[stupac2]

With the right pieces, Greg Roman's offense put up 40 points a game, 472 yards per game, and 6.7 yards per play.

I suppose the ultimate question is whether the Harbaugh/Roman/Shaw/Hamilton/Bloombgren Stanford offense requires pieces that only come every once in a while: bruising running backs and once-in-a-generation QB's.  Given that we've succeeded with three different running backs (Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney), I think that piece is one we don't seem to have too much trouble recruiting.  The question is whether we need a Luck-like QB to truly be successful.

I will admit to being partial to the offense, perhaps boneheadedly so.  There is something appealing to hanging 50 on U$€ and flattening them each and every play, even though they knew what was coming. It may not be as razzle dazzle, but in my opinion, it was viscerally satisfying.  We have demonstrated that the offense can work.  Obviously if the offense can only work when all the stars align, then it should probably be scrapped.  But if it can be gotten to work with pieces we have or can get, then yeah, I like it.

BC

Maybe the problem is that it worked when it was novel. How many other teams were running power back then? Other teams figured out how to defend it and it stopped being so effective. I don't know, I'm just guessing. It's not like we ran over anyone last year (except Oregon, and I'd argue that 4.2 ypc isn't really that great anyway, we got 6.5 in the What's Your Deal game).

[stupac2]

With the right pieces, Greg Roman's offense put up 40 points a game, 472 yards per game, and 6.7 yards per play.

I suppose the ultimate question is whether the Harbaugh/Roman/Shaw/Hamilton/Bloombgren Stanford offense requires pieces that only come every once in a while: bruising running backs and once-in-a-generation QB's.  Given that we've succeeded with three different running backs (Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney), I think that piece is one we don't seem to have too much trouble recruiting.  The question is whether we need a Luck-like QB to truly be successful.

I will admit to being partial to the offense, perhaps boneheadedly so.  There is something appealing to hanging 50 on U$€ and flattening them each and every play, even though they knew what was coming. It may not be as razzle dazzle, but in my opinion, it was viscerally satisfying.  We have demonstrated that the offense can work.  Obviously if the offense can only work when all the stars align, then it should probably be scrapped.  But if it can be gotten to work with pieces we have or can get, then yeah, I like it.

BC

Maybe the problem is that it worked when it was novel. How many other teams were running power back then? Other teams figured out how to defend it and it stopped being so effective. I don't know, I'm just guessing. It's not like we ran over anyone last year (except Oregon, and I'd argue that 4.2 ypc isn't really that great anyway, we got 6.5 in the What's Your Deal game).