[Goose]

It seem the choice preference for offensive coordinators is:
1. A run D knows is coming, but they can't stop
2. A run D knows is coming, it may or may not stop, but if they do, will yield large plays for overcommitting (with either run or pass)
3. Keeping D off balance, never knowing what to expect on a play to play basis

Stanford got away with being able to take the first approach for the most part for a long time.  But over the years defenses have made doing it difficult.  Shaw seemed to go to the second choice in 2017, where Love could make such big plays it was worth getting stuffed a few times to have the opportunity for big gains. Shaw did move a lot more to the third preference in 2018.

To me, the third option is where the most effective offenses operate

I can't directly agree with the last statement. The most effective offenses use the first option. If you can reliably overpower your opponent, you do so. You can win a lot of games being one dimensional, and you can win it all that way if you are truly dominant. The problem is that creating this type of dominance is difficult. A few years ago, we could do so. Clearly, we can't reliably do so now, so the third option is the best choice if it is available.
The problem for any offense to make the third option work is that it must be truly "multiple". If you can't run effectively or you can't pass effectively, the defense will just load up against what you can do well. They will take their chances with what you don't do well, expecting that you can't beat them playing to your own weakness. The Sun Bowl was a lot of that. We loaded up against the run. Whether we could have stopped the run even then was another question, but Pitt chose option three and tried to "surprise" us with passes. They couldn't do that well, and so being "multiple" actually hurt them.
In 2018, we almost couldn't run the ball, so we were "multiple" only in what pass routes we could run. That won't get it done. Option three requires that we can run the ball well enough to win.  Against good teams, we couldn't mount an offense that was effective on the ground. That is the difference between 8-4 and 10-2, I think. If we can run the ball well enough that RRR is a viable way to get a first down some of the time, we can be effective with the third option. If not, 8-4 is about what we will get, best case. (I am not counting Bowl Games because they are "outliers" these days. With so many opting out, so many "dud" games,  and with coaches playing for "next year", who wins is often not indicative of anything.)

[Goose]

It seem the choice preference for offensive coordinators is:
1. A run D knows is coming, but they can't stop
2. A run D knows is coming, it may or may not stop, but if they do, will yield large plays for overcommitting (with either run or pass)
3. Keeping D off balance, never knowing what to expect on a play to play basis

Stanford got away with being able to take the first approach for the most part for a long time.  But over the years defenses have made doing it difficult.  Shaw seemed to go to the second choice in 2017, where Love could make such big plays it was worth getting stuffed a few times to have the opportunity for big gains. Shaw did move a lot more to the third preference in 2018.

To me, the third option is where the most effective offenses operate

I can't directly agree with the last statement. The most effective offenses use the first option. If you can reliably overpower your opponent, you do so. You can win a lot of games being one dimensional, and you can win it all that way if you are truly dominant. The problem is that creating this type of dominance is difficult. A few years ago, we could do so. Clearly, we can't reliably do so now, so the third option is the best choice if it is available.
The problem for any offense to make the third option work is that it must be truly "multiple". If you can't run effectively or you can't pass effectively, the defense will just load up against what you can do well. They will take their chances with what you don't do well, expecting that you can't beat them playing to your own weakness. The Sun Bowl was a lot of that. We loaded up against the run. Whether we could have stopped the run even then was another question, but Pitt chose option three and tried to "surprise" us with passes. They couldn't do that well, and so being "multiple" actually hurt them.
In 2018, we almost couldn't run the ball, so we were "multiple" only in what pass routes we could run. That won't get it done. Option three requires that we can run the ball well enough to win.  Against good teams, we couldn't mount an offense that was effective on the ground. That is the difference between 8-4 and 10-2, I think. If we can run the ball well enough that RRR is a viable way to get a first down some of the time, we can be effective with the third option. If not, 8-4 is about what we will get, best case. (I am not counting Bowl Games because they are "outliers" these days. With so many opting out, so many "dud" games,  and with coaches playing for "next year", who wins is often not indicative of anything.)