[fullmetal]

Connor McFadden for OC.

[fullmetal]

Connor McFadden for OC.

[washingtonismoney]

Sorry, teejers, the timeline simply doesn't work for your hypothesis that the reason for the decline in offensive output is due to the transition from harbaugh to shaw.

Basically, Stanford's offense under Harbaugh pre-Luck was no better than Shaw'a offense post-Luck.
Shaw's offense with Luck at QB was no worse than Harbaugh's offense offense with Luck.

Our three best years on offense were the three years that Andrew luck was our QB.  Harbaugh gets  credit for recruiting Andrew Luck of course, though that's tempered by the fact that Luck was his third choice.  But its hard to assign offensive geniousness to him beyond that.

BC

Also hindered by the generally "meh" results of Harbaugh's 49ers offense, aside from the brief period the team took the league by surprise with the read-option. It was like introducing rabbits to Australia.

[washingtonismoney]

Sorry, teejers, the timeline simply doesn't work for your hypothesis that the reason for the decline in offensive output is due to the transition from harbaugh to shaw.

Basically, Stanford's offense under Harbaugh pre-Luck was no better than Shaw'a offense post-Luck.
Shaw's offense with Luck at QB was no worse than Harbaugh's offense offense with Luck.

Our three best years on offense were the three years that Andrew luck was our QB.  Harbaugh gets  credit for recruiting Andrew Luck of course, though that's tempered by the fact that Luck was his third choice.  But its hard to assign offensive geniousness to him beyond that.

BC

Also hindered by the generally "meh" results of Harbaugh's 49ers offense, aside from the brief period the team took the league by surprise with the read-option. It was like introducing rabbits to Australia.

[Leftcoast]

Something has to change after this year. 

Stanford's O hasn't looked "right" for much of the last two years.  As the head coach Shaw is the CEO running the team and while he doesn't need to DO all the jobs, he does need to put the right guys in place.  The not so fun part of his job is shuffling  the pieces when they aren't working despite personal relationships and loyalties.  While I doubt our OC is the only problem, he is the guy running our underperforming offense and if he had the answers we should have seen it by now. 

But maybe I'm wrong maybe and maybe something else is the problem.  I sincerely hope Shaw is not afraid to make the hard but necessary moves when it is time and it is time!

[Leftcoast]

Something has to change after this year. 

Stanford's O hasn't looked "right" for much of the last two years.  As the head coach Shaw is the CEO running the team and while he doesn't need to DO all the jobs, he does need to put the right guys in place.  The not so fun part of his job is shuffling  the pieces when they aren't working despite personal relationships and loyalties.  While I doubt our OC is the only problem, he is the guy running our underperforming offense and if he had the answers we should have seen it by now. 

But maybe I'm wrong maybe and maybe something else is the problem.  I sincerely hope Shaw is not afraid to make the hard but necessary moves when it is time and it is time!

[washingtonismoney]

Something has to change after this year. 

Stanford's O hasn't looked "right" for much of the last two years. ...

Two years? Don't you mean three?

The 2013 offense was pretty solid. The 2012 offense...

[washingtonismoney]

Something has to change after this year. 

Stanford's O hasn't looked "right" for much of the last two years. ...

Two years? Don't you mean three?

The 2013 offense was pretty solid. The 2012 offense...

[stupac2]

Two years? Don't you mean three?

The 2013 offense was pretty solid. The 2012 offense...

Don't you remember that the only games we played last year were USC and the Rose Bowl?

[stupac2]

Two years? Don't you mean three?

The 2013 offense was pretty solid. The 2012 offense...

Don't you remember that the only games we played last year were USC and the Rose Bowl?

[BostonCard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11048.msg104374#msg104374 date=1415069346]Two years? Don't you mean three?

The 2013 offense was pretty solid. The 2012 offense...

Don't you remember that the only games we played last year were U$€ and the Rose Bowl?
[/quote]

You forgot Utah.  I wanted to.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11048.msg104374#msg104374 date=1415069346]Two years? Don't you mean three?

The 2013 offense was pretty solid. The 2012 offense...

Don't you remember that the only games we played last year were U$€ and the Rose Bowl?
[/quote]

You forgot Utah.  I wanted to.

BC

[stupac2]

You forgot Utah.  I wanted to.

Eh, Utah wasn't that bad. If our defense doesn't completely forget how to defend a swing pass we win that game by two scores.

[stupac2]

You forgot Utah.  I wanted to.

Eh, Utah wasn't that bad. If our defense doesn't completely forget how to defend a swing pass we win that game by two scores.

[washingtonismoney]

Eh, Utah wasn't that bad. If our defense doesn't completely forget how to defend a swing pass we win that game by two scores.

Special teams didn't help either. The swing from going up 17-7 to 14-14 was a real problem.

Also, I think "forget" is the wrong verb there. UCLA, in the Pac-12 championship game the year before, killed us with the swing pass. UW did the same. For whatever reason Mason et al. were unprepared for the swing pass a third time. Probably the worst scheme coaching, defensively, since the Fiesta Bowl.

[washingtonismoney]

Eh, Utah wasn't that bad. If our defense doesn't completely forget how to defend a swing pass we win that game by two scores.

Special teams didn't help either. The swing from going up 17-7 to 14-14 was a real problem.

Also, I think "forget" is the wrong verb there. UCLA, in the Pac-12 championship game the year before, killed us with the swing pass. UW did the same. For whatever reason Mason et al. were unprepared for the swing pass a third time. Probably the worst scheme coaching, defensively, since the Fiesta Bowl.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11048.msg104387#msg104387 date=1415076088]You forgot Utah.  I wanted to.

Eh, Utah wasn't that bad. If our defense doesn't completely forget how to defend a swing pass we win that game by two scores.
[/quote]

I thought you were picking on losses, not offensive performances.  We had worse offensive performances than USC and Michigan State; we don't remember them because we won the game.  For example, we had 273 yards of total offense against Oregon State (5.35 yards per play) and 284 yards of total offense (4.66 yards per play) against Washington.  Both of those are substantialy worse offensive performances than either USC (337 yards, 5.62 ypp) or Michigan State (305 yards, 5.65 ypp).

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11048.msg104387#msg104387 date=1415076088]You forgot Utah.  I wanted to.

Eh, Utah wasn't that bad. If our defense doesn't completely forget how to defend a swing pass we win that game by two scores.
[/quote]

I thought you were picking on losses, not offensive performances.  We had worse offensive performances than USC and Michigan State; we don't remember them because we won the game.  For example, we had 273 yards of total offense against Oregon State (5.35 yards per play) and 284 yards of total offense (4.66 yards per play) against Washington.  Both of those are substantialy worse offensive performances than either USC (337 yards, 5.62 ypp) or Michigan State (305 yards, 5.65 ypp).

BC

[CTcard]

I categorically reject any assertion that the loss to Oregon on Saturday (or in 2011, for that matter) was anything akin to the Ls to the Ducks under the Shaw Era. 

First off, my post was about the defense. Your post seems to be primarily about the offense, plus some on the overall game. It always helps a discussion to have both sides discussing the same thing.

Stanford came ready to play in 2010 and jumped out to a 21-3 lead.  The defense - which at that time was no great shakes - gave up a lot of yards, true.  But the team that "lost by 21" was also "knocking on the door" twice in Q4, only to have two TOs.  In addition, there was a TERRIBLE offensive PI call on the first drive of the 2H against Stanford; the Owusu tragedy (or near tragedy); and a desperation onside kick by the Chipster that turned the tide in that game in the 1H.  And oh yeah, Oregon's final score was a "game-already-over" long run by James.  In other words, Stanford was ready to play; played well; but was derailed by some unexpected and rather flukey events, and the final margin was completely misleading.

Now that you mention it, it occurs to me that the 2010 game was more like the 2014 game overall than I had realized.

Here is another description of the two games.

2010 - From start to finish, the Stanford defense cannot stop Oregon. Oregon only punts twice in the game, once after the outcome is decided. Early on they get a couple of flukey turnovers which gives Stanford fans false hope [with TD drives of 12 and 44 yards].
The offense is its usual strong self early, and overall moves the ball well in the game. However, they eventually collapse, mostly from stupid mistakes - 3 turnovers and a turnover on downs.
Oregon wins by 21 racking up an ungodly number of yards and points.

2014 - From start to finish, the Stanford defense cannot stop Oregon. Oregon only punts twice in the game, once after the outcome is decided. Stanford doesn't get flukey turnovers this time, but one interception gives them a chance to get back in the game in the second half.
The offense overall moves the ball well in the game. However, mostly stupid mistakes keeps them from scoring - 2 turnovers, 2 turnovers on downs, 3 FGs that needed to be TDs.
Oregon wins by 29 racking up an ungodly number of yards and points.

-------
Yeah, there are lots of ways to view any game, and the one above is shaded to make a point. But one of the biggest differences between the 2010 and 2014 Oregon games was that in 2010 Stanford fans were not used to winning.

But why is it that Stanford's offense consistently underperforms?  Even when it has a decent game statistically (428 yards ain't bad, especially for this Stanford offense), it can't score?  Why is that?

There is a real issue here, though I think underperforms is a poorly defined term. I would frame it as, Why is it that Stanford's offense isn't better and in particular cannot score?

Stanford's offense hasn't been great by any measure in 2014, but it has been worse in scoring than actually moving the ball. Stanford is #8 in the conference in total offense yds/play (5.93), just about tied with Arizona for 7th and well ahead of OSU in 9th. In scoring offense Stanford is 12th in points per game (24.7). And of course famously, we lost the S.-C. game particularly because we couldn't cash in good drives and that contributed vs Oregon as well.

The issue deserves a lot more consideration than a rhetorical question.
My guess is that the problem includes not enough reliance/confidence/production in the run game and too much belief in the ability of our large receivers to win jump balls in the corners.
Mistakes get magnified in the red zone with a shorter field and higher stakes. A shaky line and a team with securing the ball problems is prone to those mistakes. 

[CTcard]

I categorically reject any assertion that the loss to Oregon on Saturday (or in 2011, for that matter) was anything akin to the Ls to the Ducks under the Shaw Era. 

First off, my post was about the defense. Your post seems to be primarily about the offense, plus some on the overall game. It always helps a discussion to have both sides discussing the same thing.

Stanford came ready to play in 2010 and jumped out to a 21-3 lead.  The defense - which at that time was no great shakes - gave up a lot of yards, true.  But the team that "lost by 21" was also "knocking on the door" twice in Q4, only to have two TOs.  In addition, there was a TERRIBLE offensive PI call on the first drive of the 2H against Stanford; the Owusu tragedy (or near tragedy); and a desperation onside kick by the Chipster that turned the tide in that game in the 1H.  And oh yeah, Oregon's final score was a "game-already-over" long run by James.  In other words, Stanford was ready to play; played well; but was derailed by some unexpected and rather flukey events, and the final margin was completely misleading.

Now that you mention it, it occurs to me that the 2010 game was more like the 2014 game overall than I had realized.

Here is another description of the two games.

2010 - From start to finish, the Stanford defense cannot stop Oregon. Oregon only punts twice in the game, once after the outcome is decided. Early on they get a couple of flukey turnovers which gives Stanford fans false hope [with TD drives of 12 and 44 yards].
The offense is its usual strong self early, and overall moves the ball well in the game. However, they eventually collapse, mostly from stupid mistakes - 3 turnovers and a turnover on downs.
Oregon wins by 21 racking up an ungodly number of yards and points.

2014 - From start to finish, the Stanford defense cannot stop Oregon. Oregon only punts twice in the game, once after the outcome is decided. Stanford doesn't get flukey turnovers this time, but one interception gives them a chance to get back in the game in the second half.
The offense overall moves the ball well in the game. However, mostly stupid mistakes keeps them from scoring - 2 turnovers, 2 turnovers on downs, 3 FGs that needed to be TDs.
Oregon wins by 29 racking up an ungodly number of yards and points.

-------
Yeah, there are lots of ways to view any game, and the one above is shaded to make a point. But one of the biggest differences between the 2010 and 2014 Oregon games was that in 2010 Stanford fans were not used to winning.

But why is it that Stanford's offense consistently underperforms?  Even when it has a decent game statistically (428 yards ain't bad, especially for this Stanford offense), it can't score?  Why is that?

There is a real issue here, though I think underperforms is a poorly defined term. I would frame it as, Why is it that Stanford's offense isn't better and in particular cannot score?

Stanford's offense hasn't been great by any measure in 2014, but it has been worse in scoring than actually moving the ball. Stanford is #8 in the conference in total offense yds/play (5.93), just about tied with Arizona for 7th and well ahead of OSU in 9th. In scoring offense Stanford is 12th in points per game (24.7). And of course famously, we lost the S.-C. game particularly because we couldn't cash in good drives and that contributed vs Oregon as well.

The issue deserves a lot more consideration than a rhetorical question.
My guess is that the problem includes not enough reliance/confidence/production in the run game and too much belief in the ability of our large receivers to win jump balls in the corners.
Mistakes get magnified in the red zone with a shorter field and higher stakes. A shaky line and a team with securing the ball problems is prone to those mistakes. 

[Leftcoast]

Good point, Garvin. 

Perhaps the shady figure on the Grassy Knoll WAS Bloomgren.  I'll have to check my copy of the Zapruder film.

[Leftcoast]

Good point, Garvin. 

Perhaps the shady figure on the Grassy Knoll WAS Bloomgren.  I'll have to check my copy of the Zapruder film.

[OutsiderFan]

If you look at the trend, the defense seems to be being worn out by an offense that isn't producing against good teams.

The defense was brutally, viciously, homicidally whupped by Oregon from the opening whistle. As this rate, we'll soon be blaming the offense for global warming, ebola and the Kennedy assassination.

Garvin, did you ever play football?

[OutsiderFan]

If you look at the trend, the defense seems to be being worn out by an offense that isn't producing against good teams.

The defense was brutally, viciously, homicidally whupped by Oregon from the opening whistle. As this rate, we'll soon be blaming the offense for global warming, ebola and the Kennedy assassination.

Garvin, did you ever play football?

[Kathy]

He's an Ink Bowl veteran.

[Kathy]

He's an Ink Bowl veteran.