[washingtonismoney]

I'm not sure what this all means or even if there is any point to it, but since your example year of 2011 our average win differential has been more than cut in half (better Pac 12 ?)

What does blame the offense mean ?  Blame Hogan or Montgomery ?  I think we have great talent on the offense; if it is not playing to it's potential the responsibility is on the coach(es).

I definitely think better Pac-12 plays a brobdingnagian role. IIRC our 2011 SOS was in the 40s, our 2012 schedule was in the 20s, and our 2013 schedule was, like, 9th or something according to Sagarin. So you're probably going to see some erosion of point differential no matter what.

I blame the offensive production -- is that clearer? I agree we have some excellent talent -- though not overwhelming -- and I think the coaching has not taken maximum advantage. But I don't blame playcalling, which I typically think is overrated. Instead, I think there are a couple offensive assumptions that handicap us:

1) in general, we don't run Hogan a lot against teams we expect we should beat. That's understandable -- we don't want to injure him and Crower and Lloyd appear (based on very limited sample sizes, to be fair) to be less than reliable. Still, it deprives him of reliable sources of positive yardage, which is very helpful for a guy who appears to be erratic, particularly on the road.

2) personnel-wise, we seem addicted to running in a thousand different personnel packages. Again, there's some logic here -- we have a lot of skill players with potential, and such personnel packages can disorient the defense. But I think it's carried too far, with two implications. First, a lot of players seem to have been written into a specific niche without much opportunity to do other stuff. Kelsey Young is the Fly Sweep Guy. Michael Rector is the Go Route Guy. Ryan Hewitt is Blocking Dude (but not, oddly Spider 2 Y Banana Dude or Versatile Swiss Army Knife Dude). That defeats the purpose of having so many personnel packages, in that players are easily identifiable and stopped. Additionally, it deprives players of showing their other skills. Rector got his first two intermediate catches of his career last night -- and surprise surprise, turns out he's good at it!

The other problem is that we play too  many players. I don't understand why a few of the offensive players get as many snaps as they do. And that interrelates with the other problem -- we could have a more limited, but simultaneously more varied offense if we streamlined and focused the offense on the players who are actually good.

(There are some other talent/performance issues -- Hogan's the biggest Jekyll/Hyde in the country; the Stanford offensive line mysteriously struggles on the road; no tight ends, etc.)

[washingtonismoney]

I'm not sure what this all means or even if there is any point to it, but since your example year of 2011 our average win differential has been more than cut in half (better Pac 12 ?)

What does blame the offense mean ?  Blame Hogan or Montgomery ?  I think we have great talent on the offense; if it is not playing to it's potential the responsibility is on the coach(es).

I definitely think better Pac-12 plays a brobdingnagian role. IIRC our 2011 SOS was in the 40s, our 2012 schedule was in the 20s, and our 2013 schedule was, like, 9th or something according to Sagarin. So you're probably going to see some erosion of point differential no matter what.

I blame the offensive production -- is that clearer? I agree we have some excellent talent -- though not overwhelming -- and I think the coaching has not taken maximum advantage. But I don't blame playcalling, which I typically think is overrated. Instead, I think there are a couple offensive assumptions that handicap us:

1) in general, we don't run Hogan a lot against teams we expect we should beat. That's understandable -- we don't want to injure him and Crower and Lloyd appear (based on very limited sample sizes, to be fair) to be less than reliable. Still, it deprives him of reliable sources of positive yardage, which is very helpful for a guy who appears to be erratic, particularly on the road.

2) personnel-wise, we seem addicted to running in a thousand different personnel packages. Again, there's some logic here -- we have a lot of skill players with potential, and such personnel packages can disorient the defense. But I think it's carried too far, with two implications. First, a lot of players seem to have been written into a specific niche without much opportunity to do other stuff. Kelsey Young is the Fly Sweep Guy. Michael Rector is the Go Route Guy. Ryan Hewitt is Blocking Dude (but not, oddly Spider 2 Y Banana Dude or Versatile Swiss Army Knife Dude). That defeats the purpose of having so many personnel packages, in that players are easily identifiable and stopped. Additionally, it deprives players of showing their other skills. Rector got his first two intermediate catches of his career last night -- and surprise surprise, turns out he's good at it!

The other problem is that we play too  many players. I don't understand why a few of the offensive players get as many snaps as they do. And that interrelates with the other problem -- we could have a more limited, but simultaneously more varied offense if we streamlined and focused the offense on the players who are actually good.

(There are some other talent/performance issues -- Hogan's the biggest Jekyll/Hyde in the country; the Stanford offensive line mysteriously struggles on the road; no tight ends, etc.)