[teejers1]

On evolution:

Shaw's 2011 team was an offensive juggernaut.  Per BCF Tools, offensive efficiency was 1.38 (3rd in the country).  Points per drive was 3.52 (2nd in the country).  The defense was adequate (25th in defensive efficiency, 33rd in defensive points per drive).  Then Andrew graduated.

Shaw's 2012 and 2013 teams were no longer offensive juggernauts (especially 2012, with Nunes at QB for a bunch of games).  Offensive efficiency was .10 (52nd in the country) in 2012 and 0.52 (30th in the country) in 2013.  Offensive points per drive were 2.06 (73rd in the country) in 2012, and 2.61 (29th in the country) in 2013.  Yet we went to a Rose Bowl both years, mostly on the strength of the defense (1.37 defensive ppd, 14th in the country in 2012 and 1.57 defensive ppd, 18th in the country in 2013).  To me, that is evidence of evolution.

By 2015, the standouts on defense had left and Shaw's 2015 team was back to relying on its offense.  Its offensive efficiency was 1.27 (4th in the country) and defensive efficiency was .15 (52nd); ppd were 3.56 (2nd in the country) for offense; 1.93 (48th) for the defense.  Again, evidence of evolution.

As CTCard has noted many times, the offense that we run now bears little resemblance to the power running, play-action passing offense we ran from 2011 to 2017 (and even 2015 to 2017, though they featured heavy running with McCaffrey and then Love were different than what we did earlier in Shaw's term in 2011 to 2013).  Now, the offense has generally been worse than it was in 2011 and 2015 when it was at its peak, but we are definitely running a very different offense now, so the idea that Shaw has not changed a style of offense that he has been running since 2011 challenges the premise of this thread.

BC

When you have superior players, even a HS offense can be effective, in theory, because (as someone in these parts noted) every play is designed to go for a TD with perfect execution.  Shaw has had effective offenses with superior talent.  The problem is when he doesn't have superior talent.  Which now, unfortunately, is all the time.  [And if the 2021 class is a harbinger, we are in for a brutal year or two down the road].  Shaw's offenses never scheme anybody open; the offenses are never better than the sum of their individual parts.  But hey, pitch it to Love and hope he breaks a long one; throw jump balls to JJAW; get the ball to C-Mac as much as you can.  Those can lead to some good games and results, but the offensive scheme is not sound.  

You can throw stats around till the cows come home and it won't change the fundamental truth about the above.  

P.S.  To be fair, there have been flashes of improvement in this Covid season.  DOGs and burned timeouts to avoid same are down; there has been some running against formation tendency (a little of that); and we've seen an interesting play or two.  [I think the TE screen in the last game for the rumbling TD is one that comes immediately to mind, and perhaps the misfire on the wide open TE down the right sideline - also in the last game].  But again, I think Stanford Fandom has been so bludgeoned down by the plodding nature of Shaw's offenses that we've forgotten what a real, diversified offense looks like and can do.  Instead, the "Lex" argument is that Shaw has shown that the best way for Stanford to win is to have a ball control offense that limits opposing teams' possessions.  My response is that strategy only works when you have superior talent on O with Shaw because otherwise, he cannot impose anything.  But guess what?  A more balanced, diversified O works better with superior talent, too!

I keep reverting to the eye test - trust what your eyes tell you.  And my eyes tell me that Mills is an elite QB; that he has completed numerous passes into incredibly tight windows, including some passes he probably should not have thrown, given the tight coverage.  But how come our guys never get any/much separation?  How come Mills feels compelled to throw into good coverage?  It's because we rarely, if ever, scheme anybody open.  Having 2 guys run curls at the sticks and the third receiver run a streak is rather easy to "figure out" and that makes it tough on Mills and Company.  That's an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

Mini-rant over. I just smh at stats thrown around to rationalize the very mediocre offenses we've seen under Shaw, especially considering the talent on the O side of the ball over the years.

[teejers1]

On evolution:

Shaw's 2011 team was an offensive juggernaut.  Per BCF Tools, offensive efficiency was 1.38 (3rd in the country).  Points per drive was 3.52 (2nd in the country).  The defense was adequate (25th in defensive efficiency, 33rd in defensive points per drive).  Then Andrew graduated.

Shaw's 2012 and 2013 teams were no longer offensive juggernauts (especially 2012, with Nunes at QB for a bunch of games).  Offensive efficiency was .10 (52nd in the country) in 2012 and 0.52 (30th in the country) in 2013.  Offensive points per drive were 2.06 (73rd in the country) in 2012, and 2.61 (29th in the country) in 2013.  Yet we went to a Rose Bowl both years, mostly on the strength of the defense (1.37 defensive ppd, 14th in the country in 2012 and 1.57 defensive ppd, 18th in the country in 2013).  To me, that is evidence of evolution.

By 2015, the standouts on defense had left and Shaw's 2015 team was back to relying on its offense.  Its offensive efficiency was 1.27 (4th in the country) and defensive efficiency was .15 (52nd); ppd were 3.56 (2nd in the country) for offense; 1.93 (48th) for the defense.  Again, evidence of evolution.

As CTCard has noted many times, the offense that we run now bears little resemblance to the power running, play-action passing offense we ran from 2011 to 2017 (and even 2015 to 2017, though they featured heavy running with McCaffrey and then Love were different than what we did earlier in Shaw's term in 2011 to 2013).  Now, the offense has generally been worse than it was in 2011 and 2015 when it was at its peak, but we are definitely running a very different offense now, so the idea that Shaw has not changed a style of offense that he has been running since 2011 challenges the premise of this thread.

BC

When you have superior players, even a HS offense can be effective, in theory, because (as someone in these parts noted) every play is designed to go for a TD with perfect execution.  Shaw has had effective offenses with superior talent.  The problem is when he doesn't have superior talent.  Which now, unfortunately, is all the time.  [And if the 2021 class is a harbinger, we are in for a brutal year or two down the road].  Shaw's offenses never scheme anybody open; the offenses are never better than the sum of their individual parts.  But hey, pitch it to Love and hope he breaks a long one; throw jump balls to JJAW; get the ball to C-Mac as much as you can.  Those can lead to some good games and results, but the offensive scheme is not sound.  

You can throw stats around till the cows come home and it won't change the fundamental truth about the above.  

P.S.  To be fair, there have been flashes of improvement in this Covid season.  DOGs and burned timeouts to avoid same are down; there has been some running against formation tendency (a little of that); and we've seen an interesting play or two.  [I think the TE screen in the last game for the rumbling TD is one that comes immediately to mind, and perhaps the misfire on the wide open TE down the right sideline - also in the last game].  But again, I think Stanford Fandom has been so bludgeoned down by the plodding nature of Shaw's offenses that we've forgotten what a real, diversified offense looks like and can do.  Instead, the "Lex" argument is that Shaw has shown that the best way for Stanford to win is to have a ball control offense that limits opposing teams' possessions.  My response is that strategy only works when you have superior talent on O with Shaw because otherwise, he cannot impose anything.  But guess what?  A more balanced, diversified O works better with superior talent, too!

I keep reverting to the eye test - trust what your eyes tell you.  And my eyes tell me that Mills is an elite QB; that he has completed numerous passes into incredibly tight windows, including some passes he probably should not have thrown, given the tight coverage.  But how come our guys never get any/much separation?  How come Mills feels compelled to throw into good coverage?  It's because we rarely, if ever, scheme anybody open.  Having 2 guys run curls at the sticks and the third receiver run a streak is rather easy to "figure out" and that makes it tough on Mills and Company.  That's an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

Mini-rant over. I just smh at stats thrown around to rationalize the very mediocre offenses we've seen under Shaw, especially considering the talent on the O side of the ball over the years.