[Goose]

Just to re-state the obvious, it is very hard to compare teams that are 10 years apart, let alone 30 or more. The game has changed so much. The rules have changed. Pass defense in particular is a whole different animal. So, while it is nice that Shaw's teams scored so many points per game, it is not clear to me what that says about their relation to a team of 2000, let alone a team of 1971.

[Goose]

Just to re-state the obvious, it is very hard to compare teams that are 10 years apart, let alone 30 or more. The game has changed so much. The rules have changed. Pass defense in particular is a whole different animal. So, while it is nice that Shaw's teams scored so many points per game, it is not clear to me what that says about their relation to a team of 2000, let alone a team of 1971.

[Phogge]

And Stenstrom was sacked more than 50 times.

[Phogge]

And Stenstrom was sacked more than 50 times.

[Mick]

This pining of our days of offensive glory seems very odd to me.  Perhaps it goes back to Walsh's big year on his return, when we went 10-3 and ranked in the top ten in the country.  (It almost has to, because Green's teams did it on defense, Wlllingham's did it by the skin of their teeth, and Teevens and Harris didn't do it at all.)

That was a great Stanford season.  And it was great to have The Genius back.  But that talented team, led by the genius, averaged 24.6 points per game.  That's more than seven points fewer than this year's offense averaged.

And Walsh's last team, the 3-7-1 team, scored the most ppg of any of Walsh's teams, 29.7.

[Mick]

This pining of our days of offensive glory seems very odd to me.  Perhaps it goes back to Walsh's big year on his return, when we went 10-3 and ranked in the top ten in the country.  (It almost has to, because Green's teams did it on defense, Wlllingham's did it by the skin of their teeth, and Teevens and Harris didn't do it at all.)

That was a great Stanford season.  And it was great to have The Genius back.  But that talented team, led by the genius, averaged 24.6 points per game.  That's more than seven points fewer than this year's offense averaged.

And Walsh's last team, the 3-7-1 team, scored the most ppg of any of Walsh's teams, 29.7.

[stupac2]

Just to re-state the obvious, it is very hard to compare teams that are 10 years apart, let alone 30 or more. The game has changed so much. The rules have changed. Pass defense in particular is a whole different animal. So, while it is nice that Shaw's teams scored so many points per game, it is not clear to me what that says about their relation to a team of 2000, let alone a team of 1971.

The way to do this is with Z-scores (which normalize things to number of standard deviations away from the mean) by year, but compiling that data with college stats would probably be a royal pain. With cfbstats it would be easy, but of course that only goes back to 2008.

[stupac2]

Just to re-state the obvious, it is very hard to compare teams that are 10 years apart, let alone 30 or more. The game has changed so much. The rules have changed. Pass defense in particular is a whole different animal. So, while it is nice that Shaw's teams scored so many points per game, it is not clear to me what that says about their relation to a team of 2000, let alone a team of 1971.

The way to do this is with Z-scores (which normalize things to number of standard deviations away from the mean) by year, but compiling that data with college stats would probably be a royal pain. With cfbstats it would be easy, but of course that only goes back to 2008.

[teejers1]

Being at odds with Shtup on another subject only gives me greater comfort/confidence in my position.

Some of the all time worst offensive performances ever under this regime - and probably the several of the worst, if you account for roster talent and rules changes - and you all act like this is the greatest O this side of New England.

Whatever.  I'm tired of repeating the same old, same old.  I hope you're all right and that we remain "efficient" and lose 3-4 games every year (2 of which we shouldn't).

[teejers1]

Being at odds with Shtup on another subject only gives me greater comfort/confidence in my position.

Some of the all time worst offensive performances ever under this regime - and probably the several of the worst, if you account for roster talent and rules changes - and you all act like this is the greatest O this side of New England.

Whatever.  I'm tired of repeating the same old, same old.  I hope you're all right and that we remain "efficient" and lose 3-4 games every year (2 of which we shouldn't).

[Goose]

The way to do this is with Z-scores (which normalize things to number of standard deviations away from the mean) by year, but compiling that data with college stats would probably be a royal pain. With cfbstats it would be easy, but of course that only goes back to 2008.

I also think that that normalization only works if the distributions are the same (like both Gaussian). I would strongly suspect that over a 46 year period, the points per game distribution in 2017 would have a much different shape than the one in 1971. As you say though, even determining that would be tons of work.

[Goose]

The way to do this is with Z-scores (which normalize things to number of standard deviations away from the mean) by year, but compiling that data with college stats would probably be a royal pain. With cfbstats it would be easy, but of course that only goes back to 2008.

I also think that that normalization only works if the distributions are the same (like both Gaussian). I would strongly suspect that over a 46 year period, the points per game distribution in 2017 would have a much different shape than the one in 1971. As you say though, even determining that would be tons of work.

[BostonCard]

1995: East Carolina 19, Stanford 13
1996: Utah 17, Stanford 10; Wisconsin 14, Stanford 0; Washington 27, Stanford 6; Oregon State 26, Stanford 12; Arizona State 41, Stanford 9
1997: North Carolina 28, Stanford 17; Arizona State 31, Stanford 14; UCLA 27, Stanford 7
1998: Arizona 31, Stanford 14; Notre Dame 35, Stanford 17; USC 34, Stanford 9; Stanford 10, Cal 3 (but at least we won BG)
1999: Texas 69, Stanford 17; Wisconsin 17, Stanford 9
2000: Arizona 27, Stanford 3; Notre Dame 20, Stanford 14; Oregon State 38, Stanford 6 (that was a three game stretch where we scored 23 points... total)
2001: Stanford 17, Notre Dame 13; Georgia Tech 24, Stanford 14

Our lowest offensive output this year was 15 points against Oregon State.  Tyrone Willingham had at least one game in which he failed to score that many points every year he coached.  Our lowest scoring output of the Shaw era was 5 points (against Colorado).  Willingham twice got held to fewer points (a shutout against Wisconsin in 1996 and a field goal against Arizona in 2000).

I don't mean this to be an effort to malign Willingham, who I liked as a head coach, and who I was sorry to see leave.  But I don't think offensively Willingham's teams hold a candle to Shaw's teams.  Yes, we've had the occasional stinker of a game.  Willingham had the occasional stinker of a game pretty much every season he coached.  I seriously don't know if Teejers really has as distorted a view of the Willingham years as he expresses, or if he is just enjoying being a contrarian.

BC

[BostonCard]

1995: East Carolina 19, Stanford 13
1996: Utah 17, Stanford 10; Wisconsin 14, Stanford 0; Washington 27, Stanford 6; Oregon State 26, Stanford 12; Arizona State 41, Stanford 9
1997: North Carolina 28, Stanford 17; Arizona State 31, Stanford 14; UCLA 27, Stanford 7
1998: Arizona 31, Stanford 14; Notre Dame 35, Stanford 17; USC 34, Stanford 9; Stanford 10, Cal 3 (but at least we won BG)
1999: Texas 69, Stanford 17; Wisconsin 17, Stanford 9
2000: Arizona 27, Stanford 3; Notre Dame 20, Stanford 14; Oregon State 38, Stanford 6 (that was a three game stretch where we scored 23 points... total)
2001: Stanford 17, Notre Dame 13; Georgia Tech 24, Stanford 14

Our lowest offensive output this year was 15 points against Oregon State.  Tyrone Willingham had at least one game in which he failed to score that many points every year he coached.  Our lowest scoring output of the Shaw era was 5 points (against Colorado).  Willingham twice got held to fewer points (a shutout against Wisconsin in 1996 and a field goal against Arizona in 2000).

I don't mean this to be an effort to malign Willingham, who I liked as a head coach, and who I was sorry to see leave.  But I don't think offensively Willingham's teams hold a candle to Shaw's teams.  Yes, we've had the occasional stinker of a game.  Willingham had the occasional stinker of a game pretty much every season he coached.  I seriously don't know if Teejers really has as distorted a view of the Willingham years as he expresses, or if he is just enjoying being a contrarian.

BC

[stupac2]

Being at odds with Shtup on another subject only gives me greater comfort/confidence in my position.

Some of the all time worst offensive performances ever under this regime - and probably the several of the worst, if you account for roster talent and rules changes - and you all act like this is the greatest O this side of New England.

Whatever.  I'm tired of repeating the same old, same old.  I hope you're all right and that we remain "efficient" and lose 3-4 games every year (2 of which we shouldn't).

First, no one is arguing that the current regime's offensive success is the best ever. What's being argued is that it's the best that Stanford has ever seen. And nothing you've said has countered that at all.

Second, since Shaw has take over we've lost 3 or more games less than half the time. Very few coaches can say that.

But, really, the question here is what is the alternative? What do you actually want the offense to do? You've said that you liked the offense during Willingham's Rose Bowl year, but not what that offense did that this offense doesn't. This discussion is about an OC, what do you want an OC to do?

The argument that the team loses games that they shouldn't is ridiculous. Every team does. Shit happens. But, again, what do you want to do? Clean house every time we have an off game? What is the actual remedy here? It's not like I like sitting through games like Colorado last year or Oregon State this year, but why myopically focus on those? I really, really like sitting through Rose Bowls and Pac-12 CGs, of which we've had a historic number under Shaw.

So I just don't understand what you're trying to say here. I'm with BC, it's either uninformed nostalgia or trolling, and either way I expect more from a regular poster on this board.

[stupac2]

Being at odds with Shtup on another subject only gives me greater comfort/confidence in my position.

Some of the all time worst offensive performances ever under this regime - and probably the several of the worst, if you account for roster talent and rules changes - and you all act like this is the greatest O this side of New England.

Whatever.  I'm tired of repeating the same old, same old.  I hope you're all right and that we remain "efficient" and lose 3-4 games every year (2 of which we shouldn't).

First, no one is arguing that the current regime's offensive success is the best ever. What's being argued is that it's the best that Stanford has ever seen. And nothing you've said has countered that at all.

Second, since Shaw has take over we've lost 3 or more games less than half the time. Very few coaches can say that.

But, really, the question here is what is the alternative? What do you actually want the offense to do? You've said that you liked the offense during Willingham's Rose Bowl year, but not what that offense did that this offense doesn't. This discussion is about an OC, what do you want an OC to do?

The argument that the team loses games that they shouldn't is ridiculous. Every team does. Shit happens. But, again, what do you want to do? Clean house every time we have an off game? What is the actual remedy here? It's not like I like sitting through games like Colorado last year or Oregon State this year, but why myopically focus on those? I really, really like sitting through Rose Bowls and Pac-12 CGs, of which we've had a historic number under Shaw.

So I just don't understand what you're trying to say here. I'm with BC, it's either uninformed nostalgia or trolling, and either way I expect more from a regular poster on this board.

[dabigv13]

No need for any antagonism here. I'm pretty certain teejers won't change his mind on this subject, no matter how many stats people throw at him (unless it's PPG, and even then, doubtful). Cheetah isn't going to change his spots.

Also, I'm sure next time we have an OSU type game, teejers will have some converts.

Whatever, we're just irrational bags of meat, posting on a sports message board, so probably towards the more irrational end of the meatbag spectrum. If we didn't have teejers to argue with, where would all the in-depth statistical analyses you guys are doing that I like to read come from?

[dabigv13]

No need for any antagonism here. I'm pretty certain teejers won't change his mind on this subject, no matter how many stats people throw at him (unless it's PPG, and even then, doubtful). Cheetah isn't going to change his spots.

Also, I'm sure next time we have an OSU type game, teejers will have some converts.

Whatever, we're just irrational bags of meat, posting on a sports message board, so probably towards the more irrational end of the meatbag spectrum. If we didn't have teejers to argue with, where would all the in-depth statistical analyses you guys are doing that I like to read come from?

[CTcard]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=18293.msg217846#msg217846 date=1512963513]
The way to do this is with Z-scores (which normalize things to number of standard deviations away from the mean) by year, but compiling that data with college stats would probably be a royal pain. With cfbstats it would be easy, but of course that only goes back to 2008.

I also think that that normalization only works if the distributions are the same (like both Gaussian). I would strongly suspect that over a 46 year period, the points per game distribution in 2017 would have a much different shape than the one in 1971. As you say though, even determining that would be tons of work.
[/quote]

1. You are asking for too much here. It's absolutely true that no number can exactly tell you the relative strength of two offenses in two different years. That doesn't mean you throw up your hands and give up. It means you treat the numbers that result with some care.

2. College football hasn't changed so much since 2000, though indeed offenses are inching ahead. I have read several places that offensive production numbers are up about 5% over 20 years. Annoyingly, it's very difficult to find Division 1 team-ranked stats before 2003, but 2003 was pretty close to 2001. Here are the medians on some relevant stats that are available on teamrankings.com.

Yds/game
2017 = 397.5;  2003 = 375.1;  difference then vs now -5.6%
yds/play
2017 = 5.45;  2003 = 5.2;  difference -4.6%
pts/game
2017 = 28.25; 2003 = 26.6, difference -5.8%
pts/play
2017 = 0.382; 2003 = 0.362;  difference -5.2%

So, the 5% seems about right, particularly for rate stats.

I would conclude that if you care about Stanford's place versus other teams, you should throw in a cushion in the numbers I posted of about 5%, pro-Willingham.
BUT, the Willingham numbers also don't include Bowl games, because the NCAA used to say those didn't count in season stats, but now they do. Willingham's best two Stanford teams had very disappointing Bowl games in terms of offensive production - per play is too much work but per game the Rose Bowl dropped Stanford 1999 per game avg by 3.5% and the Seattle Bowl the 2001 per game average by 2%. So for those two years the productivity stats with bowls should only get about half that kicker.

-------------------
One shouldn't be trying to read these closer than a 5% range anyway, so none of these adjustments should make much of a difference for what conclusions you draw.

[CTcard]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=18293.msg217846#msg217846 date=1512963513]
The way to do this is with Z-scores (which normalize things to number of standard deviations away from the mean) by year, but compiling that data with college stats would probably be a royal pain. With cfbstats it would be easy, but of course that only goes back to 2008.

I also think that that normalization only works if the distributions are the same (like both Gaussian). I would strongly suspect that over a 46 year period, the points per game distribution in 2017 would have a much different shape than the one in 1971. As you say though, even determining that would be tons of work.
[/quote]

1. You are asking for too much here. It's absolutely true that no number can exactly tell you the relative strength of two offenses in two different years. That doesn't mean you throw up your hands and give up. It means you treat the numbers that result with some care.

2. College football hasn't changed so much since 2000, though indeed offenses are inching ahead. I have read several places that offensive production numbers are up about 5% over 20 years. Annoyingly, it's very difficult to find Division 1 team-ranked stats before 2003, but 2003 was pretty close to 2001. Here are the medians on some relevant stats that are available on teamrankings.com.

Yds/game
2017 = 397.5;  2003 = 375.1;  difference then vs now -5.6%
yds/play
2017 = 5.45;  2003 = 5.2;  difference -4.6%
pts/game
2017 = 28.25; 2003 = 26.6, difference -5.8%
pts/play
2017 = 0.382; 2003 = 0.362;  difference -5.2%

So, the 5% seems about right, particularly for rate stats.

I would conclude that if you care about Stanford's place versus other teams, you should throw in a cushion in the numbers I posted of about 5%, pro-Willingham.
BUT, the Willingham numbers also don't include Bowl games, because the NCAA used to say those didn't count in season stats, but now they do. Willingham's best two Stanford teams had very disappointing Bowl games in terms of offensive production - per play is too much work but per game the Rose Bowl dropped Stanford 1999 per game avg by 3.5% and the Seattle Bowl the 2001 per game average by 2%. So for those two years the productivity stats with bowls should only get about half that kicker.

-------------------
One shouldn't be trying to read these closer than a 5% range anyway, so none of these adjustments should make much of a difference for what conclusions you draw.

[Hulk01]

I attended the Willingham Rose Bowl in 2000 and his Seattle Bowl game in 2002.  I cannot imagine a
Stanford fan longing for a return of those two offenses--and those were Willingham's two best teams.

[Hulk01]

I attended the Willingham Rose Bowl in 2000 and his Seattle Bowl game in 2002.  I cannot imagine a
Stanford fan longing for a return of those two offenses--and those were Willingham's two best teams.

[Goose]

I attended the Willingham Rose Bowl in 2000 and his Seattle Bowl game in 2002.  I cannot imagine a
Stanford fan longing for a return of those two offenses--and those were Willingham's two best teams.

Fully agree. Even with those "good" teams, most Stanford fans did not expect to win the Rose Bowl game. It was just how bad we would lose that was in question. The team played better than anyone could have ever hoped, but it wasn't enough.

[Goose]

I attended the Willingham Rose Bowl in 2000 and his Seattle Bowl game in 2002.  I cannot imagine a
Stanford fan longing for a return of those two offenses--and those were Willingham's two best teams.

Fully agree. Even with those "good" teams, most Stanford fans did not expect to win the Rose Bowl game. It was just how bad we would lose that was in question. The team played better than anyone could have ever hoped, but it wasn't enough.

[teejers1]

You're right, Hulk and Goose, the Michigan State Rose Bowl performance was so much better.

[teejers1]

You're right, Hulk and Goose, the Michigan State Rose Bowl performance was so much better.

[ColoradoTree]

The argument that the team loses games that they shouldn't is ridiculous. Every team does. stuff happens. But, again, what do you want to do? Clean house every time we have an off game? What is the actual remedy here? It's not like I like sitting through games like Colorado last year or Oregon State this year, but why myopically focus on those? I really, really like sitting through Rose Bowls and Pac-12 CGs, of which we've had a historic number under Shaw.

Well said.  No coaching staff is perfect.  No group of 18- to 22-year old young men and women will be perfectly consistent.  And when I complain periodically about personnel choices (like Costello staying on the bench against Oregon State) or play-calling (whether it be running too much, e.g., the Michigan State Rose Bowl, or running too little in key moments, e.g., the Utah game a few years back when we had it 3rd and 2 on the Utah 6 with about a minute left and a timeout, but we threw for the end zone twice instead of running for the first down and then clocking the ball, or punting on 4th and 2 from inside the opponent's 40), it's really just so much sound and fury.  Stupac hit on a point that I think about every time there's a high-profile coaching change in college sports--"so you're not happy with the current guy, but will the replacement be any better?"  Sure, I'd like our offense to be more effective at times, but if it's not?  I will mumble to myself and sit back down, because I don't want a remedy.  I recognize that there's no person better suited to leading this program than David Shaw, and I am so incredibly proud to root for a program led by such a good man. 

I mean, I'm not in total "ride or die" mode with Shaw.  A losing season, or even one where bowl eligibility wasn't mathematically certain with a few games to go, should warrant introspection.  But the dude's worst season as a head coach still had 8 wins and 2nd place in the division, and we followed up that season with Christian's record-breaking year and another Rose Bowl win.  Yeah, the Northwestern loss stunk, but from the outside looking in, there was some introspection, and a more exciting offense resulted.  If we win the Alamo Bowl, that's 6 out of 7 years with double-digit wins.  Things could be better, and that's always true. But man alive, things could be so much worse. 

[ColoradoTree]

The argument that the team loses games that they shouldn't is ridiculous. Every team does. stuff happens. But, again, what do you want to do? Clean house every time we have an off game? What is the actual remedy here? It's not like I like sitting through games like Colorado last year or Oregon State this year, but why myopically focus on those? I really, really like sitting through Rose Bowls and Pac-12 CGs, of which we've had a historic number under Shaw.

Well said.  No coaching staff is perfect.  No group of 18- to 22-year old young men and women will be perfectly consistent.  And when I complain periodically about personnel choices (like Costello staying on the bench against Oregon State) or play-calling (whether it be running too much, e.g., the Michigan State Rose Bowl, or running too little in key moments, e.g., the Utah game a few years back when we had it 3rd and 2 on the Utah 6 with about a minute left and a timeout, but we threw for the end zone twice instead of running for the first down and then clocking the ball, or punting on 4th and 2 from inside the opponent's 40), it's really just so much sound and fury.  Stupac hit on a point that I think about every time there's a high-profile coaching change in college sports--"so you're not happy with the current guy, but will the replacement be any better?"  Sure, I'd like our offense to be more effective at times, but if it's not?  I will mumble to myself and sit back down, because I don't want a remedy.  I recognize that there's no person better suited to leading this program than David Shaw, and I am so incredibly proud to root for a program led by such a good man. 

I mean, I'm not in total "ride or die" mode with Shaw.  A losing season, or even one where bowl eligibility wasn't mathematically certain with a few games to go, should warrant introspection.  But the dude's worst season as a head coach still had 8 wins and 2nd place in the division, and we followed up that season with Christian's record-breaking year and another Rose Bowl win.  Yeah, the Northwestern loss stunk, but from the outside looking in, there was some introspection, and a more exciting offense resulted.  If we win the Alamo Bowl, that's 6 out of 7 years with double-digit wins.  Things could be better, and that's always true. But man alive, things could be so much worse. 

[Hulk01]

That Michigan State defense ranked second in the nation in yards allowed per carry, third in pass efficiency rating, and third in fewest points allowed--one of the best NCAA defenses of the last ten years.  They allowed 13.2 points per game.  We hit them for 20, one of only two teams to hit them above the teens. 

[Hulk01]

That Michigan State defense ranked second in the nation in yards allowed per carry, third in pass efficiency rating, and third in fewest points allowed--one of the best NCAA defenses of the last ten years.  They allowed 13.2 points per game.  We hit them for 20, one of only two teams to hit them above the teens. 

[Phogge]

"We do what we do."

Most of the time it works. Given the nature of building a national power at a geek school like Stanford not bad.

I choose to bag over-analysis. 73 wins in seven seasons at STANFORD? Incredible.

[Phogge]

"We do what we do."

Most of the time it works. Given the nature of building a national power at a geek school like Stanford not bad.

I choose to bag over-analysis. 73 wins in seven seasons at STANFORD? Incredible.

[81alum]

The fundamental problem the we are trying to solve in this thread is:

1) The excitement and fun of a sports board is for fans to second-guess coaches, to be armchair, Monday-morning quarterbacks, to reminisce about particularly wonderful performances in the past that we imagine are better than the present.

2) We happen to be in the greatest era in Stanford football history, led by a universally admired head coach and alum David Shaw, and none of us want to seem ungrateful or arrogant about substituting our judgment for his demonstrated success.

The problem is fundamentally unsolvable.  Those two things are going to be in tension.  I think we do a pretty good job, on balance, of framing our criticisms and armchair-isms with protestations of gratitude and respect.  And that, in my opinion, is the best we will be able to do.

[81alum]

The fundamental problem the we are trying to solve in this thread is:

1) The excitement and fun of a sports board is for fans to second-guess coaches, to be armchair, Monday-morning quarterbacks, to reminisce about particularly wonderful performances in the past that we imagine are better than the present.

2) We happen to be in the greatest era in Stanford football history, led by a universally admired head coach and alum David Shaw, and none of us want to seem ungrateful or arrogant about substituting our judgment for his demonstrated success.

The problem is fundamentally unsolvable.  Those two things are going to be in tension.  I think we do a pretty good job, on balance, of framing our criticisms and armchair-isms with protestations of gratitude and respect.  And that, in my opinion, is the best we will be able to do.

[stupac2]

That Michigan State defense ranked second in the nation in yards allowed per carry, third in pass efficiency rating, and third in fewest points allowed--one of the best NCAA defenses of the last ten years.  They allowed 13.2 points per game.  We hit them for 20, one of only two teams to hit them above the teens.

Sometimes I honestly wonder if people think the other team is always just a bunch of scrubs. They can have good players and coaches too!

[stupac2]

That Michigan State defense ranked second in the nation in yards allowed per carry, third in pass efficiency rating, and third in fewest points allowed--one of the best NCAA defenses of the last ten years.  They allowed 13.2 points per game.  We hit them for 20, one of only two teams to hit them above the teens.

Sometimes I honestly wonder if people think the other team is always just a bunch of scrubs. They can have good players and coaches too!

[Goose]

Sometimes I honestly wonder if people think the other team is always just a bunch of scrubs. They can have good players and coaches too!

Absolutely true! The opponent gets a vote. Sometimes they are real good, and just blow the play up. Sometimes they aren't so good, but one guy is just playing out of his mind that day, or on the current play. Sometimes, they are out of position but one LB who is lost in space happens to wander into the passing lane. All these things happen, and no coach in the world can cancel this out.

[Goose]

Sometimes I honestly wonder if people think the other team is always just a bunch of scrubs. They can have good players and coaches too!

Absolutely true! The opponent gets a vote. Sometimes they are real good, and just blow the play up. Sometimes they aren't so good, but one guy is just playing out of his mind that day, or on the current play. Sometimes, they are out of position but one LB who is lost in space happens to wander into the passing lane. All these things happen, and no coach in the world can cancel this out.

[ColoradoTree]

The fundamental problem the we are trying to solve in this thread is:

1) The excitement and fun of a sports board is for fans to second-guess coaches, to be armchair, Monday-morning quarterbacks, to reminisce about particularly wonderful performances in the past that we imagine are better than the present.

2) We happen to be in the greatest era in Stanford football history, led by a universally admired head coach and alum David Shaw, and none of us want to seem ungrateful or arrogant about substituting our judgment for his demonstrated success.

The problem is fundamentally unsolvable.  Those two things are going to be in tension.  I think we do a pretty good job, on balance, of framing our criticisms and armchair-isms with protestations of gratitude and respect.  And that, in my opinion, is the best we will be able to do.

Have I said lately how much I appreciate this place?  I've been thinking much the same thing, albeit in a much more inchoate manner than how concisely you just laid it out.  Well said. 

[ColoradoTree]

The fundamental problem the we are trying to solve in this thread is:

1) The excitement and fun of a sports board is for fans to second-guess coaches, to be armchair, Monday-morning quarterbacks, to reminisce about particularly wonderful performances in the past that we imagine are better than the present.

2) We happen to be in the greatest era in Stanford football history, led by a universally admired head coach and alum David Shaw, and none of us want to seem ungrateful or arrogant about substituting our judgment for his demonstrated success.

The problem is fundamentally unsolvable.  Those two things are going to be in tension.  I think we do a pretty good job, on balance, of framing our criticisms and armchair-isms with protestations of gratitude and respect.  And that, in my opinion, is the best we will be able to do.

Have I said lately how much I appreciate this place?  I've been thinking much the same thing, albeit in a much more inchoate manner than how concisely you just laid it out.  Well said.