[CTcard]

You are also right that the Harbaugh/Shaw run foundation, clock burning offensive strategy is the path to success at Stanford. ...  The "overly" complex schemes are simply formations and plays that have several options based on the things the defense is showing.

Here's a point where I disagree with the predominant talking points of both the Shawpologists and Shawtagonists. There are too many arguments over the value of things Stanford isn't doing anymore. 

Stanford hasn't had a run-foundation offense for years now. The last time we even called more run plays than pass plays in a season was 2017 (Love's big year). Even this year when we feel the run game has had a resurgence, Stanford is 10th in the conference in fraction of running plays. In the past several years Stanford has not only abandoned that offensive identity but abandoned most any identity at all, going for a whatever might work today model. This year, at least, one can see the offense evolving in a way one can imagine could work, but it does not have a strong run foundation.

Similarly, the complexity of Stanford's offense is down. The pass game has suffered from being too simple and the run game and blocking schemes were simplified, though this year there has been some return of pulling guards and fullback leads.
Stanford still runs a fairly large number of different sets and personnel groupings, though less than a few years ago, and does put more presnap reads on the QB than most teams. While some time ago Stanford seemed to be light on younger players contributing, particularly frosh, that seems mostly a thing of the past. A lot of true frosh have played the past couple of years, with a range of contribution levels.

---

P.S.  When watching the game real time yesterday, did anyone else think Stanford had to run the ball on second down on its last possession of the 1H?  It's a medium thing, but clock management was pretty bad there.

I assume you mean Stanford's second to last drive of the half, second and 14 from the Beav 34 with 1:30 left.
At that point they were still playing to get the first down and to have time remaining for a TD.
Stanford took a time out after the sack on first down.
Second down was a short, high percentage completion to Fehoko. It was a hard out, with a high likelihood of ending up out of bounds (which it did). At that point, they were still trying to save clock. Maybe a little reckless, but not crazy if you are trying for a TD.
I'd take more issue with the third down call. There was a reasonable chance of popping a draw for a first down, which would have the extra benefit of allowing for a clock stop on making a first down if successful, but also allowing for running another 40 seconds off the clock if not.

Of course as things turned out leaving the Beavs some clock didn't harm anything, and but for a holding call that extra time would have ended up allowing a bonus TD on the last play of the half.

[CTcard]

You are also right that the Harbaugh/Shaw run foundation, clock burning offensive strategy is the path to success at Stanford. ...  The "overly" complex schemes are simply formations and plays that have several options based on the things the defense is showing.

Here's a point where I disagree with the predominant talking points of both the Shawpologists and Shawtagonists. There are too many arguments over the value of things Stanford isn't doing anymore. 

Stanford hasn't had a run-foundation offense for years now. The last time we even called more run plays than pass plays in a season was 2017 (Love's big year). Even this year when we feel the run game has had a resurgence, Stanford is 10th in the conference in fraction of running plays. In the past several years Stanford has not only abandoned that offensive identity but abandoned most any identity at all, going for a whatever might work today model. This year, at least, one can see the offense evolving in a way one can imagine could work, but it does not have a strong run foundation.

Similarly, the complexity of Stanford's offense is down. The pass game has suffered from being too simple and the run game and blocking schemes were simplified, though this year there has been some return of pulling guards and fullback leads.
Stanford still runs a fairly large number of different sets and personnel groupings, though less than a few years ago, and does put more presnap reads on the QB than most teams. While some time ago Stanford seemed to be light on younger players contributing, particularly frosh, that seems mostly a thing of the past. A lot of true frosh have played the past couple of years, with a range of contribution levels.

---

P.S.  When watching the game real time yesterday, did anyone else think Stanford had to run the ball on second down on its last possession of the 1H?  It's a medium thing, but clock management was pretty bad there.

I assume you mean Stanford's second to last drive of the half, second and 14 from the Beav 34 with 1:30 left.
At that point they were still playing to get the first down and to have time remaining for a TD.
Stanford took a time out after the sack on first down.
Second down was a short, high percentage completion to Fehoko. It was a hard out, with a high likelihood of ending up out of bounds (which it did). At that point, they were still trying to save clock. Maybe a little reckless, but not crazy if you are trying for a TD.
I'd take more issue with the third down call. There was a reasonable chance of popping a draw for a first down, which would have the extra benefit of allowing for a clock stop on making a first down if successful, but also allowing for running another 40 seconds off the clock if not.

Of course as things turned out leaving the Beavs some clock didn't harm anything, and but for a holding call that extra time would have ended up allowing a bonus TD on the last play of the half.