[Red80]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

Strongly agree with all 3 points and have said so going back to year '12. It was actually Pep Hamilton who introduced Stanford's unique version of Power. Unbalanced Power.

Hamilton was Stanford's OC in '11 when they averaged over 40 points ppg and well over 400 yards pg.

Pep evaluated Stanford's personnel on offense in the Spring of '12 and concluded that the playbook was going to have to be different in order for Stanford to have their best chance to win. They simply lost too much firepower from the previous year, most notably Andrew Luck, who many considered to be the best college QB in the last 25 years. But there were other big losses, including two OL who were high draft picks, and some legitimate speed and quality receivers who became NFL players.

But Stanford punished and confounded opposing defenses with a ball control offense that executed Power extremely well. I used to love those 7+ minute drives that culminated in TDs. I also loved the way Stanford's O kept opposing high-powered offenses such as Oregon, USC, and UCLA on the sidelines for long periods of time, which not only kept Stanford's defense fresh and rested, but also had a discombobulating effect on those offenses which thrived on playing fast and running lots (95-100) of plays by which they wore down opposing defenses. 

I was listening to a Nick Aliotti talk about Stanford last fall. It seemed like I was listening to my echo. Aliotti was Oregon's DC for many years, including '12 and '13, when Stanford had epic wins over the Ducks. He said Stanford WAS different, WAS unique, that they made it a "different game", and that playing them was almost like playing one of the service academies. He implored Shaw to return to the Power O system that had made them so successful. He concluded the interview by saying, "Bring it back, David, bring it back." 

I would love to see it happen, but I have serious doubts that it will.

[Red80]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

Strongly agree with all 3 points and have said so going back to year '12. It was actually Pep Hamilton who introduced Stanford's unique version of Power. Unbalanced Power.

Hamilton was Stanford's OC in '11 when they averaged over 40 points ppg and well over 400 yards pg.

Pep evaluated Stanford's personnel on offense in the Spring of '12 and concluded that the playbook was going to have to be different in order for Stanford to have their best chance to win. They simply lost too much firepower from the previous year, most notably Andrew Luck, who many considered to be the best college QB in the last 25 years. But there were other big losses, including two OL who were high draft picks, and some legitimate speed and quality receivers who became NFL players.

But Stanford punished and confounded opposing defenses with a ball control offense that executed Power extremely well. I used to love those 7+ minute drives that culminated in TDs. I also loved the way Stanford's O kept opposing high-powered offenses such as Oregon, USC, and UCLA on the sidelines for long periods of time, which not only kept Stanford's defense fresh and rested, but also had a discombobulating effect on those offenses which thrived on playing fast and running lots (95-100) of plays by which they wore down opposing defenses. 

I was listening to a Nick Aliotti talk about Stanford last fall. It seemed like I was listening to my echo. Aliotti was Oregon's DC for many years, including '12 and '13, when Stanford had epic wins over the Ducks. He said Stanford WAS different, WAS unique, that they made it a "different game", and that playing them was almost like playing one of the service academies. He implored Shaw to return to the Power O system that had made them so successful. He concluded the interview by saying, "Bring it back, David, bring it back." 

I would love to see it happen, but I have serious doubts that it will.