[CowboyIndian]

The intermediate passing game has been a weak point all year.

I'll assume you missed the Pac-12 Championship game. Along with little-to-no play action, that is what surprised the hell out of me in the Rose Bowl. Did Jordan Pratt even get on the field?

[CowboyIndian]

The intermediate passing game has been a weak point all year.

I'll assume you missed the Pac-12 Championship game. Along with little-to-no play action, that is what surprised the hell out of me in the Rose Bowl. Did Jordan Pratt even get on the field?

[CowboyIndian]

The intermediate passing game has been a weak point all year.

I'll assume you missed the Pac-12 Championship game. Along with little-to-no play action, that is what surprised the hell out of me in the Rose Bowl. Did Jordan Pratt even get on the field?

[CowboyIndian]

The intermediate passing game has been a weak point all year.

I'll assume you missed the Pac-12 Championship game. Along with little-to-no play action, that is what surprised the hell out of me in the Rose Bowl. Did Jordan Pratt even get on the field?

[dabigv13]

My feeling is that David Shaw is a very good coach, and probably the best coach for Stanford in the long term (my heart would love to see Harbaugh back on the sideline, but my head tells me Shaw is probably the better long term guy, and Harbaugh ain't coming back anyway).

However like many here I question if he is the best possible playcaller or offensive coordinator. Obviously he's not bad or we wouldn't have won so many games. And the criticism that he's too stubborn to change is one that only dilettante fans should hold, and I think has been debunked pretty effectively on this board by people like WIM. But I think it's worth going a step past Shaw being open to change and question whether or not the offense we've seen on the field the past couple years is the best we could've put on the field, and not merely good.

I'm a novice when it comes to some of the advanced metrics, but the Fremeau Efficiency Index (commonly called FEI) seems to a be good metric because it takes into account strength of schedule, field position, and eliminates garbage possessions. It's instructive to look at Stanford's offensive FEI over the past few seasons. Interestingly, the 2009 Sun Bowl team was actually ranked #1 in the country by this metric, and our 2010 and 2011 teams were also ranked very highly- number 5 and number 6. Last year we were significantly back, at 34. This year we're at 16 (admittedly better than I would've thought).

The way I read these- 1) Luck was a boss, and combined with Toby was truly a sight to behold 2) Since the departure of Luck, our offense has ranged from poor (first half of last season) to good (second half of last season, this season). I think pairing a top 20 offense with an elite defense is a recipe for being one of the top teams in the country. To win the national title, you usually need to have an elite offense as well.

The past national champions, and their offensive FEI rank:

Alabama 2012, #5
Alabama 2011, #11
Auburn 2010, #1
Alabama 2009 #5
Florida 2008 #3
LSU 2007 #3

Now, is Andrew Luck 2.0 the answer, or do we have the personnel on this team to have a great offense without him? I'd say that yes, we do. ASU this year for instance is ranked #2, and in a NCAA fantasy draft I'm pretty sure the Stanford guys would generally come off the board before the ASU guys. Arizona at #9 last year, same thing.

I think it's simply too early to say whether Shaw and this staff have the ability to produce elite offenses without once in a generation QBs. But if we want to win a NC, let's hope they develop that ability, or find someone to help accomplish that. I don't think they're too far.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff2013

[dabigv13]

My feeling is that David Shaw is a very good coach, and probably the best coach for Stanford in the long term (my heart would love to see Harbaugh back on the sideline, but my head tells me Shaw is probably the better long term guy, and Harbaugh ain't coming back anyway).

However like many here I question if he is the best possible playcaller or offensive coordinator. Obviously he's not bad or we wouldn't have won so many games. And the criticism that he's too stubborn to change is one that only dilettante fans should hold, and I think has been debunked pretty effectively on this board by people like WIM. But I think it's worth going a step past Shaw being open to change and question whether or not the offense we've seen on the field the past couple years is the best we could've put on the field, and not merely good.

I'm a novice when it comes to some of the advanced metrics, but the Fremeau Efficiency Index (commonly called FEI) seems to a be good metric because it takes into account strength of schedule, field position, and eliminates garbage possessions. It's instructive to look at Stanford's offensive FEI over the past few seasons. Interestingly, the 2009 Sun Bowl team was actually ranked #1 in the country by this metric, and our 2010 and 2011 teams were also ranked very highly- number 5 and number 6. Last year we were significantly back, at 34. This year we're at 16 (admittedly better than I would've thought).

The way I read these- 1) Luck was a boss, and combined with Toby was truly a sight to behold 2) Since the departure of Luck, our offense has ranged from poor (first half of last season) to good (second half of last season, this season). I think pairing a top 20 offense with an elite defense is a recipe for being one of the top teams in the country. To win the national title, you usually need to have an elite offense as well.

The past national champions, and their offensive FEI rank:

Alabama 2012, #5
Alabama 2011, #11
Auburn 2010, #1
Alabama 2009 #5
Florida 2008 #3
LSU 2007 #3

Now, is Andrew Luck 2.0 the answer, or do we have the personnel on this team to have a great offense without him? I'd say that yes, we do. ASU this year for instance is ranked #2, and in a NCAA fantasy draft I'm pretty sure the Stanford guys would generally come off the board before the ASU guys. Arizona at #9 last year, same thing.

I think it's simply too early to say whether Shaw and this staff have the ability to produce elite offenses without once in a generation QBs. But if we want to win a NC, let's hope they develop that ability, or find someone to help accomplish that. I don't think they're too far.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff2013

[dabigv13]

My feeling is that David Shaw is a very good coach, and probably the best coach for Stanford in the long term (my heart would love to see Harbaugh back on the sideline, but my head tells me Shaw is probably the better long term guy, and Harbaugh ain't coming back anyway).

However like many here I question if he is the best possible playcaller or offensive coordinator. Obviously he's not bad or we wouldn't have won so many games. And the criticism that he's too stubborn to change is one that only dilettante fans should hold, and I think has been debunked pretty effectively on this board by people like WIM. But I think it's worth going a step past Shaw being open to change and question whether or not the offense we've seen on the field the past couple years is the best we could've put on the field, and not merely good.

I'm a novice when it comes to some of the advanced metrics, but the Fremeau Efficiency Index (commonly called FEI) seems to a be good metric because it takes into account strength of schedule, field position, and eliminates garbage possessions. It's instructive to look at Stanford's offensive FEI over the past few seasons. Interestingly, the 2009 Sun Bowl team was actually ranked #1 in the country by this metric, and our 2010 and 2011 teams were also ranked very highly- number 5 and number 6. Last year we were significantly back, at 34. This year we're at 16 (admittedly better than I would've thought).

The way I read these- 1) Luck was a boss, and combined with Toby was truly a sight to behold 2) Since the departure of Luck, our offense has ranged from poor (first half of last season) to good (second half of last season, this season). I think pairing a top 20 offense with an elite defense is a recipe for being one of the top teams in the country. To win the national title, you usually need to have an elite offense as well.

The past national champions, and their offensive FEI rank:

Alabama 2012, #5
Alabama 2011, #11
Auburn 2010, #1
Alabama 2009 #5
Florida 2008 #3
LSU 2007 #3

Now, is Andrew Luck 2.0 the answer, or do we have the personnel on this team to have a great offense without him? I'd say that yes, we do. ASU this year for instance is ranked #2, and in a NCAA fantasy draft I'm pretty sure the Stanford guys would generally come off the board before the ASU guys. Arizona at #9 last year, same thing.

I think it's simply too early to say whether Shaw and this staff have the ability to produce elite offenses without once in a generation QBs. But if we want to win a NC, let's hope they develop that ability, or find someone to help accomplish that. I don't think they're too far.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff2013

[dabigv13]

My feeling is that David Shaw is a very good coach, and probably the best coach for Stanford in the long term (my heart would love to see Harbaugh back on the sideline, but my head tells me Shaw is probably the better long term guy, and Harbaugh ain't coming back anyway).

However like many here I question if he is the best possible playcaller or offensive coordinator. Obviously he's not bad or we wouldn't have won so many games. And the criticism that he's too stubborn to change is one that only dilettante fans should hold, and I think has been debunked pretty effectively on this board by people like WIM. But I think it's worth going a step past Shaw being open to change and question whether or not the offense we've seen on the field the past couple years is the best we could've put on the field, and not merely good.

I'm a novice when it comes to some of the advanced metrics, but the Fremeau Efficiency Index (commonly called FEI) seems to a be good metric because it takes into account strength of schedule, field position, and eliminates garbage possessions. It's instructive to look at Stanford's offensive FEI over the past few seasons. Interestingly, the 2009 Sun Bowl team was actually ranked #1 in the country by this metric, and our 2010 and 2011 teams were also ranked very highly- number 5 and number 6. Last year we were significantly back, at 34. This year we're at 16 (admittedly better than I would've thought).

The way I read these- 1) Luck was a boss, and combined with Toby was truly a sight to behold 2) Since the departure of Luck, our offense has ranged from poor (first half of last season) to good (second half of last season, this season). I think pairing a top 20 offense with an elite defense is a recipe for being one of the top teams in the country. To win the national title, you usually need to have an elite offense as well.

The past national champions, and their offensive FEI rank:

Alabama 2012, #5
Alabama 2011, #11
Auburn 2010, #1
Alabama 2009 #5
Florida 2008 #3
LSU 2007 #3

Now, is Andrew Luck 2.0 the answer, or do we have the personnel on this team to have a great offense without him? I'd say that yes, we do. ASU this year for instance is ranked #2, and in a NCAA fantasy draft I'm pretty sure the Stanford guys would generally come off the board before the ASU guys. Arizona at #9 last year, same thing.

I think it's simply too early to say whether Shaw and this staff have the ability to produce elite offenses without once in a generation QBs. But if we want to win a NC, let's hope they develop that ability, or find someone to help accomplish that. I don't think they're too far.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff2013

[theashwineffect]

I don't believe that we need to make a wholesale change on the offensive side (ie. replace Bloomgren and Pritchard), but I do think that we'd benefit from bringing in a graybeard "offensive consultant" to help spice up the play calling.

Utah did something similar by bringing in Dennis Erickson last year to work with Brian Johnson, and Harbaugh did something similar in the past with the Ron Turner hire. Obviously, the Turner hire didn't work out since he stayed all of like three weeks. But I do think some fresh blood, even if it's "non-official" would be remarkably beneficial.

This might be a pipe dream, but If Rob Chudzinski isn't hired soon, I'd love to have him on staff somewhere. He's a proven college coordinator with a strong emphasis on intermediate passing and power running.

[theashwineffect]

I don't believe that we need to make a wholesale change on the offensive side (ie. replace Bloomgren and Pritchard), but I do think that we'd benefit from bringing in a graybeard "offensive consultant" to help spice up the play calling.

Utah did something similar by bringing in Dennis Erickson last year to work with Brian Johnson, and Harbaugh did something similar in the past with the Ron Turner hire. Obviously, the Turner hire didn't work out since he stayed all of like three weeks. But I do think some fresh blood, even if it's "non-official" would be remarkably beneficial.

This might be a pipe dream, but If Rob Chudzinski isn't hired soon, I'd love to have him on staff somewhere. He's a proven college coordinator with a strong emphasis on intermediate passing and power running.

[theashwineffect]

I don't believe that we need to make a wholesale change on the offensive side (ie. replace Bloomgren and Pritchard), but I do think that we'd benefit from bringing in a graybeard "offensive consultant" to help spice up the play calling.

Utah did something similar by bringing in Dennis Erickson last year to work with Brian Johnson, and Harbaugh did something similar in the past with the Ron Turner hire. Obviously, the Turner hire didn't work out since he stayed all of like three weeks. But I do think some fresh blood, even if it's "non-official" would be remarkably beneficial.

This might be a pipe dream, but If Rob Chudzinski isn't hired soon, I'd love to have him on staff somewhere. He's a proven college coordinator with a strong emphasis on intermediate passing and power running.

[theashwineffect]

I don't believe that we need to make a wholesale change on the offensive side (ie. replace Bloomgren and Pritchard), but I do think that we'd benefit from bringing in a graybeard "offensive consultant" to help spice up the play calling.

Utah did something similar by bringing in Dennis Erickson last year to work with Brian Johnson, and Harbaugh did something similar in the past with the Ron Turner hire. Obviously, the Turner hire didn't work out since he stayed all of like three weeks. But I do think some fresh blood, even if it's "non-official" would be remarkably beneficial.

This might be a pipe dream, but If Rob Chudzinski isn't hired soon, I'd love to have him on staff somewhere. He's a proven college coordinator with a strong emphasis on intermediate passing and power running.

[Renaissance Man]

Did we score a defensive TD in three or four of those games. For a team like ours, the percentage of losses that feature a defensive score has to be one of the great anomalies of all time.

[Renaissance Man]

Did we score a defensive TD in three or four of those games. For a team like ours, the percentage of losses that feature a defensive score has to be one of the great anomalies of all time.

[Renaissance Man]

Did we score a defensive TD in three or four of those games. For a team like ours, the percentage of losses that feature a defensive score has to be one of the great anomalies of all time.

[Renaissance Man]

Did we score a defensive TD in three or four of those games. For a team like ours, the percentage of losses that feature a defensive score has to be one of the great anomalies of all time.

[Oasis]

This question boils down to whether we can win one or two more games a year than we are winning now.  With what we have right now, we came very close to 13-0.  If we had won vs. Utah and the Figueroans, we probably would be in the NCG. (We might've done it with one loss.)  In that sense we are at the summit right now.  But for the random events that happen in every close football game, we are in the NCG.

I agree, however, we could be a lot better.  We are too predictable on offense.  The last 4th and 1 was exactly what MSU expected. That play wasn't the first time this season our elephants got stuffed, either.  Last year, the same thing happened at Not.re Dam.e. 

History shows that an attack will usually fail unless the attacker first throws the defender off balance.  (Somebody analogized to Pickett's Charge the other day, another painful episode I have to deal with.  Lee, however, was at least aiming for the part of the Union line he believed to be weak.  On most occasions he was very good at finding it.)

I don't know if our straight-ahead approach is based on looking for a weak point in the defense as opposed to relying on sheer mass and strength.  When I hear Coach Shaw talk about failures in the running game, and the straight-ahead attack in particular, I hear him say things like, "This is who we are.  This is what we do."  I hope he doesn't mean "We're going to run straight ahead because we can out-muscle any opponent."  Nobody can do that.  We need more intellectual to go with the brutality.

On the defensive side, this is just an impression, but our pass defense has looked weak against athletic receivers.  MSU's receivers seemed to get open pretty often. The reason, as some have commented, could be that MSU was holding our pass rushers and the refs weren't calling it. But it wasn't just the RB.  $C's receivers got open too.  I think we are playing soft coverages to avoid giving up the big play.  Whatever the reason good teams seem to pass against us pretty well.  Maybe the misses stand out, but our tackling did not seem as good as MSU's.

[Oasis]

This question boils down to whether we can win one or two more games a year than we are winning now.  With what we have right now, we came very close to 13-0.  If we had won vs. Utah and the Figueroans, we probably would be in the NCG. (We might've done it with one loss.)  In that sense we are at the summit right now.  But for the random events that happen in every close football game, we are in the NCG.

I agree, however, we could be a lot better.  We are too predictable on offense.  The last 4th and 1 was exactly what MSU expected. That play wasn't the first time this season our elephants got stuffed, either.  Last year, the same thing happened at Not.re Dam.e. 

History shows that an attack will usually fail unless the attacker first throws the defender off balance.  (Somebody analogized to Pickett's Charge the other day, another painful episode I have to deal with.  Lee, however, was at least aiming for the part of the Union line he believed to be weak.  On most occasions he was very good at finding it.)

I don't know if our straight-ahead approach is based on looking for a weak point in the defense as opposed to relying on sheer mass and strength.  When I hear Coach Shaw talk about failures in the running game, and the straight-ahead attack in particular, I hear him say things like, "This is who we are.  This is what we do."  I hope he doesn't mean "We're going to run straight ahead because we can out-muscle any opponent."  Nobody can do that.  We need more intellectual to go with the brutality.

On the defensive side, this is just an impression, but our pass defense has looked weak against athletic receivers.  MSU's receivers seemed to get open pretty often. The reason, as some have commented, could be that MSU was holding our pass rushers and the refs weren't calling it. But it wasn't just the RB.  $C's receivers got open too.  I think we are playing soft coverages to avoid giving up the big play.  Whatever the reason good teams seem to pass against us pretty well.  Maybe the misses stand out, but our tackling did not seem as good as MSU's.

[Oasis]

This question boils down to whether we can win one or two more games a year than we are winning now.  With what we have right now, we came very close to 13-0.  If we had won vs. Utah and the Figueroans, we probably would be in the NCG. (We might've done it with one loss.)  In that sense we are at the summit right now.  But for the random events that happen in every close football game, we are in the NCG.

I agree, however, we could be a lot better.  We are too predictable on offense.  The last 4th and 1 was exactly what MSU expected. That play wasn't the first time this season our elephants got stuffed, either.  Last year, the same thing happened at Not.re Dam.e. 

History shows that an attack will usually fail unless the attacker first throws the defender off balance.  (Somebody analogized to Pickett's Charge the other day, another painful episode I have to deal with.  Lee, however, was at least aiming for the part of the Union line he believed to be weak.  On most occasions he was very good at finding it.)

I don't know if our straight-ahead approach is based on looking for a weak point in the defense as opposed to relying on sheer mass and strength.  When I hear Coach Shaw talk about failures in the running game, and the straight-ahead attack in particular, I hear him say things like, "This is who we are.  This is what we do."  I hope he doesn't mean "We're going to run straight ahead because we can out-muscle any opponent."  Nobody can do that.  We need more intellectual to go with the brutality.

On the defensive side, this is just an impression, but our pass defense has looked weak against athletic receivers.  MSU's receivers seemed to get open pretty often. The reason, as some have commented, could be that MSU was holding our pass rushers and the refs weren't calling it. But it wasn't just the RB.  $C's receivers got open too.  I think we are playing soft coverages to avoid giving up the big play.  Whatever the reason good teams seem to pass against us pretty well.  Maybe the misses stand out, but our tackling did not seem as good as MSU's.

[Oasis]

This question boils down to whether we can win one or two more games a year than we are winning now.  With what we have right now, we came very close to 13-0.  If we had won vs. Utah and the Figueroans, we probably would be in the NCG. (We might've done it with one loss.)  In that sense we are at the summit right now.  But for the random events that happen in every close football game, we are in the NCG.

I agree, however, we could be a lot better.  We are too predictable on offense.  The last 4th and 1 was exactly what MSU expected. That play wasn't the first time this season our elephants got stuffed, either.  Last year, the same thing happened at Not.re Dam.e. 

History shows that an attack will usually fail unless the attacker first throws the defender off balance.  (Somebody analogized to Pickett's Charge the other day, another painful episode I have to deal with.  Lee, however, was at least aiming for the part of the Union line he believed to be weak.  On most occasions he was very good at finding it.)

I don't know if our straight-ahead approach is based on looking for a weak point in the defense as opposed to relying on sheer mass and strength.  When I hear Coach Shaw talk about failures in the running game, and the straight-ahead attack in particular, I hear him say things like, "This is who we are.  This is what we do."  I hope he doesn't mean "We're going to run straight ahead because we can out-muscle any opponent."  Nobody can do that.  We need more intellectual to go with the brutality.

On the defensive side, this is just an impression, but our pass defense has looked weak against athletic receivers.  MSU's receivers seemed to get open pretty often. The reason, as some have commented, could be that MSU was holding our pass rushers and the refs weren't calling it. But it wasn't just the RB.  $C's receivers got open too.  I think we are playing soft coverages to avoid giving up the big play.  Whatever the reason good teams seem to pass against us pretty well.  Maybe the misses stand out, but our tackling did not seem as good as MSU's.

[StanFan88]

I'd say yes because if there had been a four-team playoff this year I think Stanford would have been the fourth team (actually seeded third to avoid Auburn-Alabama in the semis).

But to get back there I think Shaw needs to hire an OC with experience as OC rather than promoting an OL coach who has never had the job.  And he needs to relinquish playcalling duties to that new OC as well.

I could see the first one happening but not the second.

[StanFan88]

I'd say yes because if there had been a four-team playoff this year I think Stanford would have been the fourth team (actually seeded third to avoid Auburn-Alabama in the semis).

But to get back there I think Shaw needs to hire an OC with experience as OC rather than promoting an OL coach who has never had the job.  And he needs to relinquish playcalling duties to that new OC as well.

I could see the first one happening but not the second.

[StanFan88]

I'd say yes because if there had been a four-team playoff this year I think Stanford would have been the fourth team (actually seeded third to avoid Auburn-Alabama in the semis).

But to get back there I think Shaw needs to hire an OC with experience as OC rather than promoting an OL coach who has never had the job.  And he needs to relinquish playcalling duties to that new OC as well.

I could see the first one happening but not the second.

[StanFan88]

I'd say yes because if there had been a four-team playoff this year I think Stanford would have been the fourth team (actually seeded third to avoid Auburn-Alabama in the semis).

But to get back there I think Shaw needs to hire an OC with experience as OC rather than promoting an OL coach who has never had the job.  And he needs to relinquish playcalling duties to that new OC as well.

I could see the first one happening but not the second.

[stupac2]

I'd say yes because if there had been a four-team playoff this year I think Stanford would have been the fourth team (actually seeded third to avoid Auburn-Alabama in the semis).

But to get back there I think Shaw needs to hire an OC with experience as OC rather than promoting an OL coach who has never had the job.  And he needs to relinquish playcalling duties to that new OC as well.

I could see the first one happening but not the second.

Shaw only calls plays in the red zone, from everything I've read. I don't really recall our red zone playcalling being atrocious, other than the fact that we were seriously hampered by the lack of a pass-catching TE.

[stupac2]

I'd say yes because if there had been a four-team playoff this year I think Stanford would have been the fourth team (actually seeded third to avoid Auburn-Alabama in the semis).

But to get back there I think Shaw needs to hire an OC with experience as OC rather than promoting an OL coach who has never had the job.  And he needs to relinquish playcalling duties to that new OC as well.

I could see the first one happening but not the second.

Shaw only calls plays in the red zone, from everything I've read. I don't really recall our red zone playcalling being atrocious, other than the fact that we were seriously hampered by the lack of a pass-catching TE.

[stupac2]

I'd say yes because if there had been a four-team playoff this year I think Stanford would have been the fourth team (actually seeded third to avoid Auburn-Alabama in the semis).

But to get back there I think Shaw needs to hire an OC with experience as OC rather than promoting an OL coach who has never had the job.  And he needs to relinquish playcalling duties to that new OC as well.

I could see the first one happening but not the second.

Shaw only calls plays in the red zone, from everything I've read. I don't really recall our red zone playcalling being atrocious, other than the fact that we were seriously hampered by the lack of a pass-catching TE.

[stupac2]

I'd say yes because if there had been a four-team playoff this year I think Stanford would have been the fourth team (actually seeded third to avoid Auburn-Alabama in the semis).

But to get back there I think Shaw needs to hire an OC with experience as OC rather than promoting an OL coach who has never had the job.  And he needs to relinquish playcalling duties to that new OC as well.

I could see the first one happening but not the second.

Shaw only calls plays in the red zone, from everything I've read. I don't really recall our red zone playcalling being atrocious, other than the fact that we were seriously hampered by the lack of a pass-catching TE.

[SUBuddha]

Wow, I go away for a few days to recover and have 4 pages of posts to wade through. As most of you know, I am a brobdingnagian Shaw apologist and a big fan of him as a coach. It could come from being classmates and, if not close, at least close enough friends to have him recognize me on the sideline of the U of A game 18 years after we last hung out. For those not aware of this, frame my next comments in that context.

David only calls plays in the redzone, and all of his QB’s are given some latitude to audible to 1 of 4 alternate sets. Luck did this with ease, not many can do that effectively. David has adapted to his personnel every season though. The recent criticism surprises me, given that he made many of the calls under Harbaugh. Were the calls predictable this season, yes, but at the same time, you have to look at the personnel he adapted to every year.

Luck gave him a great ability to utilize the short and long game with the TE’s and receivers. Stephan was complimented by 2 of the tree amigos last season, so the passes were shorter than in years past. This year we had to rely on the run more than ever with the lack of the short passes due to receiving TE’s not being as available. However, the long ball became part of the game again with the health of Montgomery improved, and Rector/Cajuste having a bit of a coming out party. I expect the O will look much different next year with the lack of a true power back. I expect the run plan to be similar, but with less jumbo sets and wider spacing on the line to take advantage of the shifty back we have in waiting.

That said, I fully expect the ceiling for the team to continue to climb to the top of the mountain. If it doesn’t, so be it. As a fan of 41 years, I never thought I would see Stanford be this good for this many years in a row. I could live with 8-4 happily in years past, and would not be heartbroken if that became our regression to the mean every few years. If the team continues winning 10 games per year I will be ecstatic, and if they were to get to the very top, I would be at a whole new level of bliss (as far as sports fandom).

[SUBuddha]

Wow, I go away for a few days to recover and have 4 pages of posts to wade through. As most of you know, I am a brobdingnagian Shaw apologist and a big fan of him as a coach. It could come from being classmates and, if not close, at least close enough friends to have him recognize me on the sideline of the U of A game 18 years after we last hung out. For those not aware of this, frame my next comments in that context.

David only calls plays in the redzone, and all of his QB’s are given some latitude to audible to 1 of 4 alternate sets. Luck did this with ease, not many can do that effectively. David has adapted to his personnel every season though. The recent criticism surprises me, given that he made many of the calls under Harbaugh. Were the calls predictable this season, yes, but at the same time, you have to look at the personnel he adapted to every year.

Luck gave him a great ability to utilize the short and long game with the TE’s and receivers. Stephan was complimented by 2 of the tree amigos last season, so the passes were shorter than in years past. This year we had to rely on the run more than ever with the lack of the short passes due to receiving TE’s not being as available. However, the long ball became part of the game again with the health of Montgomery improved, and Rector/Cajuste having a bit of a coming out party. I expect the O will look much different next year with the lack of a true power back. I expect the run plan to be similar, but with less jumbo sets and wider spacing on the line to take advantage of the shifty back we have in waiting.

That said, I fully expect the ceiling for the team to continue to climb to the top of the mountain. If it doesn’t, so be it. As a fan of 41 years, I never thought I would see Stanford be this good for this many years in a row. I could live with 8-4 happily in years past, and would not be heartbroken if that became our regression to the mean every few years. If the team continues winning 10 games per year I will be ecstatic, and if they were to get to the very top, I would be at a whole new level of bliss (as far as sports fandom).

[SUBuddha]

Wow, I go away for a few days to recover and have 4 pages of posts to wade through. As most of you know, I am a brobdingnagian Shaw apologist and a big fan of him as a coach. It could come from being classmates and, if not close, at least close enough friends to have him recognize me on the sideline of the U of A game 18 years after we last hung out. For those not aware of this, frame my next comments in that context.

David only calls plays in the redzone, and all of his QB’s are given some latitude to audible to 1 of 4 alternate sets. Luck did this with ease, not many can do that effectively. David has adapted to his personnel every season though. The recent criticism surprises me, given that he made many of the calls under Harbaugh. Were the calls predictable this season, yes, but at the same time, you have to look at the personnel he adapted to every year.

Luck gave him a great ability to utilize the short and long game with the TE’s and receivers. Stephan was complimented by 2 of the tree amigos last season, so the passes were shorter than in years past. This year we had to rely on the run more than ever with the lack of the short passes due to receiving TE’s not being as available. However, the long ball became part of the game again with the health of Montgomery improved, and Rector/Cajuste having a bit of a coming out party. I expect the O will look much different next year with the lack of a true power back. I expect the run plan to be similar, but with less jumbo sets and wider spacing on the line to take advantage of the shifty back we have in waiting.

That said, I fully expect the ceiling for the team to continue to climb to the top of the mountain. If it doesn’t, so be it. As a fan of 41 years, I never thought I would see Stanford be this good for this many years in a row. I could live with 8-4 happily in years past, and would not be heartbroken if that became our regression to the mean every few years. If the team continues winning 10 games per year I will be ecstatic, and if they were to get to the very top, I would be at a whole new level of bliss (as far as sports fandom).

[SUBuddha]

Wow, I go away for a few days to recover and have 4 pages of posts to wade through. As most of you know, I am a brobdingnagian Shaw apologist and a big fan of him as a coach. It could come from being classmates and, if not close, at least close enough friends to have him recognize me on the sideline of the U of A game 18 years after we last hung out. For those not aware of this, frame my next comments in that context.

David only calls plays in the redzone, and all of his QB’s are given some latitude to audible to 1 of 4 alternate sets. Luck did this with ease, not many can do that effectively. David has adapted to his personnel every season though. The recent criticism surprises me, given that he made many of the calls under Harbaugh. Were the calls predictable this season, yes, but at the same time, you have to look at the personnel he adapted to every year.

Luck gave him a great ability to utilize the short and long game with the TE’s and receivers. Stephan was complimented by 2 of the tree amigos last season, so the passes were shorter than in years past. This year we had to rely on the run more than ever with the lack of the short passes due to receiving TE’s not being as available. However, the long ball became part of the game again with the health of Montgomery improved, and Rector/Cajuste having a bit of a coming out party. I expect the O will look much different next year with the lack of a true power back. I expect the run plan to be similar, but with less jumbo sets and wider spacing on the line to take advantage of the shifty back we have in waiting.

That said, I fully expect the ceiling for the team to continue to climb to the top of the mountain. If it doesn’t, so be it. As a fan of 41 years, I never thought I would see Stanford be this good for this many years in a row. I could live with 8-4 happily in years past, and would not be heartbroken if that became our regression to the mean every few years. If the team continues winning 10 games per year I will be ecstatic, and if they were to get to the very top, I would be at a whole new level of bliss (as far as sports fandom).

[gocard14]

While there were a lot of individual decisions and play calls I disagreed with, Shaw and Co. put us in an ideal position.

We were, quite literally, 2-3 plays away from a national championship berth.  To do that without an elite QB is remarkable.  Even the most talented teams require a lot of luck to make it unless a cupcake schedule is played (a la FSU), and while we had a lot of talent this year, we were hardly last year's Alabama or the USC of mid 2000s.

To answer the initial question.  We already are at the summit.  We just needed a few more big plays. 

[gocard14]

While there were a lot of individual decisions and play calls I disagreed with, Shaw and Co. put us in an ideal position.

We were, quite literally, 2-3 plays away from a national championship berth.  To do that without an elite QB is remarkable.  Even the most talented teams require a lot of luck to make it unless a cupcake schedule is played (a la FSU), and while we had a lot of talent this year, we were hardly last year's Alabama or the USC of mid 2000s.

To answer the initial question.  We already are at the summit.  We just needed a few more big plays. 

[gocard14]

While there were a lot of individual decisions and play calls I disagreed with, Shaw and Co. put us in an ideal position.

We were, quite literally, 2-3 plays away from a national championship berth.  To do that without an elite QB is remarkable.  Even the most talented teams require a lot of luck to make it unless a cupcake schedule is played (a la FSU), and while we had a lot of talent this year, we were hardly last year's Alabama or the USC of mid 2000s.

To answer the initial question.  We already are at the summit.  We just needed a few more big plays. 

[gocard14]

While there were a lot of individual decisions and play calls I disagreed with, Shaw and Co. put us in an ideal position.

We were, quite literally, 2-3 plays away from a national championship berth.  To do that without an elite QB is remarkable.  Even the most talented teams require a lot of luck to make it unless a cupcake schedule is played (a la FSU), and while we had a lot of talent this year, we were hardly last year's Alabama or the USC of mid 2000s.

To answer the initial question.  We already are at the summit.  We just needed a few more big plays. 

[washingtonismoney]

We already are at the summit.  We just needed a few more big plays.

Just to echo this point (more-or-less), the best way to win a national championship is:

1. Put out elite teams for a long period of time.
2. Get lucky.

Remember, at one point Tom Osborne and Bobby Bowden couldn't win the big one.

[washingtonismoney]

We already are at the summit.  We just needed a few more big plays.

Just to echo this point (more-or-less), the best way to win a national championship is:

1. Put out elite teams for a long period of time.
2. Get lucky.

Remember, at one point Tom Osborne and Bobby Bowden couldn't win the big one.

[washingtonismoney]

We already are at the summit.  We just needed a few more big plays.

Just to echo this point (more-or-less), the best way to win a national championship is:

1. Put out elite teams for a long period of time.
2. Get lucky.

Remember, at one point Tom Osborne and Bobby Bowden couldn't win the big one.

[washingtonismoney]

We already are at the summit.  We just needed a few more big plays.

Just to echo this point (more-or-less), the best way to win a national championship is:

1. Put out elite teams for a long period of time.
2. Get lucky.

Remember, at one point Tom Osborne and Bobby Bowden couldn't win the big one.