[OutsiderFan]

Some people might be happy with 4-2, but when you led your two losses in the fourth quarter, and would have one both if your offense scored just one TD in each game, you'd be 6-0 and in the Top 5, poised for a third straight BCS game, you can't be happy.  I don't think David Shaw is, so neither should Stanford fans.  The last thing you want to do is accept mediocrity, lest you become Cal.  Don't forget, this team is perilously close to being 2-4, having barely escaped with wins against SJSU and Arizona.

The running game has  been most disappointing.  Stepfan Taylor has had painfully few holes to run through this year.  He's been hit at the LOS or behind it almost every time he has touched the ball. It's a shame, because with some holes, Taylor could be having a really brobdingnagian year.  It seems the heavy sets are not working.  If Stanford was able to run the ball and maintain possession, or break some big runs with the heavy set, then use it.  But when it is getting stuffed, and the most successful runs are less than 10 yards, the defense is being aided because it doesn't have to worry about covering very much of the field, and it is not really threatened by the run.

It has become painful to see Stanford run so many times from the heavy set up the middle on short yardage and just get stuffed.  It doesn't matter if it is ND, UW, or SJSU, it just hasn't done the job. this year.  It seems we see this and other manifestations of Shaw's stubbornness all over the offense.  The QB, the play calling, the continuing to do what isn't working.  No Top 25 team should have the #91 rated passer as Nunes is, especially with such a great defense. 

What is puzzling is that David Shaw is such a Bill Walsh idol.  Walsh always believed you could scheme offense and score points even with lesser athletes.  But how is Stanford scheming?  There is very little imagination in the offense. 

Back to Nunes.  Look at the parallels to the 49ers.  In 2011 the theory was the 49ers didn't have great WRs, and maybe they didn't.  Neither did Stanford, but Stanford went 11-1 with Luck.  Today, after seeing Alex Smith look like a chump, with Randy Moss and Mario Manningham added to his arsenal, and seeing Nunes not be able to make enough plays against ND, my conclusion is even if Stanford had some great WRs, the team would still struggle, because you simply can't beat quality teams on the road without a good QB. 

[OutsiderFan]

Some people might be happy with 4-2, but when you led your two losses in the fourth quarter, and would have one both if your offense scored just one TD in each game, you'd be 6-0 and in the Top 5, poised for a third straight BCS game, you can't be happy.  I don't think David Shaw is, so neither should Stanford fans.  The last thing you want to do is accept mediocrity, lest you become Cal.  Don't forget, this team is perilously close to being 2-4, having barely escaped with wins against SJSU and Arizona.

The running game has  been most disappointing.  Stepfan Taylor has had painfully few holes to run through this year.  He's been hit at the LOS or behind it almost every time he has touched the ball. It's a shame, because with some holes, Taylor could be having a really brobdingnagian year.  It seems the heavy sets are not working.  If Stanford was able to run the ball and maintain possession, or break some big runs with the heavy set, then use it.  But when it is getting stuffed, and the most successful runs are less than 10 yards, the defense is being aided because it doesn't have to worry about covering very much of the field, and it is not really threatened by the run.

It has become painful to see Stanford run so many times from the heavy set up the middle on short yardage and just get stuffed.  It doesn't matter if it is ND, UW, or SJSU, it just hasn't done the job. this year.  It seems we see this and other manifestations of Shaw's stubbornness all over the offense.  The QB, the play calling, the continuing to do what isn't working.  No Top 25 team should have the #91 rated passer as Nunes is, especially with such a great defense. 

What is puzzling is that David Shaw is such a Bill Walsh idol.  Walsh always believed you could scheme offense and score points even with lesser athletes.  But how is Stanford scheming?  There is very little imagination in the offense. 

Back to Nunes.  Look at the parallels to the 49ers.  In 2011 the theory was the 49ers didn't have great WRs, and maybe they didn't.  Neither did Stanford, but Stanford went 11-1 with Luck.  Today, after seeing Alex Smith look like a chump, with Randy Moss and Mario Manningham added to his arsenal, and seeing Nunes not be able to make enough plays against ND, my conclusion is even if Stanford had some great WRs, the team would still struggle, because you simply can't beat quality teams on the road without a good QB. 

[JeffInCorvallis]

I don't have a big problem with Shaw's stubbornness through the first 3-4 games.  We've established an identity over the last 3 seasons of being a run-first, pound it between the tackles kind of team.  With some new pieces on the offensive line, trying to re-establish that and impose our will on other teams is fine with me.

The problem is it is now painfully obvious that it is not working, even against inferior opponents like SJSU and Arizona.  Stepfan Taylor has been great, but he has to scratch and claw for almost every yard.  We line up 3 times against ND at the goal line and we can't punch it in.  That offensive line is good (see the number of sacks allowed) but not great, not DeCastro kind of great.  We are trying to say our identity is power running.  Our O line is not quite good enough to pull it off, but worse yet we have few credible threats in the passing game.  The shortcomings of Mr. Nunes have been discussed at length here, but a bigger problem is lack of production from wideouts.  Toilolo and Ertz have been great but not too many other sure-handed receivers.  As a result, teams don't respect the pass and pack the box, daring us to throw over them.

Where are the quick slants, toss sweeps, and bubble screens?  If we don't have the athleticism to run over the other team, let's take what they are giving us.  We supposedly have a big playbook - time to start using it.

[JeffInCorvallis]

I don't have a big problem with Shaw's stubbornness through the first 3-4 games.  We've established an identity over the last 3 seasons of being a run-first, pound it between the tackles kind of team.  With some new pieces on the offensive line, trying to re-establish that and impose our will on other teams is fine with me.

The problem is it is now painfully obvious that it is not working, even against inferior opponents like SJSU and Arizona.  Stepfan Taylor has been great, but he has to scratch and claw for almost every yard.  We line up 3 times against ND at the goal line and we can't punch it in.  That offensive line is good (see the number of sacks allowed) but not great, not DeCastro kind of great.  We are trying to say our identity is power running.  Our O line is not quite good enough to pull it off, but worse yet we have few credible threats in the passing game.  The shortcomings of Mr. Nunes have been discussed at length here, but a bigger problem is lack of production from wideouts.  Toilolo and Ertz have been great but not too many other sure-handed receivers.  As a result, teams don't respect the pass and pack the box, daring us to throw over them.

Where are the quick slants, toss sweeps, and bubble screens?  If we don't have the athleticism to run over the other team, let's take what they are giving us.  We supposedly have a big playbook - time to start using it.

[oman]

We established the identity because for the last two years, we did not have to pass to set up the run -- Luck was a sublime proven commodity.

This year everyone knew that Stanford had an iffy passing potential and then Shaw decided that he didn't need to prove it.

The identity hasn't been validated this year, and the only way it would have as if our offensive line was actually better than it  was last year.  Or if our quarterback and receivers had lit it up.

Neither happened.  And it has been exacerbated by a running game that is very unimaginative.

[oman]

We established the identity because for the last two years, we did not have to pass to set up the run -- Luck was a sublime proven commodity.

This year everyone knew that Stanford had an iffy passing potential and then Shaw decided that he didn't need to prove it.

The identity hasn't been validated this year, and the only way it would have as if our offensive line was actually better than it  was last year.  Or if our quarterback and receivers had lit it up.

Neither happened.  And it has been exacerbated by a running game that is very unimaginative.