[OutsiderFan]

Five years ago, nobody, except maybe Harbaugh and Shaw, ever would have thought it possible for Stanford to have four consecutive 11 win seasons, play in four and win two BCS bowl games. 

My question is what is Stanford Football's ceiling? Can the program raise its performance one more notch and win 13 games in a season, which is likely what it will take to get to the CFB Final Four?

It seems to me based on the consistency of the defense since 2010, and especially it's improvement over the last two seasons, the answer is yes.  And it seems that with an elite QB, the answer is yes, based on 2010 and 2011.  But marrying dominant defense with great offense in the same season is really tough.  Stanford isn't going to be able to have the great secondary talent in enough numbers to be a program like Michigan State, who can rise up and field a defense dominant enough against the run and pass to win 13 games with pretty vanilla offense, altough it should be noted, even MSU had to have a dynamic passing game to do it (passed very well against Ohio St. & Stanford to win).  Even as far as Stanford goes, it won 11 regular season games only with a productive passing attack.  Moreover, in every BCS bowl, the team that has passed more effectively has won.  Not going to change in the NCG either.  The evidence screams Stanford has to get more from its offense, and in particular, it has to have the ability to throw for 250+ yards when the run isn't working, to win 13 games.

Look at Stanford's last five losses:

At UW - by 7 without an offensive TD
At N.D. - by 7 without an offensive TD
At Utah - scored 21 but only allowed 27
At U.S.C. - scored 17 but only allowed 20
MSU - scored 20 but only allowed 24

To me, it all points toward a need to develop an offensive system that is more dynamic and unpredictable.  Before the Rose Bowl, MSU DC Pat Narduzzi basically said we know what they are going to do and we like it because it doesn't threaten the whole field.  I just assumed Stanford's coaches wouldn't be crazy enough to do exactly what he expected and would find a way to consistently threaten more than a 10 yard line on the field.  They didn't.  Then I heard Bob Stoops (former DC) interviewed talking about OU's win against Alabama.  He said "the days of being able to line up and play in a phone booth are over, and I knew that in 1999 when I took this job, so I hired Mike Leach." And this is coming from a guy who can consistently land 4 and 5 star recruits to play any way he wants.

I'm not going to say there is no place for Stanford's run-first, physical style, but between consistently threatening a larger area of the field, using more play action passing, changing the QB's release points, more ball faking, motions, "backwards play calling," changing tempo in games, and more sophisticated passing concepts, there is a lot of room for Stanford to improve on offense, simply by having a more dynamic system underpinning the physical, run-first mentality.  Even MSU proved the effectiveness of running with tempo in the Rose Bowl in a pro set using a FB.

The biggest problem is the west coast offense verbiage.  It takes a long time to get plays called using that style, and that makes it near impossible to change tempo.  It also takes a long time to learn, which limits how soon the most gifted players can play. 

But the greater question is how much will David Shaw be willing to evolve and go out of his comfort zone to improve?  How badly does he want to win vs. how comfortable does he want to be?  To me, the single biggest thing Shaw could do to demonstrate his desire to win is bring in a new offensive coordinator with some ideas for evolving Stanford's offense.  Bloomgren is an OL coach and Pritchard has never known anything but what Stanford does, so it's hard to imagine either one being capable of catalyzing some real creative evolution in Stanford's offense.

Given there is no power back on the roster now, and the strength of the 2014 offense will be the WRs, and Barry Sanders (and maybe even Christian McCaffrey) in space, it seems now is the time to bring in a new offensive coordinator in an effort to make Stanford's offense more difficult to defend.  To me, any big game in which you are held to 11 first downs and 13 offensive points is prima facie evidence that changes are needed to get Stanford Football to the next level.  To be sure, changing might not do it, but not changing seems more than likely to guarantee similar results in the future, and would be a way of saying "we are happy with not ever being able to win 13 games."  Of course, if everyone is fine with never winning 13 games, there is no need to change.  It just seems to me Stanford doesn't ever settle. 

What do Cardboarders think?

[OutsiderFan]

Five years ago, nobody, except maybe Harbaugh and Shaw, ever would have thought it possible for Stanford to have four consecutive 11 win seasons, play in four and win two BCS bowl games. 

My question is what is Stanford Football's ceiling? Can the program raise its performance one more notch and win 13 games in a season, which is likely what it will take to get to the CFB Final Four?

It seems to me based on the consistency of the defense since 2010, and especially it's improvement over the last two seasons, the answer is yes.  And it seems that with an elite QB, the answer is yes, based on 2010 and 2011.  But marrying dominant defense with great offense in the same season is really tough.  Stanford isn't going to be able to have the great secondary talent in enough numbers to be a program like Michigan State, who can rise up and field a defense dominant enough against the run and pass to win 13 games with pretty vanilla offense, altough it should be noted, even MSU had to have a dynamic passing game to do it (passed very well against Ohio St. & Stanford to win).  Even as far as Stanford goes, it won 11 regular season games only with a productive passing attack.  Moreover, in every BCS bowl, the team that has passed more effectively has won.  Not going to change in the NCG either.  The evidence screams Stanford has to get more from its offense, and in particular, it has to have the ability to throw for 250+ yards when the run isn't working, to win 13 games.

Look at Stanford's last five losses:

At UW - by 7 without an offensive TD
At N.D. - by 7 without an offensive TD
At Utah - scored 21 but only allowed 27
At U.S.C. - scored 17 but only allowed 20
MSU - scored 20 but only allowed 24

To me, it all points toward a need to develop an offensive system that is more dynamic and unpredictable.  Before the Rose Bowl, MSU DC Pat Narduzzi basically said we know what they are going to do and we like it because it doesn't threaten the whole field.  I just assumed Stanford's coaches wouldn't be crazy enough to do exactly what he expected and would find a way to consistently threaten more than a 10 yard line on the field.  They didn't.  Then I heard Bob Stoops (former DC) interviewed talking about OU's win against Alabama.  He said "the days of being able to line up and play in a phone booth are over, and I knew that in 1999 when I took this job, so I hired Mike Leach." And this is coming from a guy who can consistently land 4 and 5 star recruits to play any way he wants.

I'm not going to say there is no place for Stanford's run-first, physical style, but between consistently threatening a larger area of the field, using more play action passing, changing the QB's release points, more ball faking, motions, "backwards play calling," changing tempo in games, and more sophisticated passing concepts, there is a lot of room for Stanford to improve on offense, simply by having a more dynamic system underpinning the physical, run-first mentality.  Even MSU proved the effectiveness of running with tempo in the Rose Bowl in a pro set using a FB.

The biggest problem is the west coast offense verbiage.  It takes a long time to get plays called using that style, and that makes it near impossible to change tempo.  It also takes a long time to learn, which limits how soon the most gifted players can play. 

But the greater question is how much will David Shaw be willing to evolve and go out of his comfort zone to improve?  How badly does he want to win vs. how comfortable does he want to be?  To me, the single biggest thing Shaw could do to demonstrate his desire to win is bring in a new offensive coordinator with some ideas for evolving Stanford's offense.  Bloomgren is an OL coach and Pritchard has never known anything but what Stanford does, so it's hard to imagine either one being capable of catalyzing some real creative evolution in Stanford's offense.

Given there is no power back on the roster now, and the strength of the 2014 offense will be the WRs, and Barry Sanders (and maybe even Christian McCaffrey) in space, it seems now is the time to bring in a new offensive coordinator in an effort to make Stanford's offense more difficult to defend.  To me, any big game in which you are held to 11 first downs and 13 offensive points is prima facie evidence that changes are needed to get Stanford Football to the next level.  To be sure, changing might not do it, but not changing seems more than likely to guarantee similar results in the future, and would be a way of saying "we are happy with not ever being able to win 13 games."  Of course, if everyone is fine with never winning 13 games, there is no need to change.  It just seems to me Stanford doesn't ever settle. 

What do Cardboarders think?