[teejers1]

BC, we will never agree on our O being a good one this year, as I think I'd take more than half of the conference offenses over Stanford's (based on limited viewing).

I will just end with this:  it's no coincidence that Stanford's best teams under Shaw had prolific offenses:  2011 (excellent) and 2015 (very good) on a YPG metric.  [And again, if the Os under Shaw have been good or effective these last couple years, then why do we run so few plays with such a "good" offense?].

You don't have to answer that question because as noted above, we'll never agree.

P.S.  Lex, as to your question, I want an O that attacks everywhere on the field - both running and passing.  I don't believe a "run Love into a packed box and hope he springs one because he is that good" to be a particularly good strategy.  Again, Detroit Lions.  Obviously, I am in a minority here.

[teejers1]

BC, we will never agree on our O being a good one this year, as I think I'd take more than half of the conference offenses over Stanford's (based on limited viewing).

I will just end with this:  it's no coincidence that Stanford's best teams under Shaw had prolific offenses:  2011 (excellent) and 2015 (very good) on a YPG metric.  [And again, if the Os under Shaw have been good or effective these last couple years, then why do we run so few plays with such a "good" offense?].

You don't have to answer that question because as noted above, we'll never agree.

P.S.  Lex, as to your question, I want an O that attacks everywhere on the field - both running and passing.  I don't believe a "run Love into a packed box and hope he springs one because he is that good" to be a particularly good strategy.  Again, Detroit Lions.  Obviously, I am in a minority here.