[BostonCard]

Good coaches almost never have years like Stanford's offense in 2014; highly regarded OL, experienced QB, quality backs, receivers, and TEs.

...

Look across the bay.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/leader/905/...ort02.html
http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/leader/905/...ort01.html

Bear fans I am sure are thanking their lucky stars that they got rid of their putrid offensive coordinator last year (their 2013 ypp, 5.2, was worse than Stanford's 2014 ypp, 5.93, and their total scoring, 23 ppg, was worse than Stanford's this year, 24.7) .  Oh, wait, you are telling me they didn't?

You might want to pick a different example than Cal to make your point, as they seem to be a great example for why would not want to fire your offensive coordinator despite a putrid offense.

BC

EDIT: I see someone beat me to the punch.  Thanks CTCard.

[BostonCard]

Good coaches almost never have years like Stanford's offense in 2014; highly regarded OL, experienced QB, quality backs, receivers, and TEs.

...

Look across the bay.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/leader/905/...ort02.html
http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/leader/905/...ort01.html

Bear fans I am sure are thanking their lucky stars that they got rid of their putrid offensive coordinator last year (their 2013 ypp, 5.2, was worse than Stanford's 2014 ypp, 5.93, and their total scoring, 23 ppg, was worse than Stanford's this year, 24.7) .  Oh, wait, you are telling me they didn't?

You might want to pick a different example than Cal to make your point, as they seem to be a great example for why would not want to fire your offensive coordinator despite a putrid offense.

BC

EDIT: I see someone beat me to the punch.  Thanks CTCard.

[CowboyIndian]

The losses to U$C and ND were imminently avoidable,

If only we'd gotten there in time.

[CowboyIndian]

The losses to U$C and ND were imminently avoidable,

If only we'd gotten there in time.

[81alum]

A thing that is driving me crazy is that many of the complaints about the offense are complaints about a system we are not currently running. We are not running a Power Run offense. We are not running much of a run-based offense at all. As noted in another thread, we aren't running the ball that much more than Low APR U - which runs one of those Raidey offenses. We have only occasionally run the Ogre packages, except suddenly vs Oregon it showed up again.

So far this year, we have run 302 times and passed 287 times. 

[81alum]

A thing that is driving me crazy is that many of the complaints about the offense are complaints about a system we are not currently running. We are not running a Power Run offense. We are not running much of a run-based offense at all. As noted in another thread, we aren't running the ball that much more than Low APR U - which runs one of those Raidey offenses. We have only occasionally run the Ogre packages, except suddenly vs Oregon it showed up again.

So far this year, we have run 302 times and passed 287 times. 

[OutsiderFan]

There is a big difference between building and sustaining.  Ca.l installed a totally new offense in 2013, was extremely young, inexperienced and lacked talent on the OL, started a True Frosh at QB, and had nothing at the RB position.  On top of that, the players were soft, had no strong team concept, and many weren't taking school seriously.  There are no parallels between the 2013 Ca.l offense and the 2014 Stanford offense worthy of discussion.  The differences are so stark that even comparing them statistically is a waste of time.

Another difference.  Tony Franklin has a long track record of producing productive offenses.  When you hear him interviewed you know why.  He has developed hismown philosophy.  He has been in charge of developing and running an offense asmthe coordinator.  He wants to threaten all areas of the field, and contrary to popular belief, he's just as happy to run the ball as throw it.  I even think he prefers running.  Bloomgren has no similar track record of success and wasn't hired as "his own man" as much as someone to implement what someone else wanted him to do. 

As for evidence when things go south they can turn around with the same person in charge, it may be possible, but in any area of life do you want the person who had responsibility for screwing something up, to be the one to fix it?  If you get your roof done and it leaks, how likely are you to call the same guy to fix it, versus finding a new one that you feel good about simply because he's  a different guy?

[OutsiderFan]

There is a big difference between building and sustaining.  Ca.l installed a totally new offense in 2013, was extremely young, inexperienced and lacked talent on the OL, started a True Frosh at QB, and had nothing at the RB position.  On top of that, the players were soft, had no strong team concept, and many weren't taking school seriously.  There are no parallels between the 2013 Ca.l offense and the 2014 Stanford offense worthy of discussion.  The differences are so stark that even comparing them statistically is a waste of time.

Another difference.  Tony Franklin has a long track record of producing productive offenses.  When you hear him interviewed you know why.  He has developed hismown philosophy.  He has been in charge of developing and running an offense asmthe coordinator.  He wants to threaten all areas of the field, and contrary to popular belief, he's just as happy to run the ball as throw it.  I even think he prefers running.  Bloomgren has no similar track record of success and wasn't hired as "his own man" as much as someone to implement what someone else wanted him to do. 

As for evidence when things go south they can turn around with the same person in charge, it may be possible, but in any area of life do you want the person who had responsibility for screwing something up, to be the one to fix it?  If you get your roof done and it leaks, how likely are you to call the same guy to fix it, versus finding a new one that you feel good about simply because he's  a different guy?

[81alum]

Well, none of us can really know all the detailed reasons for why our offense is not functioning well.  Fan boards do not have the depth of knowledge of a coaching staff.  But that has never stopped us from wildly speculating before--that is what fans do!

All that said, count me in the group that thinks a change of Offensive Coordinator is indicated.  I did not like our offense particularly last year, either--its inability to ever really adapt to deal effectively with the lack of Tight Ends, and the woeful performance against Michigan State's run-blitz and man to man cover.  I do not actually believe that we should be trying to run power all the time--we obviously do not have the personnel for that--and so we DO need to adjust our offense to the personnel that we have.  I think the current OC is trying to do so and he does in fact now know that we cannot presently be a power running team.  Unfortunately, while he was a master at understanding the power running game,  he seems to be much less effective at constructing alternative offenses centered on the strengths and weaknesses of this year's offensive players. 

Also count me in the group that thinks we need a quarterbacks coach to help Hogan improve.  I really think that he has additional upside potential which has not yet been achieved.  He may never be able to fix his mechanics, but he can certainly improve his progressions and become a more effective quarterback.  I do not know what Tavita has and has not tried, but whatever it is, it has not worked.  Hogan has not sufficiently improved his progressions this year, despite the fact that nearly everyone knew coming in that it was a priority for him. 

Among the unanswered questions, though, is how much of an offensive coordinator is Bloomgren?  Perhaps he simply carries out Shaw's instructions.  The same might be true for Tavita.  Their titles do not really tell us what degree of freedom they have in carrying out their jobs, so it is difficult to know how the staff might be rearranged or replaced to give our players better opportunities.  So all this remains...speculation.  Losing, however, tends to breed speculation.

[81alum]

Well, none of us can really know all the detailed reasons for why our offense is not functioning well.  Fan boards do not have the depth of knowledge of a coaching staff.  But that has never stopped us from wildly speculating before--that is what fans do!

All that said, count me in the group that thinks a change of Offensive Coordinator is indicated.  I did not like our offense particularly last year, either--its inability to ever really adapt to deal effectively with the lack of Tight Ends, and the woeful performance against Michigan State's run-blitz and man to man cover.  I do not actually believe that we should be trying to run power all the time--we obviously do not have the personnel for that--and so we DO need to adjust our offense to the personnel that we have.  I think the current OC is trying to do so and he does in fact now know that we cannot presently be a power running team.  Unfortunately, while he was a master at understanding the power running game,  he seems to be much less effective at constructing alternative offenses centered on the strengths and weaknesses of this year's offensive players. 

Also count me in the group that thinks we need a quarterbacks coach to help Hogan improve.  I really think that he has additional upside potential which has not yet been achieved.  He may never be able to fix his mechanics, but he can certainly improve his progressions and become a more effective quarterback.  I do not know what Tavita has and has not tried, but whatever it is, it has not worked.  Hogan has not sufficiently improved his progressions this year, despite the fact that nearly everyone knew coming in that it was a priority for him. 

Among the unanswered questions, though, is how much of an offensive coordinator is Bloomgren?  Perhaps he simply carries out Shaw's instructions.  The same might be true for Tavita.  Their titles do not really tell us what degree of freedom they have in carrying out their jobs, so it is difficult to know how the staff might be rearranged or replaced to give our players better opportunities.  So all this remains...speculation.  Losing, however, tends to breed speculation.

[Stymie]

As others have said, I think it would be far more constructive to express our wishes than our suggestions.  Anybody who thinks that Shaw and/or Bloomgren are going to seriously "listen" to what we say is smoking their own exhaust.  Also, many of these suggestions have been unseemly, given that few if any of us has adequately knowledge of what is actually happening at the coal face vis a vis our offense.  So, when I wish upon a star...

...I wish for an offense that encourages flair as much as execution
...I wish for an offensive coordinator and/or head coach who is/are risk intrigued rather than risk averse
...I wish for redshirts to be burned in much larger numbers and more frequently (why is a 5-year career the new normal?)
...I wish for a staff that embraces change rather than fights to retain/retrain the past
...I wish for a team that sees the red zone as a green light for creativity rather than an excuse to run powerjumboogre again and again and again
...I wish that Stanford football would be fun (even if occasionally completely wacko) rather than dull as dishwater, as it is now...

End of rant.

[Stymie]

As others have said, I think it would be far more constructive to express our wishes than our suggestions.  Anybody who thinks that Shaw and/or Bloomgren are going to seriously "listen" to what we say is smoking their own exhaust.  Also, many of these suggestions have been unseemly, given that few if any of us has adequately knowledge of what is actually happening at the coal face vis a vis our offense.  So, when I wish upon a star...

...I wish for an offense that encourages flair as much as execution
...I wish for an offensive coordinator and/or head coach who is/are risk intrigued rather than risk averse
...I wish for redshirts to be burned in much larger numbers and more frequently (why is a 5-year career the new normal?)
...I wish for a staff that embraces change rather than fights to retain/retrain the past
...I wish for a team that sees the red zone as a green light for creativity rather than an excuse to run powerjumboogre again and again and again
...I wish that Stanford football would be fun (even if occasionally completely wacko) rather than dull as dishwater, as it is now...

End of rant.

[yvonne]

I don't remember anyone complaining that the offense was "dull as dishwater" when we ran Toby on every play.

[yvonne]

I don't remember anyone complaining that the offense was "dull as dishwater" when we ran Toby on every play.

[Stymie]

I don't remember anyone complaining that the offense was "dull as dishwater" when we ran Toby on every play.

Nice, warm, soapy and satisfying dishwater, but dull just the same.  I didn't go to Stanford to watch 3 yards and a cloud of poppy seeds football....

[Stymie]

I don't remember anyone complaining that the offense was "dull as dishwater" when we ran Toby on every play.

Nice, warm, soapy and satisfying dishwater, but dull just the same.  I didn't go to Stanford to watch 3 yards and a cloud of poppy seeds football....

[Kathy]

I didn't go to Stanford to watch football. That was a bonus.

[Kathy]

I didn't go to Stanford to watch football. That was a bonus.

[Stymie]

Me,too, Kathy.

[Stymie]

Me,too, Kathy.

[stupac2]

Looks like a lot of delusional people on this board, in that case.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...461.0.html
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=10382.0

Right, and there's no reason anyone should have expected a win against Oregon last week, but lots of people projected it. We were all optimistic about the way things would play out, and it hasn't happened. That's the role of fans, but honest-to-god expecting a 10-2 season every year is crazy. Football just requires too much luck, especially when you're playing lots of good teams.

And of course, a lot of delusional pollsters and coaches as well - you know, the ones that considered us a top 15 team.

They also had Texas A&M in the top 10 at one point, and they're probably a worse team than we are. I don't know what this is supposed to prove, that preseason polls are stupid? We all knew that already.

[stupac2]

Looks like a lot of delusional people on this board, in that case.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...461.0.html
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=10382.0

Right, and there's no reason anyone should have expected a win against Oregon last week, but lots of people projected it. We were all optimistic about the way things would play out, and it hasn't happened. That's the role of fans, but honest-to-god expecting a 10-2 season every year is crazy. Football just requires too much luck, especially when you're playing lots of good teams.

And of course, a lot of delusional pollsters and coaches as well - you know, the ones that considered us a top 15 team.

They also had Texas A&M in the top 10 at one point, and they're probably a worse team than we are. I don't know what this is supposed to prove, that preseason polls are stupid? We all knew that already.

[Leftcoast]

I don't know where you're going with this StuPac.  Are you saying this season hasn't been disappointing to the fanbase?  Or that our performance thus far is reasonable for a rebuilding team with a tough schedule?

I was on the low end of fan projections and will almost certainly be disappointed. (8-4 with a loss to Oregon seemed reasonable in the preseason but an unlikely stretch now.). Heck, I'm worried about Big Game the year after a 50 pt win - Who thought THAT would be a concern going in to this season?

We need to face it - the season thus far has been disappointing to reasonable observers.  It happens when your team's name isn't Alabama.  I trust Shaw feels the same way and is working hard to learn from this experience and fix it.

Never waste a good crisis by denying it exists.

[Leftcoast]

I don't know where you're going with this StuPac.  Are you saying this season hasn't been disappointing to the fanbase?  Or that our performance thus far is reasonable for a rebuilding team with a tough schedule?

I was on the low end of fan projections and will almost certainly be disappointed. (8-4 with a loss to Oregon seemed reasonable in the preseason but an unlikely stretch now.). Heck, I'm worried about Big Game the year after a 50 pt win - Who thought THAT would be a concern going in to this season?

We need to face it - the season thus far has been disappointing to reasonable observers.  It happens when your team's name isn't Alabama.  I trust Shaw feels the same way and is working hard to learn from this experience and fix it.

Never waste a good crisis by denying it exists.

[fullmetal]

I don't remember anyone complaining that the offense was "dull as dishwater" when we ran Toby on every play.

Offenses are dull if they don't pick up first downs consistently.  It was fun watching the OL and lead blockers (hey Marecic!) piledrive opposing front sevens every play.  I learned a lot about the OL during those years.

[fullmetal]

I don't remember anyone complaining that the offense was "dull as dishwater" when we ran Toby on every play.

Offenses are dull if they don't pick up first downs consistently.  It was fun watching the OL and lead blockers (hey Marecic!) piledrive opposing front sevens every play.  I learned a lot about the OL during those years.

[AtlantaBadger]

I don't remember anyone complaining that the offense was "dull as dishwater" when we ran Toby on every play.

That's because with the personnel we had in Gerhart's last couple of year, running Toby FRICKING WORKED!  So it was NOT dull as dishwater because we moved the chains and, get this, actually scored touchdowns [what a concept!!]!  I would not mind at all seeing Sanders/Wright/whoever run on 8 out of 10 plays if was FRICKING WORKING, but its not.  And it hasn't for a long time.  When that does not work, as is the case with our current personnel, then it becomes dull as dishwater.  Or worse.

[AtlantaBadger]

I don't remember anyone complaining that the offense was "dull as dishwater" when we ran Toby on every play.

That's because with the personnel we had in Gerhart's last couple of year, running Toby FRICKING WORKED!  So it was NOT dull as dishwater because we moved the chains and, get this, actually scored touchdowns [what a concept!!]!  I would not mind at all seeing Sanders/Wright/whoever run on 8 out of 10 plays if was FRICKING WORKING, but its not.  And it hasn't for a long time.  When that does not work, as is the case with our current personnel, then it becomes dull as dishwater.  Or worse.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm not in favor of anyone being fired.  I'm in favor of the most capable and talented people being coaches.  If that means existing ones have to leave to make room for better ones, so be it.  I'm also on record as wanting the OC to be the QB coach.  It's always seemed a bad idea to have such a young coach in charge of the QBs and receivers, with an unproven OC who seems to need guidance from the head coach.  If you don't want to change the TE coach because he seems to be doing well developing his guys, and you want Bloomgren as the OL coach as most of us do, then either Pritchard or Taylor is the odd man out.  Given I'm also in favor of the same coach handling backs and receivers, I'm probably more in favor of Taylor being the odd man out, given the RBs have not really developed much and the receivers have been better.  But honestly, losing Pritchard or Taylor would just be collateral damage if the main objective, a proven OC with a record for developing QBs, and a dedicated OL coach, was achieved.

I also hold no illusions about the fact the offense might be totally under Shaw's purview, and that either A) any OC will be simply doing what Shaw wants or B) there won't be any OC change because of, well, A again.

That all said, all suggestions for a new OC are premised on the assumption there might be a clean slate possible, and that Shaw is open to staff and structure changes, including himself letting go of the reins a bit.  Everyone has preferences for the kind of offense they would like to see, but any style is acceptable as long as it produces.  Nobody will care if 70% of the plays are runs or 90% are passes as long as they consistently work.

If I was a betting person I'd bet Shaw is going to change OCs after this year.  People say he's stubborn or resistant to change, but my observation is he has made changes when things weren't working.  Shaw is a super competitive guy who really wants to be on top.  Coaches who are resistant to evolving or changing don't stay on top.  Shaw is smart enough to know this. 

As for Stewart Mandel's claim of staff continuity, nobody on defense will leave, and only one guy off the offensive staff would depart in my scenario.  As far as coaching staffs go, that's a lot of continuity, plus the added benefit of a potentially better OC = potentially stronger coaching staff.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm not in favor of anyone being fired.  I'm in favor of the most capable and talented people being coaches.  If that means existing ones have to leave to make room for better ones, so be it.  I'm also on record as wanting the OC to be the QB coach.  It's always seemed a bad idea to have such a young coach in charge of the QBs and receivers, with an unproven OC who seems to need guidance from the head coach.  If you don't want to change the TE coach because he seems to be doing well developing his guys, and you want Bloomgren as the OL coach as most of us do, then either Pritchard or Taylor is the odd man out.  Given I'm also in favor of the same coach handling backs and receivers, I'm probably more in favor of Taylor being the odd man out, given the RBs have not really developed much and the receivers have been better.  But honestly, losing Pritchard or Taylor would just be collateral damage if the main objective, a proven OC with a record for developing QBs, and a dedicated OL coach, was achieved.

I also hold no illusions about the fact the offense might be totally under Shaw's purview, and that either A) any OC will be simply doing what Shaw wants or B) there won't be any OC change because of, well, A again.

That all said, all suggestions for a new OC are premised on the assumption there might be a clean slate possible, and that Shaw is open to staff and structure changes, including himself letting go of the reins a bit.  Everyone has preferences for the kind of offense they would like to see, but any style is acceptable as long as it produces.  Nobody will care if 70% of the plays are runs or 90% are passes as long as they consistently work.

If I was a betting person I'd bet Shaw is going to change OCs after this year.  People say he's stubborn or resistant to change, but my observation is he has made changes when things weren't working.  Shaw is a super competitive guy who really wants to be on top.  Coaches who are resistant to evolving or changing don't stay on top.  Shaw is smart enough to know this. 

As for Stewart Mandel's claim of staff continuity, nobody on defense will leave, and only one guy off the offensive staff would depart in my scenario.  As far as coaching staffs go, that's a lot of continuity, plus the added benefit of a potentially better OC = potentially stronger coaching staff.

[stupac2]

I don't know where you're going with this StuPac.  Are you saying this season hasn't been disappointing to the fanbase?  Or that our performance thus far is reasonable for a rebuilding team with a tough schedule?

I was on the low end of fan projections and will almost certainly be disappointed. (8-4 with a loss to Oregon seemed reasonable in the preseason but an unlikely stretch now.). Heck, I'm worried about Big Game the year after a 50 pt win - Who thought THAT would be a concern going in to this season?

We need to face it - the season thus far has been disappointing to reasonable observers.  It happens when your team's name isn't Alabama.  I trust Shaw feels the same way and is working hard to learn from this experience and fix it.

Never waste a good crisis by denying it exists.

I'm saying that this season so far is something that we should expect to see every now and then just based on probability. I think people are overreacting to a down year where not everything came together and where we didn't get lucky in most of our games. I mean, 2012-type close game luck and this team has two more wins and no one's complaining about anything. I think that we need to actually grapple with that instead of demanding heads on a platter. And I think it's ridiculous for anyone out here to pretend to know what Shaw should do.

[stupac2]

I don't know where you're going with this StuPac.  Are you saying this season hasn't been disappointing to the fanbase?  Or that our performance thus far is reasonable for a rebuilding team with a tough schedule?

I was on the low end of fan projections and will almost certainly be disappointed. (8-4 with a loss to Oregon seemed reasonable in the preseason but an unlikely stretch now.). Heck, I'm worried about Big Game the year after a 50 pt win - Who thought THAT would be a concern going in to this season?

We need to face it - the season thus far has been disappointing to reasonable observers.  It happens when your team's name isn't Alabama.  I trust Shaw feels the same way and is working hard to learn from this experience and fix it.

Never waste a good crisis by denying it exists.

I'm saying that this season so far is something that we should expect to see every now and then just based on probability. I think people are overreacting to a down year where not everything came together and where we didn't get lucky in most of our games. I mean, 2012-type close game luck and this team has two more wins and no one's complaining about anything. I think that we need to actually grapple with that instead of demanding heads on a platter. And I think it's ridiculous for anyone out here to pretend to know what Shaw should do.

[CTcard]

...I wish for an offense that encourages flair as much as execution
...I wish for an offensive coordinator and/or head coach who is/are risk intrigued rather than risk averse
...I wish for redshirts to be burned in much larger numbers and more frequently (why is a 5-year career the new normal?)
...I wish for a staff that embraces change rather than fights to retain/retrain the past
...I wish for a team that sees the red zone as a green light for creativity rather than an excuse to run powerjumboogre again and again and again
...I wish that Stanford football would be fun (even if occasionally completely wacko) rather than dull as dishwater, as it is now...

Hmmm. Not only would my wish list be different, I am somewhere between neutral to actively wishing against many of these.

Others have commented upon flair and fun. Just two others.

"I wish for redshirts to be burned in much larger numbers and more frequently"
(are those two different things?)
I am fairly neutral on the question overall. But I wish for fewer redshirts to be burnt for no good reason. See: Casey Tucker, Francis Owusu, many others.

"I wish for a staff that embraces change rather than fights to retain/retrain the past"
I wish for a staff that would not change the offense willy-nilly year to year and blow up any identity they have - and with that the ability to do any particular thing well.
[The offense we are running this year is NOT from our past; and not something that is easily describable as anything in particular.]

[CTcard]

...I wish for an offense that encourages flair as much as execution
...I wish for an offensive coordinator and/or head coach who is/are risk intrigued rather than risk averse
...I wish for redshirts to be burned in much larger numbers and more frequently (why is a 5-year career the new normal?)
...I wish for a staff that embraces change rather than fights to retain/retrain the past
...I wish for a team that sees the red zone as a green light for creativity rather than an excuse to run powerjumboogre again and again and again
...I wish that Stanford football would be fun (even if occasionally completely wacko) rather than dull as dishwater, as it is now...

Hmmm. Not only would my wish list be different, I am somewhere between neutral to actively wishing against many of these.

Others have commented upon flair and fun. Just two others.

"I wish for redshirts to be burned in much larger numbers and more frequently"
(are those two different things?)
I am fairly neutral on the question overall. But I wish for fewer redshirts to be burnt for no good reason. See: Casey Tucker, Francis Owusu, many others.

"I wish for a staff that embraces change rather than fights to retain/retrain the past"
I wish for a staff that would not change the offense willy-nilly year to year and blow up any identity they have - and with that the ability to do any particular thing well.
[The offense we are running this year is NOT from our past; and not something that is easily describable as anything in particular.]

[Stymie]

"I wish for redshirts to be burned in much larger numbers and more frequently"
(are those two different things?)
I am fairly neutral on the question overall. But I wish for fewer redshirts to be burnt for no good reason. See: Casey Tucker, Francis Owusu, many others.

Redshirts and 5-6 year college careers remind me too much of Blutarski's career at Faber College.

[Stymie]

"I wish for redshirts to be burned in much larger numbers and more frequently"
(are those two different things?)
I am fairly neutral on the question overall. But I wish for fewer redshirts to be burnt for no good reason. See: Casey Tucker, Francis Owusu, many others.

Redshirts and 5-6 year college careers remind me too much of Blutarski's career at Faber College.

[yvonne]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=11056.msg104568#msg104568 date=1415290297]
I don't remember anyone complaining that the offense was "dull as dishwater" when we ran Toby on every play.

That's because with the personnel we had in Gerhart's last couple of year, running Toby FRICKING WORKED!  So it was NOT dull as dishwater because we moved the chains and, get this, actually scored touchdowns [what a concept!!]!  I would not mind at all seeing Sanders/Wright/whoever run on 8 out of 10 plays if was FRICKING WORKING, but its not.  And it hasn't for a long time.  When that does not work, as is the case with our current personnel, then it becomes dull as dishwater.  Or worse.
[/quote]

I'm not sure we're in disagreement on the effectiveness. Those who say the offense is boring are really saying "we're losing and I don't like it." It doesn't have to be exciting. It just has to work.

[yvonne]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=11056.msg104568#msg104568 date=1415290297]
I don't remember anyone complaining that the offense was "dull as dishwater" when we ran Toby on every play.

That's because with the personnel we had in Gerhart's last couple of year, running Toby FRICKING WORKED!  So it was NOT dull as dishwater because we moved the chains and, get this, actually scored touchdowns [what a concept!!]!  I would not mind at all seeing Sanders/Wright/whoever run on 8 out of 10 plays if was FRICKING WORKING, but its not.  And it hasn't for a long time.  When that does not work, as is the case with our current personnel, then it becomes dull as dishwater.  Or worse.
[/quote]

I'm not sure we're in disagreement on the effectiveness. Those who say the offense is boring are really saying "we're losing and I don't like it." It doesn't have to be exciting. It just has to work.

[BostonCard]

All else being equal, guys throwing 50 yard bombs and running reverses for brobdingnagian gains are more entertaining than grinding out  4 to 5 yard runs between the tackles, and 51 - 49 scores with "video game stats" appeal to most people more than 10 - 7 defensive slugfests (though personally, I have no problems with consistently partying in the opponent's backfield).  Still, I'm sure everyone here would rather win 10-7 games by grinding out 4 to 5 yard runs than be on the losing end of a 51-49 score where we nonetheless threw 50 yard bombs and ran numerous reverses for big gains.  The real problem comes when we lose and play boring.

BC

[BostonCard]

All else being equal, guys throwing 50 yard bombs and running reverses for brobdingnagian gains are more entertaining than grinding out  4 to 5 yard runs between the tackles, and 51 - 49 scores with "video game stats" appeal to most people more than 10 - 7 defensive slugfests (though personally, I have no problems with consistently partying in the opponent's backfield).  Still, I'm sure everyone here would rather win 10-7 games by grinding out 4 to 5 yard runs than be on the losing end of a 51-49 score where we nonetheless threw 50 yard bombs and ran numerous reverses for big gains.  The real problem comes when we lose and play boring.

BC