[Red State]

Nothing stymies an offense like a poor OL; play-calling be damned. I see an OL that is patchwork, without chemistry, and less physical than in previous years under Shaw. TEs are often being held in for pass protection because of deficiencies up front.

I also see QBs without any of Hogan's improvisational abilities and some WRs that are just not very good. Rector is an EASY cover for most P12 DBs. He's strictly a vertical route guy. Ditto for Owusu. Irwin is a stud but I think he should be moved to Z so that he can exploit more of the field with his superb route-running skill.

Poor OL, mostly average talent on the perimeter, brobdingnagian question mark at QB. Not a whole lot to work with.

[Red State]

Nothing stymies an offense like a poor OL; play-calling be damned. I see an OL that is patchwork, without chemistry, and less physical than in previous years under Shaw. TEs are often being held in for pass protection because of deficiencies up front.

I also see QBs without any of Hogan's improvisational abilities and some WRs that are just not very good. Rector is an EASY cover for most P12 DBs. He's strictly a vertical route guy. Ditto for Owusu. Irwin is a stud but I think he should be moved to Z so that he can exploit more of the field with his superb route-running skill.

Poor OL, mostly average talent on the perimeter, brobdingnagian question mark at QB. Not a whole lot to work with.

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe he's not telling the truth at a press conference. Shocking,  I know.

First of all, I'm pretty sure Shaw would take umbrage to people saying he isn't telling the truth when asked questions.  He refuses to answer some questions, but that's different than lying.

Second, what he says tracks to exactly what we see.  He's giving an explanation for why we see what we do.

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe he's not telling the truth at a press conference. Shocking,  I know.

First of all, I'm pretty sure Shaw would take umbrage to people saying he isn't telling the truth when asked questions.  He refuses to answer some questions, but that's different than lying.

Second, what he says tracks to exactly what we see.  He's giving an explanation for why we see what we do.

[washingtonismoney]

I dunno, I clearly think Shaw is strategic in his use of the absolute unvarnished truth. I look back to 2012 as an example -- Nunes would be absolutely unassailable in Shaw's eyes...after losses. After wins you'd hear some criticism.

[washingtonismoney]

I dunno, I clearly think Shaw is strategic in his use of the absolute unvarnished truth. I look back to 2012 as an example -- Nunes would be absolutely unassailable in Shaw's eyes...after losses. After wins you'd hear some criticism.

[CTcard]

I dunno, I clearly think Shaw is strategic in his use of the absolute unvarnished truth.

WIM goes for the understatement of the week award.

[CTcard]

I dunno, I clearly think Shaw is strategic in his use of the absolute unvarnished truth.

WIM goes for the understatement of the week award.

[81alum]

He says over and over that "its no secret" that we run on first down, but he says that when we are successful we set up "explosive plays."  I think those "explosive plays" always used to be play-action passes to receivers like Fleener, set up by an effective running game.

Shaw's dream is to run the ball on first down effectively enough to allow for grinding out first downs.  Then when the opposing defense is completely caught up stopping the run, generally a couple of first downs into a series, we should be able to get "explosive plays" off of play action.  If, however, our running on first down is not all that effective, then no one will bite on the play action and we will not get "explosive plays."  It is almost as if he thinks we must get a couple of first downs on a drive before we have a chance for an "explosive play."

I do see and appreciate the philosophy.  Over the years, I think we have had a tendency to harp on Shaw's predictability.  Predictability can be a weapon if the predictable team is willing to very occasionally break its pattern for long gains.  The successful Stanford offenses have been like that. 

But here is what I do not understand.  Our reputation for predictably running the ball is so strong now that we don't need to successfully run the ball for first down to find the opposing defenses selling out to stop the run in 8 man boxes.  They simply do it from game planning design, not merely as an in-game adjustment.  When they come out in an 8 man box on the first play of the game, why can't we play-action from the first play of the game?   

All that said, I would not be the least surprised if Chryst is NOT the only offensive change today--but that they may have installed something significantly different.  The press conference could even be part of a strategy to make the opponent think we are merely going to try to do our old offense better, when a number of factors point to some substantial changes.  The O-line is simply not up to snuff and it won't be getting any better this week; inside run blocking is the most difficult assignment for an inexperienced player and the coaches have to know that.  So I anticipate the offense is going to be featuring a lot more wrinkles to get CMac and Love into space over the middle or outside.  I hope to see them much more involved in the passing game than ever.  And hopefully Chryst has been practicing those routes with them all week.  Here is hoping one of them takes a couple of those passes for "explosive plays" today.

[81alum]

He says over and over that "its no secret" that we run on first down, but he says that when we are successful we set up "explosive plays."  I think those "explosive plays" always used to be play-action passes to receivers like Fleener, set up by an effective running game.

Shaw's dream is to run the ball on first down effectively enough to allow for grinding out first downs.  Then when the opposing defense is completely caught up stopping the run, generally a couple of first downs into a series, we should be able to get "explosive plays" off of play action.  If, however, our running on first down is not all that effective, then no one will bite on the play action and we will not get "explosive plays."  It is almost as if he thinks we must get a couple of first downs on a drive before we have a chance for an "explosive play."

I do see and appreciate the philosophy.  Over the years, I think we have had a tendency to harp on Shaw's predictability.  Predictability can be a weapon if the predictable team is willing to very occasionally break its pattern for long gains.  The successful Stanford offenses have been like that. 

But here is what I do not understand.  Our reputation for predictably running the ball is so strong now that we don't need to successfully run the ball for first down to find the opposing defenses selling out to stop the run in 8 man boxes.  They simply do it from game planning design, not merely as an in-game adjustment.  When they come out in an 8 man box on the first play of the game, why can't we play-action from the first play of the game?   

All that said, I would not be the least surprised if Chryst is NOT the only offensive change today--but that they may have installed something significantly different.  The press conference could even be part of a strategy to make the opponent think we are merely going to try to do our old offense better, when a number of factors point to some substantial changes.  The O-line is simply not up to snuff and it won't be getting any better this week; inside run blocking is the most difficult assignment for an inexperienced player and the coaches have to know that.  So I anticipate the offense is going to be featuring a lot more wrinkles to get CMac and Love into space over the middle or outside.  I hope to see them much more involved in the passing game than ever.  And hopefully Chryst has been practicing those routes with them all week.  Here is hoping one of them takes a couple of those passes for "explosive plays" today.