[Austroturf]

And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

I agree, and have posted here many times, that Tavita shouldn't be the Stanford OC, but for reasons that are pretty orthogonal to yours. I think Tavita needs to get an OC job or similar in the NFL or at another P5 school to broaden his resume. If I were Shaw I would push him out of the nest. One advantage Tavita had when he first got the job was that he was more contemporary with the players. As time has passed, that is no longer true. Presumably Tavita knows the Stanford offense backwards and forwards by now. He needs to learn/demonstrate he knows offense in general, and to do that he has to leave.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

I suspect Tavita is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator. He has more coaching experience than Luck, who has no coaching resume at all AFAIK. Of the two, who would you hire as an OC? (real question, not rhetorical)

---

Agree with your point.  Tavita is OC in name only and probably just takes some admin burden off Shaw.

And we know that how? Because "people" are saying it? If we heard players complaining that Tavita is a cipher then I would lend credence to it. I do suspect that Tavita is a "Shaw disciple" and teaches what Shaw wants to be taught. They probably think alike on most subjects. Some may find that to be a problem.

 A full-fledged OC would be great to have.  But Shaw has to hire that individual.

There are different styles to being a head coach. By far the most common case is that the HC is either an offensive expert or a defensive expert and has very significant direct input on one side of the ball and much less on the other side of the ball. How much freedom they give the coordinator on the direct input side of the ball varies. For those of you that think having an "activist" OC would be a good idea at Stanford, I invite you to consider
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/utah-utes/...taylor-is/.
There are head coaches that are CEO types and rely on a great staff to be successful. John Ralston was basically one of those. Shaw is not. Walsh was not. Saban is, at least as far as we can tell. He has vetoed some things, at least according to rumors. He does make lots of the decisions.
For coaches that are directly involved, it is best they have an OC that basically agrees with their philosophy but may bring some nuances to it. If you get a direct conflict in philosophy, it doesn't work well. Evolution is possible, revolution is not.

1) If Tavita is truly the OC, then he should be relieved of his duties purely on the basis of low performance.  Yes, it might add to his resume if he expanded his experience beyond Stanford, and that would be good for his career.  But that is secondary to his low performance.  The offense is currently a mess, and he should not be the OC.  Do you think that he is a good fit in his current job and simply needs to leave to become better rounded? If so, that is a surprising assessment.     

2) As to whether Tavita is really the OC, I admit that we cannot really know this; but Shaw holds the play card menu the entire game, as he did when Bloomgren was OC.  My suspicion is that, during the Bloomgren era, Shaw let his OC have total control of the offensive line and blocking schemes, while maintaining tight control himself of the offensive strategy and play-calling.  Today, he probably allows Tavita to provide inputs, but he ultimately makes the final call.  Tavita is QB/receivers coach with an additional layer of admin duty.  

3) All this leads me to conclude that Shaw is NOT the CEO version of a head coach.  This may or may not be a good model, but the current state of the offense leads me to believe that he needs a more assertive and creative offensive mind in his staff to right the ship.  Tavita will not provide this.  

4) Regarding the Luck vs. Tavita comparison, I have no doubt Tavita is smart.  But I am not sure how great a motivator he is.  This thread is called X-Factor; and I am convinced Luck possesses that element in abundance, which has certainly contributed to his success over the years.  If you put the gun to my head and told me to pick Luck or Pritchard for OC, I would take Luck, simply because he is a proven winner and would probably transfer that to his offensive squad.  Of course, there are no guarantees, but things on the offensive side of the ball are not great anyway, so why not give luck (Luck) a chance?  This is all purely hypothetical, as Luck is certainly not seeking an entry into college coaching.  But imagine if Shaw had an OC who was not at all dependent on the gig and told him point-blank what needed to be done from an offensive perspective.  It might rattle him a bit, and that would be a breath of fresh air.         

[Austroturf]

And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

I agree, and have posted here many times, that Tavita shouldn't be the Stanford OC, but for reasons that are pretty orthogonal to yours. I think Tavita needs to get an OC job or similar in the NFL or at another P5 school to broaden his resume. If I were Shaw I would push him out of the nest. One advantage Tavita had when he first got the job was that he was more contemporary with the players. As time has passed, that is no longer true. Presumably Tavita knows the Stanford offense backwards and forwards by now. He needs to learn/demonstrate he knows offense in general, and to do that he has to leave.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

I suspect Tavita is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator. He has more coaching experience than Luck, who has no coaching resume at all AFAIK. Of the two, who would you hire as an OC? (real question, not rhetorical)

---

Agree with your point.  Tavita is OC in name only and probably just takes some admin burden off Shaw.

And we know that how? Because "people" are saying it? If we heard players complaining that Tavita is a cipher then I would lend credence to it. I do suspect that Tavita is a "Shaw disciple" and teaches what Shaw wants to be taught. They probably think alike on most subjects. Some may find that to be a problem.

 A full-fledged OC would be great to have.  But Shaw has to hire that individual.

There are different styles to being a head coach. By far the most common case is that the HC is either an offensive expert or a defensive expert and has very significant direct input on one side of the ball and much less on the other side of the ball. How much freedom they give the coordinator on the direct input side of the ball varies. For those of you that think having an "activist" OC would be a good idea at Stanford, I invite you to consider
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/utah-utes/...taylor-is/.
There are head coaches that are CEO types and rely on a great staff to be successful. John Ralston was basically one of those. Shaw is not. Walsh was not. Saban is, at least as far as we can tell. He has vetoed some things, at least according to rumors. He does make lots of the decisions.
For coaches that are directly involved, it is best they have an OC that basically agrees with their philosophy but may bring some nuances to it. If you get a direct conflict in philosophy, it doesn't work well. Evolution is possible, revolution is not.

1) If Tavita is truly the OC, then he should be relieved of his duties purely on the basis of low performance.  Yes, it might add to his resume if he expanded his experience beyond Stanford, and that would be good for his career.  But that is secondary to his low performance.  The offense is currently a mess, and he should not be the OC.  Do you think that he is a good fit in his current job and simply needs to leave to become better rounded? If so, that is a surprising assessment.     

2) As to whether Tavita is really the OC, I admit that we cannot really know this; but Shaw holds the play card menu the entire game, as he did when Bloomgren was OC.  My suspicion is that, during the Bloomgren era, Shaw let his OC have total control of the offensive line and blocking schemes, while maintaining tight control himself of the offensive strategy and play-calling.  Today, he probably allows Tavita to provide inputs, but he ultimately makes the final call.  Tavita is QB/receivers coach with an additional layer of admin duty.  

3) All this leads me to conclude that Shaw is NOT the CEO version of a head coach.  This may or may not be a good model, but the current state of the offense leads me to believe that he needs a more assertive and creative offensive mind in his staff to right the ship.  Tavita will not provide this.  

4) Regarding the Luck vs. Tavita comparison, I have no doubt Tavita is smart.  But I am not sure how great a motivator he is.  This thread is called X-Factor; and I am convinced Luck possesses that element in abundance, which has certainly contributed to his success over the years.  If you put the gun to my head and told me to pick Luck or Pritchard for OC, I would take Luck, simply because he is a proven winner and would probably transfer that to his offensive squad.  Of course, there are no guarantees, but things on the offensive side of the ball are not great anyway, so why not give luck (Luck) a chance?  This is all purely hypothetical, as Luck is certainly not seeking an entry into college coaching.  But imagine if Shaw had an OC who was not at all dependent on the gig and told him point-blank what needed to be done from an offensive perspective.  It might rattle him a bit, and that would be a breath of fresh air.