[DC 86]

Just one question DC. Did you ever play OG or OT?

Nope. You?

[DC 86]

Just one question DC. Did you ever play OG or OT?

Nope. You?

[Phogge]

Nope. Just QB and LB in an Oklahoma.

[Phogge]

Nope. Just QB and LB in an Oklahoma.

[Red80]

Shaw has not changed and will not change.  He is using a system successful 10 years, but opposing teams know what to expect and how to defend against his teams.  

The current system is actually completely different from the system that was successful - it's been a few years since Stanford has employed "Intellectual Brutality" which was the foundation for Harbaugh and early Shaw.

Exactly right, DC 86. What makes me chuckle is that Shaw's biggest critics don't seem to see that his offenses, since 2018, have actually evolved toward the kind of schemes and play-calling that they hoped for, just without the desired results. Stanford has looked a lot like their opponents on offense the past few seasons, to their detriment.

Harbaugh brought physical offense to Stanford. After he departed, Stanford became Even More physical, and realized plenty of success because of it. 

That style of football is gone, and with it have the fortunes of Stanford football.

[Red80]

Shaw has not changed and will not change.  He is using a system successful 10 years, but opposing teams know what to expect and how to defend against his teams.  

The current system is actually completely different from the system that was successful - it's been a few years since Stanford has employed "Intellectual Brutality" which was the foundation for Harbaugh and early Shaw.

Exactly right, DC 86. What makes me chuckle is that Shaw's biggest critics don't seem to see that his offenses, since 2018, have actually evolved toward the kind of schemes and play-calling that they hoped for, just without the desired results. Stanford has looked a lot like their opponents on offense the past few seasons, to their detriment.

Harbaugh brought physical offense to Stanford. After he departed, Stanford became Even More physical, and realized plenty of success because of it. 

That style of football is gone, and with it have the fortunes of Stanford football.

[Maple Leaf]

Utah has become the current "Stanford" within the Pac 12, big and physical.  In the online magazine the Athletic a current Pac 12 assistant coach stated that it used to be 10 years ago no one liked playing against Stanford due their physicality during the game and the number of players who would miss the following game(s) due to the beating they took from the Nerds.

The only rational hope that I have is the pandemic had a much greater impact on Stanford than their opponents and with a somewhat return to normal activities at least the physical development of the team will be significantly improved.

[Maple Leaf]

Utah has become the current "Stanford" within the Pac 12, big and physical.  In the online magazine the Athletic a current Pac 12 assistant coach stated that it used to be 10 years ago no one liked playing against Stanford due their physicality during the game and the number of players who would miss the following game(s) due to the beating they took from the Nerds.

The only rational hope that I have is the pandemic had a much greater impact on Stanford than their opponents and with a somewhat return to normal activities at least the physical development of the team will be significantly improved.

[msqueri]

Shaw has not changed and will not change.  He is using a system successful 10 years, but opposing teams know what to expect and how to defend against his teams.  

The current system is actually completely different from the system that was successful - it's been a few years since Stanford has employed "Intellectual Brutality" which was the foundation for Harbaugh and early Shaw.

Exactly right, DC 86. What makes me chuckle is that Shaw's biggest critics don't seem to see that his offenses, since 2018, have actually evolved toward the kind of schemes and play-calling that they hoped for, just without the desired results. Stanford has looked a lot like their opponents on offense the past few seasons, to their detriment.



Harbaugh brought physical offense to Stanford. After he departed, Stanford became Even More physical, and realized plenty of success because of it. 



That style of football is gone, and with it have the fortunes of Stanford football.

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

The move away from the physical style was not for a lack of trying to be physical. Rather, we a) lost Shannon Turley, b) experienced significant discontinuity in offensive line coaching (three coaches in five years), c) whiffed horribly in 2015-2016 OL recruiting, d) did not get very many football years out of the 2017 OL class, and e) almost entirely skipped OL recruiting in 2018 (and since Stratford never played for all intents and purposes did entirely skip OL recruiting). If one is inclined toward a monocausal explanation of why Stanford football lost its Intellectual Brutality, the best explanation is quite simple: we stopped having the horses to dominate in the trenches.

When you think about it, a big part of the story for Intellectual Brutality was having two NFL linemen on a line at the same time, usually deep into their career: DeCastro and Martin in 2010 and 2011, Fleming and Yankey in 2013, Garnett and Murphy in 2015. That's what we've been missing. A case can be made that at no point in the last five seasons have we had a healthy OL pipeline. At best, there have been one or two seasons with good line situations. Meanwhile, we recruited pass catchers incredibly well for much of this period. It would have been malpractice for Shaw to stick with two receiver sets given this confluence of circumstances.

Anyway, I think you're mistaken if you think Shaw intended to move away from his physical style. Incompetence (see a-e) explains more of this than intention. It's more debatable the extent to which the loss of our style explains the fall. Ultimately I think it comes down to not winning in the trenches. If we dominated in the trenches we could have won regardless of whether we had a bunch of ogre sets (which didn't exactly disappear in all of the bad recent years). It's the lack of trench effectiveness, not the style, that's held us up the most IMHO.

[msqueri]

Shaw has not changed and will not change.  He is using a system successful 10 years, but opposing teams know what to expect and how to defend against his teams.  

The current system is actually completely different from the system that was successful - it's been a few years since Stanford has employed "Intellectual Brutality" which was the foundation for Harbaugh and early Shaw.

Exactly right, DC 86. What makes me chuckle is that Shaw's biggest critics don't seem to see that his offenses, since 2018, have actually evolved toward the kind of schemes and play-calling that they hoped for, just without the desired results. Stanford has looked a lot like their opponents on offense the past few seasons, to their detriment.



Harbaugh brought physical offense to Stanford. After he departed, Stanford became Even More physical, and realized plenty of success because of it. 



That style of football is gone, and with it have the fortunes of Stanford football.

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

The move away from the physical style was not for a lack of trying to be physical. Rather, we a) lost Shannon Turley, b) experienced significant discontinuity in offensive line coaching (three coaches in five years), c) whiffed horribly in 2015-2016 OL recruiting, d) did not get very many football years out of the 2017 OL class, and e) almost entirely skipped OL recruiting in 2018 (and since Stratford never played for all intents and purposes did entirely skip OL recruiting). If one is inclined toward a monocausal explanation of why Stanford football lost its Intellectual Brutality, the best explanation is quite simple: we stopped having the horses to dominate in the trenches.

When you think about it, a big part of the story for Intellectual Brutality was having two NFL linemen on a line at the same time, usually deep into their career: DeCastro and Martin in 2010 and 2011, Fleming and Yankey in 2013, Garnett and Murphy in 2015. That's what we've been missing. A case can be made that at no point in the last five seasons have we had a healthy OL pipeline. At best, there have been one or two seasons with good line situations. Meanwhile, we recruited pass catchers incredibly well for much of this period. It would have been malpractice for Shaw to stick with two receiver sets given this confluence of circumstances.

Anyway, I think you're mistaken if you think Shaw intended to move away from his physical style. Incompetence (see a-e) explains more of this than intention. It's more debatable the extent to which the loss of our style explains the fall. Ultimately I think it comes down to not winning in the trenches. If we dominated in the trenches we could have won regardless of whether we had a bunch of ogre sets (which didn't exactly disappear in all of the bad recent years). It's the lack of trench effectiveness, not the style, that's held us up the most IMHO.

[Red80]

Shaw has not changed and will not change.  He is using a system successful 10 years, but opposing teams know what to expect and how to defend against his teams.  

The current system is actually completely different from the system that was successful - it's been a few years since Stanford has employed "Intellectual Brutality" which was the foundation for Harbaugh and early Shaw.

Exactly right, DC 86. What makes me chuckle is that Shaw's biggest critics don't seem to see that his offenses, since 2018, have actually evolved toward the kind of schemes and play-calling that they hoped for, just without the desired results. Stanford has looked a lot like their opponents on offense the past few seasons, to their detriment.



Harbaugh brought physical offense to Stanford. After he departed, Stanford became Even More physical, and realized plenty of success because of it. 



That style of football is gone, and with it have the fortunes of Stanford football.

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

The move away from the physical style was not for a lack of trying to be physical. Rather, we a) lost Shannon Turley, b) experienced significant discontinuity in offensive line coaching (three coaches in five years), c) whiffed horribly in 2015-2016 OL recruiting, d) did not get very many football years out of the 2017 OL class, and e) almost entirely skipped OL recruiting in 2018 (and since Stratford never played for all intents and purposes did entirely skip OL recruiting). If one is inclined toward a monocausal explanation of why Stanford football lost its Intellectual Brutality, the best explanation is quite simple: we stopped having the horses to dominate in the trenches.

When you think about it, a big part of the story for Intellectual Brutality was having two NFL linemen on a line at the same time, usually deep into their career: DeCastro and Martin in 2010 and 2011, Fleming and Yankey in 2013, Garnett and Murphy in 2015. That's what we've been missing. A case can be made that at no point in the last five seasons have we had a healthy OL pipeline. At best, there have been one or two seasons with good line situations. Meanwhile, we recruited pass catchers incredibly well for much of this period. It would have been malpractice for Shaw to stick with two receiver sets given this confluence of circumstances.

Anyway, I think you're mistaken if you think Shaw intended to move away from his physical style. Incompetence (see a-e) explains more of this than intention. It's more debatable the extent to which the loss of our style explains the fall. Ultimately I think it comes down to not winning in the trenches. If we dominated in the trenches we could have won regardless of whether we had a bunch of ogre sets (which didn't exactly disappear in all of the bad recent years). It's the lack of trench effectiveness, not the style, that's held us up the most IMHO.

I never said Shaw intentionally moved away from Smash Mouth (Except 2014, Big Mistake), just that his offenses had trended in a direction favored by a lot of the fan base. The results have sucked, just as I knew they would.

[Red80]

Shaw has not changed and will not change.  He is using a system successful 10 years, but opposing teams know what to expect and how to defend against his teams.  

The current system is actually completely different from the system that was successful - it's been a few years since Stanford has employed "Intellectual Brutality" which was the foundation for Harbaugh and early Shaw.

Exactly right, DC 86. What makes me chuckle is that Shaw's biggest critics don't seem to see that his offenses, since 2018, have actually evolved toward the kind of schemes and play-calling that they hoped for, just without the desired results. Stanford has looked a lot like their opponents on offense the past few seasons, to their detriment.



Harbaugh brought physical offense to Stanford. After he departed, Stanford became Even More physical, and realized plenty of success because of it. 



That style of football is gone, and with it have the fortunes of Stanford football.

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

The move away from the physical style was not for a lack of trying to be physical. Rather, we a) lost Shannon Turley, b) experienced significant discontinuity in offensive line coaching (three coaches in five years), c) whiffed horribly in 2015-2016 OL recruiting, d) did not get very many football years out of the 2017 OL class, and e) almost entirely skipped OL recruiting in 2018 (and since Stratford never played for all intents and purposes did entirely skip OL recruiting). If one is inclined toward a monocausal explanation of why Stanford football lost its Intellectual Brutality, the best explanation is quite simple: we stopped having the horses to dominate in the trenches.

When you think about it, a big part of the story for Intellectual Brutality was having two NFL linemen on a line at the same time, usually deep into their career: DeCastro and Martin in 2010 and 2011, Fleming and Yankey in 2013, Garnett and Murphy in 2015. That's what we've been missing. A case can be made that at no point in the last five seasons have we had a healthy OL pipeline. At best, there have been one or two seasons with good line situations. Meanwhile, we recruited pass catchers incredibly well for much of this period. It would have been malpractice for Shaw to stick with two receiver sets given this confluence of circumstances.

Anyway, I think you're mistaken if you think Shaw intended to move away from his physical style. Incompetence (see a-e) explains more of this than intention. It's more debatable the extent to which the loss of our style explains the fall. Ultimately I think it comes down to not winning in the trenches. If we dominated in the trenches we could have won regardless of whether we had a bunch of ogre sets (which didn't exactly disappear in all of the bad recent years). It's the lack of trench effectiveness, not the style, that's held us up the most IMHO.

I never said Shaw intentionally moved away from Smash Mouth (Except 2014, Big Mistake), just that his offenses had trended in a direction favored by a lot of the fan base. The results have sucked, just as I knew they would.

[DC 86]

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

I didn't imply that the change was intentional, I was responding to the notion that our problem is that opponents have figured out how to stop us because we are doing the same things on offense as we have always done.

[DC 86]

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

I didn't imply that the change was intentional, I was responding to the notion that our problem is that opponents have figured out how to stop us because we are doing the same things on offense as we have always done.

[Phogge]

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

I didn't imply that the change was intentional, I was responding to the notion that our problem is that opponents have figured out how to stop us because we are doing the same things on offense as we have always done.

Which is exactly what Beeg is saying.

[Phogge]

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

I didn't imply that the change was intentional, I was responding to the notion that our problem is that opponents have figured out how to stop us because we are doing the same things on offense as we have always done.

Which is exactly what Beeg is saying.

[DC 86]

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

I didn't imply that the change was intentional, I was responding to the notion that our problem is that opponents have figured out how to stop us because we are doing the same things on offense as we have always done.

Which is exactly what Beeg is saying.

And I was disagreeing with Beeg. That notion is not what has happened. But I wasn't implying that it was planned.

[DC 86]

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

I didn't imply that the change was intentional, I was responding to the notion that our problem is that opponents have figured out how to stop us because we are doing the same things on offense as we have always done.

Which is exactly what Beeg is saying.

And I was disagreeing with Beeg. That notion is not what has happened. But I wasn't implying that it was planned.

[Red80]

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

I didn't imply that the change was intentional, I was responding to the notion that our problem is that opponents have figured out how to stop us because we are doing the same things on offense as we have always done.

Which is exactly what Beeg is saying.

Not quite. Stanford is not running the same stuff that they ran 10 years ago, even 5 years ago. The offense has been strikingly different.

[Red80]

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

I didn't imply that the change was intentional, I was responding to the notion that our problem is that opponents have figured out how to stop us because we are doing the same things on offense as we have always done.

Which is exactly what Beeg is saying.

Not quite. Stanford is not running the same stuff that they ran 10 years ago, even 5 years ago. The offense has been strikingly different.

[msqueri]

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

I didn't imply that the change was intentional, I was responding to the notion that our problem is that opponents have figured out how to stop us because we are doing the same things on offense as we have always done.

Which is exactly what Beeg is saying.

And I was disagreeing with Beeg. That notion is not what has happened. But I wasn't implying that it was planned.

I’m wondering if I don’t know quote protocol here. I was saying Red’s comment made that implication. I was quoting Red, not you. 

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

[msqueri]

I don't think the causal story is as straightforward as this implies, nor do I think the loss of Intellectual Brutality was intentional.

I didn't imply that the change was intentional, I was responding to the notion that our problem is that opponents have figured out how to stop us because we are doing the same things on offense as we have always done.

Which is exactly what Beeg is saying.

And I was disagreeing with Beeg. That notion is not what has happened. But I wasn't implying that it was planned.

I’m wondering if I don’t know quote protocol here. I was saying Red’s comment made that implication. I was quoting Red, not you. 

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

[BostonCard]

You quoted correctly.  Since Red was building on DC’s comment, it is reasonable for both to think you were addressing them.  The irony is that I think we are all on the same page, except Beeg Dawg who said “Shaw has not changed and will not change”, which I agree with DC, Red, and Matt is not correct.

Which came first (the change in playmaking or the loss of dominance in the trenches) is a good question, and I’m inclined to agree that we lost OL dominance first, with poor OL recruiting between 2015 and 2018 (save 2017, which underdelivered compared to their recruiting rankings).  3 OL coaches in 5 years contributed to that, as did a bevy of changes in the recruiting landscape (early NLI, for example), to which Shaw was just slow to adapt.

I think this shows why despite top line recruiting numbers being decent (and more consistent with a 7-5 team than a 3-9 team), performance has suffered.  Yes, some of it is due to poor player development, and poor physical development, but I think part of it is also due to lopsided recruitment, where some positions, particularly the OL and DL, were under recruited in terms of sheer numbers, and consequently the top line numbers (recruiting that generally landed in the top half of the conference most years) tended to produce results akin to bottom quartile in recruiting.

To the extent I am a bit more sanguine about the future than many here, it’s because the class of 2022 was the first in a long time that featured quality depth at virtually all positions.  If (and I realize it is a big if) Shaw can keep that level of recruiting up consistently the next few years, I think we will see the results on the field improve.  Shaw has shown that he can win with good talent, but that he falls apart when the talent is even average.  If the class of 2023 continues what the class of 2022 started, I think we have a chance to compete again when those guys get to be upperclassmen.

BC

[BostonCard]

You quoted correctly.  Since Red was building on DC’s comment, it is reasonable for both to think you were addressing them.  The irony is that I think we are all on the same page, except Beeg Dawg who said “Shaw has not changed and will not change”, which I agree with DC, Red, and Matt is not correct.

Which came first (the change in playmaking or the loss of dominance in the trenches) is a good question, and I’m inclined to agree that we lost OL dominance first, with poor OL recruiting between 2015 and 2018 (save 2017, which underdelivered compared to their recruiting rankings).  3 OL coaches in 5 years contributed to that, as did a bevy of changes in the recruiting landscape (early NLI, for example), to which Shaw was just slow to adapt.

I think this shows why despite top line recruiting numbers being decent (and more consistent with a 7-5 team than a 3-9 team), performance has suffered.  Yes, some of it is due to poor player development, and poor physical development, but I think part of it is also due to lopsided recruitment, where some positions, particularly the OL and DL, were under recruited in terms of sheer numbers, and consequently the top line numbers (recruiting that generally landed in the top half of the conference most years) tended to produce results akin to bottom quartile in recruiting.

To the extent I am a bit more sanguine about the future than many here, it’s because the class of 2022 was the first in a long time that featured quality depth at virtually all positions.  If (and I realize it is a big if) Shaw can keep that level of recruiting up consistently the next few years, I think we will see the results on the field improve.  Shaw has shown that he can win with good talent, but that he falls apart when the talent is even average.  If the class of 2023 continues what the class of 2022 started, I think we have a chance to compete again when those guys get to be upperclassmen.

BC

[DC 86]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

[DC 86]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

[Red80]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

Strongly agree with all 3 points and have said so going back to year '12. It was actually Pep Hamilton who introduced Stanford's unique version of Power. Unbalanced Power.

Hamilton was Stanford's OC in '11 when they averaged over 40 points ppg and well over 400 yards pg.

Pep evaluated Stanford's personnel on offense in the Spring of '12 and concluded that the playbook was going to have to be different in order for Stanford to have their best chance to win. They simply lost too much firepower from the previous year, most notably Andrew Luck, who many considered to be the best college QB in the last 25 years. But there were other big losses, including two OL who were high draft picks, and some legitimate speed and quality receivers who became NFL players.

But Stanford punished and confounded opposing defenses with a ball control offense that executed Power extremely well. I used to love those 7+ minute drives that culminated in TDs. I also loved the way Stanford's O kept opposing high-powered offenses such as Oregon, USC, and UCLA on the sidelines for long periods of time, which not only kept Stanford's defense fresh and rested, but also had a discombobulating effect on those offenses which thrived on playing fast and running lots (95-100) of plays by which they wore down opposing defenses. 

I was listening to a Nick Aliotti talk about Stanford last fall. It seemed like I was listening to my echo. Aliotti was Oregon's DC for many years, including '12 and '13, when Stanford had epic wins over the Ducks. He said Stanford WAS different, WAS unique, that they made it a "different game", and that playing them was almost like playing one of the service academies. He implored Shaw to return to the Power O system that had made them so successful. He concluded the interview by saying, "Bring it back, David, bring it back." 

I would love to see it happen, but I have serious doubts that it will.

[Red80]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

Strongly agree with all 3 points and have said so going back to year '12. It was actually Pep Hamilton who introduced Stanford's unique version of Power. Unbalanced Power.

Hamilton was Stanford's OC in '11 when they averaged over 40 points ppg and well over 400 yards pg.

Pep evaluated Stanford's personnel on offense in the Spring of '12 and concluded that the playbook was going to have to be different in order for Stanford to have their best chance to win. They simply lost too much firepower from the previous year, most notably Andrew Luck, who many considered to be the best college QB in the last 25 years. But there were other big losses, including two OL who were high draft picks, and some legitimate speed and quality receivers who became NFL players.

But Stanford punished and confounded opposing defenses with a ball control offense that executed Power extremely well. I used to love those 7+ minute drives that culminated in TDs. I also loved the way Stanford's O kept opposing high-powered offenses such as Oregon, USC, and UCLA on the sidelines for long periods of time, which not only kept Stanford's defense fresh and rested, but also had a discombobulating effect on those offenses which thrived on playing fast and running lots (95-100) of plays by which they wore down opposing defenses. 

I was listening to a Nick Aliotti talk about Stanford last fall. It seemed like I was listening to my echo. Aliotti was Oregon's DC for many years, including '12 and '13, when Stanford had epic wins over the Ducks. He said Stanford WAS different, WAS unique, that they made it a "different game", and that playing them was almost like playing one of the service academies. He implored Shaw to return to the Power O system that had made them so successful. He concluded the interview by saying, "Bring it back, David, bring it back." 

I would love to see it happen, but I have serious doubts that it will.

[Beeg_Dawg]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.

BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

Like the Buddy years.  "But we missed winning by 4 plays!"

[Beeg_Dawg]

I agree with Matt. I find it hard to see a situation where Muir is going to fire Shaw.  He lacks the political capital to do it, and things get so bad that he has no choice, his own job will be on the chopping block. Muir’s successor might.

BC

I would be curious to know what constitutes "so bad he has no choice". 3-9, 4-8 type seasons in 2022 and 2023? Or would that even do it?

HA! There is a depressingly high number of people at Stanford, some on this board, who would try to sell 4-8 this year as evidence of Shaw's Return To Glory, and 3-9 as But We Came So Close.

Like the Buddy years.  "But we missed winning by 4 plays!"

[Snorlax94]

The only rational hope that I have is the pandemic had a much greater impact on Stanford than their opponents and with a somewhat return to normal activities at least the physical development of the team will be significantly improved.

I think there is something to this. The whole conference had fewer games and practices in 2020 and the conference on average had a bad year in 2021. The opening game against KState showed a prepared team against an unprepared team at a completely differrent level. I could see Stanford football suffering disproportinately from reduced games and practices because their systems are complex.

So i think there is the possibility of a good 2022, depending on how hard the coaches and players work every day (and how healthy the players can stay).

I do think Shaw needs to learn to replace staff. Keeping low performers isn’t being a “good guy” and pushing them out isn’t throwing anyone under the bus — keeping struggling staff cheats the fans, it cheats the players, and the field of football is booming financially — former staff members will find jobs elsewhere and they may in fact thrive more and be happier at that next stop.

[Snorlax94]

The only rational hope that I have is the pandemic had a much greater impact on Stanford than their opponents and with a somewhat return to normal activities at least the physical development of the team will be significantly improved.

I think there is something to this. The whole conference had fewer games and practices in 2020 and the conference on average had a bad year in 2021. The opening game against KState showed a prepared team against an unprepared team at a completely differrent level. I could see Stanford football suffering disproportinately from reduced games and practices because their systems are complex.

So i think there is the possibility of a good 2022, depending on how hard the coaches and players work every day (and how healthy the players can stay).

I do think Shaw needs to learn to replace staff. Keeping low performers isn’t being a “good guy” and pushing them out isn’t throwing anyone under the bus — keeping struggling staff cheats the fans, it cheats the players, and the field of football is booming financially — former staff members will find jobs elsewhere and they may in fact thrive more and be happier at that next stop.

[winflop]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

Last line is the most important one. Sadly, Shaw's staff seems incapable of doing so.

[winflop]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

Last line is the most important one. Sadly, Shaw's staff seems incapable of doing so.

[gailtate]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

Last line is the most important one. Sadly, Shaw's staff seems incapable of doing so.

Gotta wonder what they're actually capable of, other than pleasing Shaw.

[gailtate]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

Last line is the most important one. Sadly, Shaw's staff seems incapable of doing so.

Gotta wonder what they're actually capable of, other than pleasing Shaw.

[winflop]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

Last line is the most important one. Sadly, Shaw's staff seems incapable of doing so.

Gotta wonder what they're actually capable of, other than pleasing Shaw.

Anderson in particular seems to be VERY skilled at not getting fired

[winflop]

Regardless, I think both of your comments suggest a view that this evolution in our offense has been linked to a decline in our effectiveness. I think a better read is Shawfense works with dominant talent and otherwise doesn’t. We’ve had less dominant talent over time, especially at OL, so there’s been a decline. I think there may be a correlation/causation issue with the observation about style.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you that the move away from Intellectual Brutality stems from poor OL play; it would have been foolish to continue to run the same offense without the personnel to make it effective.

But ceteris paribus I do think that offense gives Stanford the best chance to win:

1. With a thin and poor defense it makes sense to try to control the clock via time consuming drives.
2. Most Pac-12 defenses aren't set up (personnel and scheme-wise) to defend that type of offense.
3. Historically Stanford has had the most success recruiting offensive linemen compared to other positions.

It is contingent on recruiting and coaching the right personnel, but I would love to see a return to a contrarian approach based on physical football.

Last line is the most important one. Sadly, Shaw's staff seems incapable of doing so.

Gotta wonder what they're actually capable of, other than pleasing Shaw.

Anderson in particular seems to be VERY skilled at not getting fired

[BostonCard]

I’ll channel my inner Phogge and encourage you all to be selective about what you quote.  The whole thread is visible to everyone, so it’s not like there is no context whatsoever 

BC

[BostonCard]

I’ll channel my inner Phogge and encourage you all to be selective about what you quote.  The whole thread is visible to everyone, so it’s not like there is no context whatsoever 

BC