having said that, improving the outside running game and improving the screen game (bubble and conventional) should be on the agenda come spring. I think whoever coaches the oline should have that on his plate.

I respectfully have no clue what you're referring to on being "defensive."  FTR, the Chip Kelly reference was not even in response to your post, but in response to Hulk saying Chip's offense is predictable but no one complains about that (or they might if it didn't succeed, as happened in NFL).  My respectful suggestion is that such a statement is a red herring because no one is talking about that.

I respectfully suggest that what Nick Saban does at Alabama is also a red herring, and certainly not something Stanford should aspire to . . . unless and until Stanford fills its two-deep with the number of 5*s Saban does at 'Bama.  But in the hypothetical world of Stanford playing 'Bama, how do you think the Cardinal would fare with Shaw's signature "this is what we do, try and stop us" approach?  Yeah, I don't think very well, either.  But that's okay - Swinney and Clemson couldn't do jack, either . . . but at least they tried.

Lastly, BC, I respectfully submit that I have not called for more pass plays on first down, per se (though I do think running the ball 60+% of the time is generally a bad idea - I'd go into more detail, but don't want to offend CI, Hulk, and others, who have heard the commentary numerous times).  So I'll just say this:  I respectfully have suggested that running Love between the tackles via pitchout or straight handoff is not the most prudent way to get the most dynamic player room in space.  And contrary to others, I found Stanford ranked 105 out of 130 teams on "stuff rate" to be rather alarming, and entirely consistent with what our eyes told us about repeatedly giving the ball to the RB between the tackles.