[BostonCard]

Also, replacing 3/5 of the offensive line is a thing.
Injuries are a thing.

It would be denialist to focus on these things year after year (see Dawkins, Johny).  But Shaw's offense has shown itself to be good to excellent several years (typically the odd ones).  We have seen that when we have a fair bit of continuity from year to year, especially in the offensive line, and when injuries are kept to a minimum (which, given the work that Turley does, is the rule rather than the exception), Shaw has proven to get good offensive results.  More consistency would be great, and I think the offensive braintrust could do better to simplify the offense for inexperienced QB/OL combos, but it would be hard to argue that Shaw has a systematic offensive problem, as it would be ignoring several very good years.

On the OL, it seems that experience trumps talent.  The OL in 2014 had problems, despite having three future NFL draftees (Peat, Murphy, and Garnett).  With a year more of experience, and despite the departure of the most talented of the players (Peat), the line improved dramatically.  We replace 3/5 of the line plus deal with one possibly injured player, and the line regressed.  My guess is that with just one departure next year, and a fair bit of experience returning, and we should be much stronger next year.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, replacing 3/5 of the offensive line is a thing.
Injuries are a thing.

It would be denialist to focus on these things year after year (see Dawkins, Johny).  But Shaw's offense has shown itself to be good to excellent several years (typically the odd ones).  We have seen that when we have a fair bit of continuity from year to year, especially in the offensive line, and when injuries are kept to a minimum (which, given the work that Turley does, is the rule rather than the exception), Shaw has proven to get good offensive results.  More consistency would be great, and I think the offensive braintrust could do better to simplify the offense for inexperienced QB/OL combos, but it would be hard to argue that Shaw has a systematic offensive problem, as it would be ignoring several very good years.

On the OL, it seems that experience trumps talent.  The OL in 2014 had problems, despite having three future NFL draftees (Peat, Murphy, and Garnett).  With a year more of experience, and despite the departure of the most talented of the players (Peat), the line improved dramatically.  We replace 3/5 of the line plus deal with one possibly injured player, and the line regressed.  My guess is that with just one departure next year, and a fair bit of experience returning, and we should be much stronger next year.

BC

[CTcard]

I really liked the 2015 offense.

BC

As well you should.
By my eye-test it was the best offense in the NCAA last year, and the best offense at Stanford over the time I have been able to apply said eye-test. I could give a pile of stats to back that up, as WIM, I and others have done repeatedly - but it seems those are not reliable.

On the other hand, the offense was bad this year. And it was probably worse than the other bad years (even years). Thinking about why that was, and what should be done about it, are the kind of things that keep message boards alive.

I am fairly convinced that the key common feature in the up and down nature of Stanford offenses over the past several years is that they ask a lot of the QB and OL, both in experience and performance. We have had a strange series lately where the QB and the OL have been at their peak in odd years, off in even years. That leads me to believe that at least in the off-years, there is too much complexity in the offense for our own good. I think it ought to be possible to simplify when the experience is low and build it back up when higher - and if that is too delicate a balance I would probably sacrifice a little of the highs for better lows.

I fear the step-up from 2016 to 2017 might be tougher than what we had from 2014 to 2015.
First of all, we might have a new QB again.
Secondly, the OL issues in 2014 appeared to be strongly a function of cohesion rather than guys getting beat one on one. This year, there was a mix but more one one one troubles. That would seem harder to fix.
Thirdly, the offense's struggles in 2014 seemed to be more specifically screw-ups at key moments. We had some of those this year as well (as reflected in the red zone struggles) but also a more general inability to move the ball. In that sense, this was more like 2012.

That's why even with a good outcome for how things develop next year, the team will end up looking more like 2013 than 2015.

[CTcard]

I really liked the 2015 offense.

BC

As well you should.
By my eye-test it was the best offense in the NCAA last year, and the best offense at Stanford over the time I have been able to apply said eye-test. I could give a pile of stats to back that up, as WIM, I and others have done repeatedly - but it seems those are not reliable.

On the other hand, the offense was bad this year. And it was probably worse than the other bad years (even years). Thinking about why that was, and what should be done about it, are the kind of things that keep message boards alive.

I am fairly convinced that the key common feature in the up and down nature of Stanford offenses over the past several years is that they ask a lot of the QB and OL, both in experience and performance. We have had a strange series lately where the QB and the OL have been at their peak in odd years, off in even years. That leads me to believe that at least in the off-years, there is too much complexity in the offense for our own good. I think it ought to be possible to simplify when the experience is low and build it back up when higher - and if that is too delicate a balance I would probably sacrifice a little of the highs for better lows.

I fear the step-up from 2016 to 2017 might be tougher than what we had from 2014 to 2015.
First of all, we might have a new QB again.
Secondly, the OL issues in 2014 appeared to be strongly a function of cohesion rather than guys getting beat one on one. This year, there was a mix but more one one one troubles. That would seem harder to fix.
Thirdly, the offense's struggles in 2014 seemed to be more specifically screw-ups at key moments. We had some of those this year as well (as reflected in the red zone struggles) but also a more general inability to move the ball. In that sense, this was more like 2012.

That's why even with a good outcome for how things develop next year, the team will end up looking more like 2013 than 2015.

[CTcard]

But Shaw's offense has shown itself to be good to excellent several years (typically the odd ones). 

I know we are not supposed to use facts or statistics, but ...

My two favourite, findable stats for an overall view of the offense are points per drive and FEI - which is an opponent adjusted per drive based stat that includes points and yards.

Under Shaw as Head Coach:
2011:  PPD = 3.56 (2nd);  FEI = 1.16 (6th)    [3rd yr QB, 2/5 OL]
2012:  PPD = 2.08 (71st); FEI = 0.15 (54th)  [new QB + switch, 3/5 OL]
2013:  PPD = 2.67 (30th); FEI = 0.60 (27th)  [2nd yr QB, 4/5 OL]
2014:  PPD = 2.30 (50th); FEI = 0.20 (50th)  [3rd yr QB, 1/5 OL]
2015:  PPD = 3.58 (2nd);  FEI = 1.45 (2nd)  [4th yr QB, 4/5 OL]
2016:  PPD = 2.27 (54th); FEI = -.11 (73rd)  [new QB + switch, 2/5 OL + injury]


The even/odd year split is not subtle.
Luck had an outsize influence (no surprise), in that we had a great offense in 2011 with only DeCastro and Martin returning on the OL, and losing Luck led to a big drop off with three OL returners: Yankey, Schwartstein, and Fleming.

[CTcard]

But Shaw's offense has shown itself to be good to excellent several years (typically the odd ones). 

I know we are not supposed to use facts or statistics, but ...

My two favourite, findable stats for an overall view of the offense are points per drive and FEI - which is an opponent adjusted per drive based stat that includes points and yards.

Under Shaw as Head Coach:
2011:  PPD = 3.56 (2nd);  FEI = 1.16 (6th)    [3rd yr QB, 2/5 OL]
2012:  PPD = 2.08 (71st); FEI = 0.15 (54th)  [new QB + switch, 3/5 OL]
2013:  PPD = 2.67 (30th); FEI = 0.60 (27th)  [2nd yr QB, 4/5 OL]
2014:  PPD = 2.30 (50th); FEI = 0.20 (50th)  [3rd yr QB, 1/5 OL]
2015:  PPD = 3.58 (2nd);  FEI = 1.45 (2nd)  [4th yr QB, 4/5 OL]
2016:  PPD = 2.27 (54th); FEI = -.11 (73rd)  [new QB + switch, 2/5 OL + injury]


The even/odd year split is not subtle.
Luck had an outsize influence (no surprise), in that we had a great offense in 2011 with only DeCastro and Martin returning on the OL, and losing Luck led to a big drop off with three OL returners: Yankey, Schwartstein, and Fleming.

[washingtonismoney]

2017 will be an interesting test in experience at OL (five OL return with starting experience) versus all other factors. My hunch is that experience at OL, and quality at QB, are what's needed. (2012-13 corroborate this view IMO). Of course that depends on Costello to be, well, good. Which is very much an unknown.

[washingtonismoney]

2017 will be an interesting test in experience at OL (five OL return with starting experience) versus all other factors. My hunch is that experience at OL, and quality at QB, are what's needed. (2012-13 corroborate this view IMO). Of course that depends on Costello to be, well, good. Which is very much an unknown.

[Goose]

On the other hand, the offense was bad this year. And it was probably worse than the other bad years (even years).

Fully agree. I think it was even worse than it appears because CM and BLove made up for a lot of problems elsewhere.

Thinking about why that was, and what should be done about it, are the kind of things that keep message boards alive.

I am fairly convinced that the key common feature in the up and down nature of Stanford offenses over the past several years is that they ask a lot of the QB and OL, both in experience and performance. We have had a strange series lately where the QB and the OL have been at their peak in odd years, off in even years.

I absolutely agree.

That leads me to believe that at least in the off-years, there is too much complexity in the offense for our own good. I think it ought to be possible to simplify when the experience is low and build it back up when higher

We absolutely do simplify the offense when we have a new quarterback. We have no choice. The inexperienced guy won't be able to make all the reads he needs to. The problem is, when we simplify the offense, all other things being equal, it doesn't work as well. If you have an Andrew Luck, this effect is mitigated by the QB being so physically talented he can make a non-optimal play work pretty well. If the QB isn't that talented, not so much. Now, if we ran a spread and the coaches made most of the reads and we only had 15 basic plays in the playbook, experience would matter less. But then physical talent matters much more. Even in these offenses, most quarterbacks take a while before the game "slows down" for them. That is also why most rookie quarterbacks don't do so well in the pros. Same learning curve. You only learn to read defenses by reading defenses.  Nobody so far has beat that system. If we could, the NFL would pay a fortune for it.

- and if that is too delicate a balance I would probably sacrifice a little of the highs for better lows.

I don't think you can. Experience matters. Also, would you prefer (12-1), (8,-5) or (10-3), (10-3)? YMMV, but I prefer a conference championship every other year. I dare not write (14-0) because it would offend the woofing gods.

I fear the step-up from 2016 to 2017 might be tougher than what we had from 2014 to 2015.
First of all, we might have a new QB again.

Absolutely correct. I fear this as well.

Secondly, the OL issues in 2014 appeared to be strongly a function of cohesion rather than guys getting beat one on one. This year, there was a mix but more one one one troubles. That would seem harder to fix.

I agree. This idea doesn't seem to be getting much traction on this board, but I think we do have an issue here.

Thirdly, the offense's struggles in 2014 seemed to be more specifically screw-ups at key moments. We had some of those this year as well (as reflected in the red zone struggles) but also a more general inability to move the ball. In that sense, this was more like 2012.

I mostly agree. However, I think most of our red zone problems come back to the fact we don't win the one-on-one battles, and that in the red zone, there are fewer alternatives to brute force.

[Goose]

On the other hand, the offense was bad this year. And it was probably worse than the other bad years (even years).

Fully agree. I think it was even worse than it appears because CM and BLove made up for a lot of problems elsewhere.

Thinking about why that was, and what should be done about it, are the kind of things that keep message boards alive.

I am fairly convinced that the key common feature in the up and down nature of Stanford offenses over the past several years is that they ask a lot of the QB and OL, both in experience and performance. We have had a strange series lately where the QB and the OL have been at their peak in odd years, off in even years.

I absolutely agree.

That leads me to believe that at least in the off-years, there is too much complexity in the offense for our own good. I think it ought to be possible to simplify when the experience is low and build it back up when higher

We absolutely do simplify the offense when we have a new quarterback. We have no choice. The inexperienced guy won't be able to make all the reads he needs to. The problem is, when we simplify the offense, all other things being equal, it doesn't work as well. If you have an Andrew Luck, this effect is mitigated by the QB being so physically talented he can make a non-optimal play work pretty well. If the QB isn't that talented, not so much. Now, if we ran a spread and the coaches made most of the reads and we only had 15 basic plays in the playbook, experience would matter less. But then physical talent matters much more. Even in these offenses, most quarterbacks take a while before the game "slows down" for them. That is also why most rookie quarterbacks don't do so well in the pros. Same learning curve. You only learn to read defenses by reading defenses.  Nobody so far has beat that system. If we could, the NFL would pay a fortune for it.

- and if that is too delicate a balance I would probably sacrifice a little of the highs for better lows.

I don't think you can. Experience matters. Also, would you prefer (12-1), (8,-5) or (10-3), (10-3)? YMMV, but I prefer a conference championship every other year. I dare not write (14-0) because it would offend the woofing gods.

I fear the step-up from 2016 to 2017 might be tougher than what we had from 2014 to 2015.
First of all, we might have a new QB again.

Absolutely correct. I fear this as well.

Secondly, the OL issues in 2014 appeared to be strongly a function of cohesion rather than guys getting beat one on one. This year, there was a mix but more one one one troubles. That would seem harder to fix.

I agree. This idea doesn't seem to be getting much traction on this board, but I think we do have an issue here.

Thirdly, the offense's struggles in 2014 seemed to be more specifically screw-ups at key moments. We had some of those this year as well (as reflected in the red zone struggles) but also a more general inability to move the ball. In that sense, this was more like 2012.

I mostly agree. However, I think most of our red zone problems come back to the fact we don't win the one-on-one battles, and that in the red zone, there are fewer alternatives to brute force.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=16362.msg184983#msg184983 date=1483481783]
Fully agree. I think it was even worse than it appears because CM and BLove made up for a lot of problems elsewhere.
[quote]

I dunno, don't all years have good players who make up mistakes for the bad ones? In 2014 it was Ty and Cajuste and Rector and (freshman) McCaffrey and Peat and Hogan. In 2012 it was Stepfan and Zach Ertz and Yankey. I'm not persuaded here.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=16362.msg184983#msg184983 date=1483481783]
Fully agree. I think it was even worse than it appears because CM and BLove made up for a lot of problems elsewhere.
[quote]

I dunno, don't all years have good players who make up mistakes for the bad ones? In 2014 it was Ty and Cajuste and Rector and (freshman) McCaffrey and Peat and Hogan. In 2012 it was Stepfan and Zach Ertz and Yankey. I'm not persuaded here.

[Goose]

I dunno, don't all years have good players who make up mistakes for the bad ones? In 2014 it was Ty and Cajuste and Rector and (freshman) McCaffrey and Peat and Hogan. In 2012 it was Stepfan and Zach Ertz and Yankey. I'm not persuaded here.

You are of course correct that good players can to some degree cover the deficiencies s of less good players. However, in this case, I am talking about the fact the offensive line gets credit for the run yards. Probably unfairly, they don't get much credit for the passing yards. I would argue that Stepfan needed much more of a "crease" than CM or BLove do. They can play behind a less physical line and still make a lot of yards, albeit in a very uneven fashion. The other people you cite are either linemen themselves or involved more in the passing game.
CM has great vision. I would argue that most of the yards he made this year were not caused by hole opened by our line, but rather the hole opened by the defense flowing to where the hole was supposed to be (and mostly wasn't). If you look at the KState game and the SC game, this is pretty apparent.  We also got some holes caused by the defense flowing to contain what appeared to be wide run. We got one block (often by the fullback) and there is a running lane created by the defensive flow. We didn't cause it. The defense did. Credit good play calling/bad defense, but not the OL. In the games we lost, the defense mostly stayed at home. No cutback, no yards. This was especially clear against WSU. They just stood there (well, ok, some were down lineman) and we couldn't move them.

[Goose]

I dunno, don't all years have good players who make up mistakes for the bad ones? In 2014 it was Ty and Cajuste and Rector and (freshman) McCaffrey and Peat and Hogan. In 2012 it was Stepfan and Zach Ertz and Yankey. I'm not persuaded here.

You are of course correct that good players can to some degree cover the deficiencies s of less good players. However, in this case, I am talking about the fact the offensive line gets credit for the run yards. Probably unfairly, they don't get much credit for the passing yards. I would argue that Stepfan needed much more of a "crease" than CM or BLove do. They can play behind a less physical line and still make a lot of yards, albeit in a very uneven fashion. The other people you cite are either linemen themselves or involved more in the passing game.
CM has great vision. I would argue that most of the yards he made this year were not caused by hole opened by our line, but rather the hole opened by the defense flowing to where the hole was supposed to be (and mostly wasn't). If you look at the KState game and the SC game, this is pretty apparent.  We also got some holes caused by the defense flowing to contain what appeared to be wide run. We got one block (often by the fullback) and there is a running lane created by the defensive flow. We didn't cause it. The defense did. Credit good play calling/bad defense, but not the OL. In the games we lost, the defense mostly stayed at home. No cutback, no yards. This was especially clear against WSU. They just stood there (well, ok, some were down lineman) and we couldn't move them.

[washingtonismoney]

Hmm, I recall more than a few plays where Stepfan made things happen despite an iffy line. One prominent example: check out his rushing TD in big game 2012.

[washingtonismoney]

Hmm, I recall more than a few plays where Stepfan made things happen despite an iffy line. One prominent example: check out his rushing TD in big game 2012.

[Goose]

Hmm, I recall more than a few plays where Stepfan made things happen despite an iffy line. One prominent example: check out his rushing TD in big game 2012.

You are correct that Stepfan was a great back, and he could, I think, move the pile more than CM. However, the line did have Yankey. He could beat the man opposite him and make a hole pretty often. I assert that the 2016 line did not exhibit anyone of that caliber, and yet CM still had a good year rushing. It makes the line look better than it was. IOW, I am saying this line was worse than "iffy". CM made it pass for "iffy".

[Goose]

Hmm, I recall more than a few plays where Stepfan made things happen despite an iffy line. One prominent example: check out his rushing TD in big game 2012.

You are correct that Stepfan was a great back, and he could, I think, move the pile more than CM. However, the line did have Yankey. He could beat the man opposite him and make a hole pretty often. I assert that the 2016 line did not exhibit anyone of that caliber, and yet CM still had a good year rushing. It makes the line look better than it was. IOW, I am saying this line was worse than "iffy". CM made it pass for "iffy".

[CornFed]

"You only learn to read defenses by reading defenses.  Nobody so far has beat that system. If we could, the NFL would pay a fortune for it."

Isn't that why the virtual reality system has gotten so much attention?  It is probably true that live action is the best opportunity to learn.  But VR offers the chance to accelerate and reinforce the learning.

[CornFed]

"You only learn to read defenses by reading defenses.  Nobody so far has beat that system. If we could, the NFL would pay a fortune for it."

Isn't that why the virtual reality system has gotten so much attention?  It is probably true that live action is the best opportunity to learn.  But VR offers the chance to accelerate and reinforce the learning.

[Goose]

"You only learn to read defenses by reading defenses.  Nobody so far has beat that system. If we could, the NFL would pay a fortune for it."

Isn't that why the virtual reality system has gotten so much attention?  It is probably true that live action is the best opportunity to learn.  But VR offers the chance to accelerate and reinforce the learning.

It should help. How much, we don't know yet. Shaw seems to be a strong supporter. One would think that you could learn even a large playbook and the associated "reads" in a year. It just doesn't seem to work that way. Maybe VR will accelerate this process.

[Goose]

"You only learn to read defenses by reading defenses.  Nobody so far has beat that system. If we could, the NFL would pay a fortune for it."

Isn't that why the virtual reality system has gotten so much attention?  It is probably true that live action is the best opportunity to learn.  But VR offers the chance to accelerate and reinforce the learning.

It should help. How much, we don't know yet. Shaw seems to be a strong supporter. One would think that you could learn even a large playbook and the associated "reads" in a year. It just doesn't seem to work that way. Maybe VR will accelerate this process.

[BostonCard]

Of course, by definition, the VR system only allows you to learn the plays that we anticipate the opposing defense will run.  It makes no allowances for confusion at the line of scrimmage or opponents shifting the wrong way.

BC

[BostonCard]

Of course, by definition, the VR system only allows you to learn the plays that we anticipate the opposing defense will run.  It makes no allowances for confusion at the line of scrimmage or opponents shifting the wrong way.

BC

[BostonCard]

I would probably sacrifice a little of the highs for better lows.

While I realize the quote was specifically referent to the offense, it is worth considering:

Lows under Shaw: 12-2 (2012), 8-5 (2014), 10-3 (2016)

Not sure how much improvement there is to be had in those "lows".  Sure, the offense could have been better each of the three years, but when all is said and done, we are talking about a 30-10 (.750) record that includes three bowl wins (one of them at a Rose Bowl) during "down" years.

My point is that it is easy to lose the forest for the trees here.  Shaw has, over a period of six years, produced the best stretch of football in Stanford history, and even his worst season(s) have been as good as or better than many of our prior coaches' best.

The stumbles by UCLA, Oregon, Notre Dame, and Michigan State this last year go to show just how difficult it is to maintain success over a prolonged period of time.

BC

[BostonCard]

I would probably sacrifice a little of the highs for better lows.

While I realize the quote was specifically referent to the offense, it is worth considering:

Lows under Shaw: 12-2 (2012), 8-5 (2014), 10-3 (2016)

Not sure how much improvement there is to be had in those "lows".  Sure, the offense could have been better each of the three years, but when all is said and done, we are talking about a 30-10 (.750) record that includes three bowl wins (one of them at a Rose Bowl) during "down" years.

My point is that it is easy to lose the forest for the trees here.  Shaw has, over a period of six years, produced the best stretch of football in Stanford history, and even his worst season(s) have been as good as or better than many of our prior coaches' best.

The stumbles by UCLA, Oregon, Notre Dame, and Michigan State this last year go to show just how difficult it is to maintain success over a prolonged period of time.

BC

[fullmetal]

"You only learn to read defenses by reading defenses.  Nobody so far has beat that system. If we could, the NFL would pay a fortune for it."

Isn't that why the virtual reality system has gotten so much attention?  It is probably true that live action is the best opportunity to learn.  But VR offers the chance to accelerate and reinforce the learning.

And there's plenty of game tape on opposing defensive coordinators' tendencies and philosophies. 

[fullmetal]

"You only learn to read defenses by reading defenses.  Nobody so far has beat that system. If we could, the NFL would pay a fortune for it."

Isn't that why the virtual reality system has gotten so much attention?  It is probably true that live action is the best opportunity to learn.  But VR offers the chance to accelerate and reinforce the learning.

And there's plenty of game tape on opposing defensive coordinators' tendencies and philosophies. 

[teejers1]

First, it's okay to remind folks of the forest from the trees; even if it's a bit of a red herring.  I don't think anyone is arguing against the proposition that Shaw is a very good coach and one in "the Pantheon" of Stanford football.

Second, pointing to "the forest" is precisely why folks aren't seeing the trees.  Yes, Stanford's record has been great over the tenure, but it SO READILY could have been better.  You can even keep the plodding offense and just remove the AYFKM calls to get there.  Think of Robert Redford and Glenn Close in the hospital scene in "The Natural," where he laments what could have been. She says:  "But you're so good now," and he replies "I could have been better."  That's where we are on the W/L spectrum.

Third, does anyone else have concerns about the plodding offense and the extremely fragile attendance figures at Stanford?  We used to hear "just win and attendance will solve itself."  Well, Stanford has been winning for years now, and the attendance - especially this past year - has been mediocre.  I suspect all of you will say:  attendance has nothing to do with offense and everything to do with the home slate of opponents.  I respectfully disagree.  College football for the fans is supposed to be fun and entertaining.  Compare last night's Rose Bowl with the Sun Bowl.  On the entertainment front, it's not in the same ball part, is it?

Fourth, and finally, given Stanford's recruiting success over the last several years, I find it mind-boggling for people to think the offense has been good (or even good enough).  The number of games of sub-400 yards of total offense (an incredibly low bar in this day and age) is mind-numbing.  And I fear that's what's happening to all those rationalizing what we've seen on the O side of the ball.

[The D has been terrific, by and large, under Shaw.  So again, kudos for that].

[teejers1]

First, it's okay to remind folks of the forest from the trees; even if it's a bit of a red herring.  I don't think anyone is arguing against the proposition that Shaw is a very good coach and one in "the Pantheon" of Stanford football.

Second, pointing to "the forest" is precisely why folks aren't seeing the trees.  Yes, Stanford's record has been great over the tenure, but it SO READILY could have been better.  You can even keep the plodding offense and just remove the AYFKM calls to get there.  Think of Robert Redford and Glenn Close in the hospital scene in "The Natural," where he laments what could have been. She says:  "But you're so good now," and he replies "I could have been better."  That's where we are on the W/L spectrum.

Third, does anyone else have concerns about the plodding offense and the extremely fragile attendance figures at Stanford?  We used to hear "just win and attendance will solve itself."  Well, Stanford has been winning for years now, and the attendance - especially this past year - has been mediocre.  I suspect all of you will say:  attendance has nothing to do with offense and everything to do with the home slate of opponents.  I respectfully disagree.  College football for the fans is supposed to be fun and entertaining.  Compare last night's Rose Bowl with the Sun Bowl.  On the entertainment front, it's not in the same ball part, is it?

Fourth, and finally, given Stanford's recruiting success over the last several years, I find it mind-boggling for people to think the offense has been good (or even good enough).  The number of games of sub-400 yards of total offense (an incredibly low bar in this day and age) is mind-numbing.  And I fear that's what's happening to all those rationalizing what we've seen on the O side of the ball.

[The D has been terrific, by and large, under Shaw.  So again, kudos for that].

[fullmetal]

I'm there with you, but as more and more teams are moving to spread offenses, a run-first offense is just going to look less and less productive.  A run-first offense is not any less effective just because it looks less productive by raw figures.

In any case, yes, the AYFKM moments need to go.  This is Stanford.  There should *never* be any of those moments.  Stanford should never beat itself.

The guys on the line need to be able to beat the correct man in front of them.  That's line play, and that didn't happen consistently enough this season.

[fullmetal]

I'm there with you, but as more and more teams are moving to spread offenses, a run-first offense is just going to look less and less productive.  A run-first offense is not any less effective just because it looks less productive by raw figures.

In any case, yes, the AYFKM moments need to go.  This is Stanford.  There should *never* be any of those moments.  Stanford should never beat itself.

The guys on the line need to be able to beat the correct man in front of them.  That's line play, and that didn't happen consistently enough this season.

[larkinforever]

I join others in applauding the job that Coach Shaw has done since taking the reins.

That said, I think one of the nagging feelings that I have is that it seems like we leave more points on the field on a regular basis than some other teams of slightly higher success (and in this rarefied air small differences separate conference championship game contestants/Rose Bowl champs from playoff contestants/national champs).

Merely two data points:
(1) Conrad Ukropina has had an amazing career, but the greatness of his record 22 made FGs this season also, of course, reveals that he had at least 22 attempts. Indeed, he was 3rd nationally in attempts/game. He was 6/6 from 20-29 yards (meaning line of scrimmage was 3-12 yard line) and 6/7 from 30-39 (meaning line of scrimmage was 13-22 yard line).
(2) Among teams with this many (or more) made FGs, we are easily one of the lowest scoring teams (i.e. most teams that have a lot of made FGs are also scoring a lot of TDs (or at least significantly more than we do)).

Yes, there are alternate explanations for Ukropina's high usage rate, and there are other data points unrelated to placekicking that speak to leaving points on the field (or not leaving points on the field) - my post is already getting too long...

What would the ramifications be and why complain during the golden era of Stanford football? We've had ridiculously wonderful success in winning Pac 12 championships and Rose Bowls, but might we have made it to the CFP by now or played in (and won?) a national championship during this era? Not an exact parallel, but not completely lacking in usefulness, Ducks fans saw their team play in 2 championship games and lose both, and now fear they are on the downhill side without ever having reached the pinnacle (though having enjoyed a historically great run).

Far from a complaint about Shaw, but wouldn't it be great if this golden era included a national championship (or participation in a national championship game)?

[larkinforever]

I join others in applauding the job that Coach Shaw has done since taking the reins.

That said, I think one of the nagging feelings that I have is that it seems like we leave more points on the field on a regular basis than some other teams of slightly higher success (and in this rarefied air small differences separate conference championship game contestants/Rose Bowl champs from playoff contestants/national champs).

Merely two data points:
(1) Conrad Ukropina has had an amazing career, but the greatness of his record 22 made FGs this season also, of course, reveals that he had at least 22 attempts. Indeed, he was 3rd nationally in attempts/game. He was 6/6 from 20-29 yards (meaning line of scrimmage was 3-12 yard line) and 6/7 from 30-39 (meaning line of scrimmage was 13-22 yard line).
(2) Among teams with this many (or more) made FGs, we are easily one of the lowest scoring teams (i.e. most teams that have a lot of made FGs are also scoring a lot of TDs (or at least significantly more than we do)).

Yes, there are alternate explanations for Ukropina's high usage rate, and there are other data points unrelated to placekicking that speak to leaving points on the field (or not leaving points on the field) - my post is already getting too long...

What would the ramifications be and why complain during the golden era of Stanford football? We've had ridiculously wonderful success in winning Pac 12 championships and Rose Bowls, but might we have made it to the CFP by now or played in (and won?) a national championship during this era? Not an exact parallel, but not completely lacking in usefulness, Ducks fans saw their team play in 2 championship games and lose both, and now fear they are on the downhill side without ever having reached the pinnacle (though having enjoyed a historically great run).

Far from a complaint about Shaw, but wouldn't it be great if this golden era included a national championship (or participation in a national championship game)?

[OutsiderFan]

Nobody has been frustrated by Stanford's lack of offensive dynamism more than me. I've many times been nonplussed by the scheme and execution.  But only when Andrew Luck was the QB in 2010 did I feel Stanford had a national championship contending team, that is, one that had the quality on offense and defense to win a national title.  That team had Luck, Sherman, Fleener, DeCastro, Ertz, Skov, Baldwin, M. Thomas, C. Thomas, S. Taylor, and other guys who have played in the NFL.  It's why I was so pissed off at that total bullshit OPI call on Doug Baldwin to start the second half of the 2010 game at Oregon, and incensed that the Owusu hit that caused him to fumble wasn't called a penalty.  Those two plays completely turned that game in Oregon's favor, took Stanford's best shot at a national title away, and Andrew Luck's Voldemort trophy too.  I felt Stanford was better equipped to beat Auburn and would have won had they played.

The defenses in 2012 and 2013 were elite, but the offenses weren't good enough, probably due to Hogan's limitations as a passer.  The 2015 offense was one of the best in the country, but the defense wasn't strong enough and didn't have enough depth up front to win a national championship.

Could a more dynamic offense got Stanford to a national championship contending level in 2012 and 2013?  Absolutely, but did Stanford have the personnel to be more dynamic?  In any case, it's all water under the bridge now, and time to think forward...

With this 2017 class, Stanford is bringing in some of the most talented offensive players its ever had in one year.  OT Little, QB Mills, TE Parkinson are the greatest talents at their position in the class.  Foster Sarell would give Stanford 4 of the Top 25 players in the country, and probably 4 of the top 12 offensive players in the country.  Then you have a truly dynamic WR in St. Brown, a beast RB in Lund, a possible game breaker RB in Wedington.  You add in the OL class from 2016, TE Kaden Smith, WRs Donald Stewart and Simi Fehoko (when back from his mission), and this team is going to be loaded on offense until the next Presidential election.  I am going to imagine having the best offensive personnel the program has ever had at one time is going to both make the execution of the current offense better, and allow a more dynamic offense than Stanford has had since Luck departed.

If Shaw can continue recruiting as he has of late on defense next year, and continue having a defense that yields about no more than 20 PPG, it is realistic to think Shaw could deliver Stanford to the playoff and possibly national title with another first round talent QB during that span.  Because Stanford isn't ever going to have the physically elite defense that lets you win a NC without an elite NFL prospect at QB.

I don't believe we've seen David Shaw's best team yet, and will see it over the next four seasons.  I didn't necessarily think this six months ago, but this recruiting class is making me recalibrate Stanford's future potential.

[OutsiderFan]

Nobody has been frustrated by Stanford's lack of offensive dynamism more than me. I've many times been nonplussed by the scheme and execution.  But only when Andrew Luck was the QB in 2010 did I feel Stanford had a national championship contending team, that is, one that had the quality on offense and defense to win a national title.  That team had Luck, Sherman, Fleener, DeCastro, Ertz, Skov, Baldwin, M. Thomas, C. Thomas, S. Taylor, and other guys who have played in the NFL.  It's why I was so pissed off at that total bullshit OPI call on Doug Baldwin to start the second half of the 2010 game at Oregon, and incensed that the Owusu hit that caused him to fumble wasn't called a penalty.  Those two plays completely turned that game in Oregon's favor, took Stanford's best shot at a national title away, and Andrew Luck's Voldemort trophy too.  I felt Stanford was better equipped to beat Auburn and would have won had they played.

The defenses in 2012 and 2013 were elite, but the offenses weren't good enough, probably due to Hogan's limitations as a passer.  The 2015 offense was one of the best in the country, but the defense wasn't strong enough and didn't have enough depth up front to win a national championship.

Could a more dynamic offense got Stanford to a national championship contending level in 2012 and 2013?  Absolutely, but did Stanford have the personnel to be more dynamic?  In any case, it's all water under the bridge now, and time to think forward...

With this 2017 class, Stanford is bringing in some of the most talented offensive players its ever had in one year.  OT Little, QB Mills, TE Parkinson are the greatest talents at their position in the class.  Foster Sarell would give Stanford 4 of the Top 25 players in the country, and probably 4 of the top 12 offensive players in the country.  Then you have a truly dynamic WR in St. Brown, a beast RB in Lund, a possible game breaker RB in Wedington.  You add in the OL class from 2016, TE Kaden Smith, WRs Donald Stewart and Simi Fehoko (when back from his mission), and this team is going to be loaded on offense until the next Presidential election.  I am going to imagine having the best offensive personnel the program has ever had at one time is going to both make the execution of the current offense better, and allow a more dynamic offense than Stanford has had since Luck departed.

If Shaw can continue recruiting as he has of late on defense next year, and continue having a defense that yields about no more than 20 PPG, it is realistic to think Shaw could deliver Stanford to the playoff and possibly national title with another first round talent QB during that span.  Because Stanford isn't ever going to have the physically elite defense that lets you win a NC without an elite NFL prospect at QB.

I don't believe we've seen David Shaw's best team yet, and will see it over the next four seasons.  I didn't necessarily think this six months ago, but this recruiting class is making me recalibrate Stanford's future potential.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=16362.msg184975#msg184975 date=1483474987]
I would probably sacrifice a little of the highs for better lows.

While I realize the quote was specifically referent to the offense, it is worth considering:

Lows under Shaw: 12-2 (2012), 8-5 (2014), 10-3 (2016)

Not sure how much improvement there is to be had in those "lows".  Sure, the offense could have been better each of the three years, but when all is said and done, we are talking about a 30-10 (.750) record that includes three bowl wins (one of them at a Rose Bowl) during "down" years.
[/quote]

Indeed, I had something else in mind here, but it may not have quite made sense anyway.

The frustration I had in mind is the apparently almost inevitable mistiming between our best offenses and best defenses. It seems the offense has been more up and down than the defense, and somehow it would seem if the offense could even out (but toward the better side I would hope) - that mistiming would melt away.

Of course doing something more than what Stanford has done lately basically means winning a national championship, and that's really hard. Hard enough, that we probably need our very best offenses and defenses to lineup - and both lineup with our best run of luck as well. 

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=16362.msg184975#msg184975 date=1483474987]
I would probably sacrifice a little of the highs for better lows.

While I realize the quote was specifically referent to the offense, it is worth considering:

Lows under Shaw: 12-2 (2012), 8-5 (2014), 10-3 (2016)

Not sure how much improvement there is to be had in those "lows".  Sure, the offense could have been better each of the three years, but when all is said and done, we are talking about a 30-10 (.750) record that includes three bowl wins (one of them at a Rose Bowl) during "down" years.
[/quote]

Indeed, I had something else in mind here, but it may not have quite made sense anyway.

The frustration I had in mind is the apparently almost inevitable mistiming between our best offenses and best defenses. It seems the offense has been more up and down than the defense, and somehow it would seem if the offense could even out (but toward the better side I would hope) - that mistiming would melt away.

Of course doing something more than what Stanford has done lately basically means winning a national championship, and that's really hard. Hard enough, that we probably need our very best offenses and defenses to lineup - and both lineup with our best run of luck as well. 

[Goose]

Nobody has been frustrated by Stanford's lack of offensive dynamism more than me. I've many times been nonplussed by the scheme and execution.  But only when Andrew Luck was the QB in 2010 did I feel Stanford had a national championship contending team, that is, one that had the quality on offense and defense to win a national title.  That team had Luck, Sherman, Fleener, DeCastro, Ertz, Skov, Baldwin, M. Thomas, C. Thomas, S. Taylor, and other guys who have played in the NFL.  It's why I was so pissed off at that total nonsense OPI call on Doug Baldwin to start the second half of the 2010 game at Oregon, and incensed that the Owusu hit that caused him to fumble wasn't called a penalty.  Those two plays completely turned that game in Oregon's favor, took Stanford's best shot at a national title away, and Andrew Luck's    trophy too.  I felt Stanford was better equipped to beat Auburn and would have won had they played.

The defenses in 2012 and 2013 were elite, but the offenses weren't good enough, probably due to Hogan's limitations as a passer.  The 2015 offense was one of the best in the country, but the defense wasn't strong enough and didn't have enough depth up front to win a national championship.

Could a more dynamic offense got Stanford to a national championship contending level in 2012 and 2013?  Absolutely, but did Stanford have the personnel to be more dynamic?  In any case, it's all water under the bridge now, and time to think forward...

With this 2017 class, Stanford is bringing in some of the most talented offensive players its ever had in one year.  OT Little, QB Mills, TE Parkinson are the greatest talents at their position in the class.  Foster Sarell would give Stanford 4 of the Top 25 players in the country, and probably 4 of the top 12 offensive players in the country.  Then you have a truly dynamic WR in St. Brown, a beast RB in Lund, a possible game breaker RB in Wedington.  You add in the OL class from 2016, TE Kaden Smith, WRs Donald Stewart and Simi Fehoko (when back from his mission), and this team is going to be loaded on offense until the next Presidential election.  I am going to imagine having the best offensive personnel the program has ever had at one time is going to both make the execution of the current offense better, and allow a more dynamic offense than Stanford has had since Luck departed.

If Shaw can continue recruiting as he has of late on defense next year, and continue having a defense that yields about no more than 20 PPG, it is realistic to think Shaw could deliver Stanford to the playoff and possibly national title with another first round talent QB during that span.  Because Stanford isn't ever going to have the physically elite defense that lets you win a NC without an elite NFL prospect at QB.

I don't believe we've seen David Shaw's best team yet, and will see it over the next four seasons.  I didn't necessarily think this six months ago, but this recruiting class is making me recalibrate Stanford's future potential.

I absolutely agree. I think we will see better  teams in 2018 and beyond. Next year may be a little early. A lot of the guys will be young. We are all aware that the HS rankings "are no guarantee of future performance". That all said, I think we will have enough talent. I also think Shaw is the right guy to lead this talent. I also agree that probably we have seldom had quite enough to expect to get to the championship round. Even when you have all the horses, there is no lock that you will get there. Some good bounces are  probably necessary. However, we should have a shot!

[Goose]

Nobody has been frustrated by Stanford's lack of offensive dynamism more than me. I've many times been nonplussed by the scheme and execution.  But only when Andrew Luck was the QB in 2010 did I feel Stanford had a national championship contending team, that is, one that had the quality on offense and defense to win a national title.  That team had Luck, Sherman, Fleener, DeCastro, Ertz, Skov, Baldwin, M. Thomas, C. Thomas, S. Taylor, and other guys who have played in the NFL.  It's why I was so pissed off at that total nonsense OPI call on Doug Baldwin to start the second half of the 2010 game at Oregon, and incensed that the Owusu hit that caused him to fumble wasn't called a penalty.  Those two plays completely turned that game in Oregon's favor, took Stanford's best shot at a national title away, and Andrew Luck's    trophy too.  I felt Stanford was better equipped to beat Auburn and would have won had they played.

The defenses in 2012 and 2013 were elite, but the offenses weren't good enough, probably due to Hogan's limitations as a passer.  The 2015 offense was one of the best in the country, but the defense wasn't strong enough and didn't have enough depth up front to win a national championship.

Could a more dynamic offense got Stanford to a national championship contending level in 2012 and 2013?  Absolutely, but did Stanford have the personnel to be more dynamic?  In any case, it's all water under the bridge now, and time to think forward...

With this 2017 class, Stanford is bringing in some of the most talented offensive players its ever had in one year.  OT Little, QB Mills, TE Parkinson are the greatest talents at their position in the class.  Foster Sarell would give Stanford 4 of the Top 25 players in the country, and probably 4 of the top 12 offensive players in the country.  Then you have a truly dynamic WR in St. Brown, a beast RB in Lund, a possible game breaker RB in Wedington.  You add in the OL class from 2016, TE Kaden Smith, WRs Donald Stewart and Simi Fehoko (when back from his mission), and this team is going to be loaded on offense until the next Presidential election.  I am going to imagine having the best offensive personnel the program has ever had at one time is going to both make the execution of the current offense better, and allow a more dynamic offense than Stanford has had since Luck departed.

If Shaw can continue recruiting as he has of late on defense next year, and continue having a defense that yields about no more than 20 PPG, it is realistic to think Shaw could deliver Stanford to the playoff and possibly national title with another first round talent QB during that span.  Because Stanford isn't ever going to have the physically elite defense that lets you win a NC without an elite NFL prospect at QB.

I don't believe we've seen David Shaw's best team yet, and will see it over the next four seasons.  I didn't necessarily think this six months ago, but this recruiting class is making me recalibrate Stanford's future potential.

I absolutely agree. I think we will see better  teams in 2018 and beyond. Next year may be a little early. A lot of the guys will be young. We are all aware that the HS rankings "are no guarantee of future performance". That all said, I think we will have enough talent. I also think Shaw is the right guy to lead this talent. I also agree that probably we have seldom had quite enough to expect to get to the championship round. Even when you have all the horses, there is no lock that you will get there. Some good bounces are  probably necessary. However, we should have a shot!