[teejers1]

I mean the buck stops on Shaw’s desk, so I’m not disagreeing with you there. But I think an accurate diagnosis is the first step to improvement, and if Shaw had focused on offensive play-calling, my guess is that we would be no better.

BC

That's certainly possible.  But I focus on the O primarily because that is where the under-performance to talent (imo) has been most stark.  (Stanford has put a bunch of O players in the NFL in the last decade and far fewer on the defensive side).  If you don't have the horses on D, is it reasonable to expect them to perform at high levels?  Secondarily, there is a symbiosis between good Os and good Ds.  The better an offense is, the more pressure it relieves from the D (and vice versa).  I distinctly remember during the Teevens years thinking that the D was WAY better than the final stats would indicate, but because the O was so pathetic the D was on the field all game and almost always got worn down as the game progressed.  Shaw's offenses haven't been pathetic (and some have been good).  But especially when the D talent is not there and that side of the ball is weaker, the O needs to be better than okay or pretty good - they need to play closer to their potential.  

Having said all of the above,  I agree that greatest impact on game day would be if Stanford recruited more impact players on D . . . and didn't lose good players with eligibility, like the 2 DL who bailed on Stanford this past off-season.  Stanford has traditionally had so little margin for error on D (that predates Shaw), that the Cardinal can't afford to lose good players with eligibility.

[teejers1]

I mean the buck stops on Shaw’s desk, so I’m not disagreeing with you there. But I think an accurate diagnosis is the first step to improvement, and if Shaw had focused on offensive play-calling, my guess is that we would be no better.

BC

That's certainly possible.  But I focus on the O primarily because that is where the under-performance to talent (imo) has been most stark.  (Stanford has put a bunch of O players in the NFL in the last decade and far fewer on the defensive side).  If you don't have the horses on D, is it reasonable to expect them to perform at high levels?  Secondarily, there is a symbiosis between good Os and good Ds.  The better an offense is, the more pressure it relieves from the D (and vice versa).  I distinctly remember during the Teevens years thinking that the D was WAY better than the final stats would indicate, but because the O was so pathetic the D was on the field all game and almost always got worn down as the game progressed.  Shaw's offenses haven't been pathetic (and some have been good).  But especially when the D talent is not there and that side of the ball is weaker, the O needs to be better than okay or pretty good - they need to play closer to their potential.  

Having said all of the above,  I agree that greatest impact on game day would be if Stanford recruited more impact players on D . . . and didn't lose good players with eligibility, like the 2 DL who bailed on Stanford this past off-season.  Stanford has traditionally had so little margin for error on D (that predates Shaw), that the Cardinal can't afford to lose good players with eligibility.