The CardBoard
Just 3 things . . . - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Just 3 things . . . (/thread-22525.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

RE: Just 3 things . . . - Goose - 11-07-2021

(11-07-2021, 03:14 PM)Red80 Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 03:09 PM)winflop Wrote:  You guys can keep arguing about schemes and formations and whether/how they’ve changed. When you’re being physically dominated like that, NOTHING WORKS

Until we get our swagger back in the trenches, it’s gonna be ugly

Ding!
Does anybody here not agree with this? There are plenty of things we don't agree on, but unless the OL is able to block somebody, the rest doesn't matter.

RE: Just 3 things . . . - BostonCard - 11-07-2021

(11-07-2021, 04:40 PM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 03:14 PM)Red80 Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 03:09 PM)winflop Wrote:  You guys can keep arguing about schemes and formations and whether/how they’ve changed. When you’re being physically dominated like that, NOTHING WORKS

Until we get our swagger back in the trenches, it’s gonna be ugly

Ding!
Does anybody here not agree with this? There are plenty of things we don't agree on, but unless the OL is able to block somebody, the rest doesn't matter.

I mean, there are some people who do seem to think that if Shaw/Pritchard had called X and not Y we would have done better.

BC

RE: Just 3 things . . . - DC 86 - 11-07-2021

(11-07-2021, 02:49 PM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 02:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  Was Stanford a "power running" team during the Elway years?  in 1999-200?  No.  But they were good, balanced offenses.  
Which Elway, Jack or John? If you meant John, no, they weren't good balanced offenses. They were neither good nor balanced.

The John Elway offenses were neither good nor balanced?

1980: 28.4 points per game (11th our of 138 D-1 teams). 266 pass yards/game, 167 rush yards/game.
1981: 28.5 points per game (16th out of 137 D-1 teams). 279 pass yards/game, 165 rush yards/game.
1982: 29.8 points per game (13th out of 113 D-1 teams). 301 pass yards/game, 113 rush yards/game.

Very good offenses all three seasons that Elway started. Balance offenses two of those seasons.

RE: Just 3 things . . . - BostonCard - 11-07-2021

What happened that 25 teams left d1 in 1982?

BC

RE: Just 3 things . . . - lex24 - 11-07-2021

(11-07-2021, 05:12 PM)DC 86 Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 02:49 PM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 02:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  Was Stanford a "power running" team during the Elway years?  in 1999-200?  No.  But they were good, balanced offenses.  
Which Elway, Jack or John? If you meant John, no, they weren't good balanced offenses. They were neither good nor balanced.

The John Elway offenses were neither good nor balanced?

1980: 28.4 points per game (11th our of 138 D-1 teams). 266 pass yards/game, 167 rush yards/game.
1981: 28.5 points per game (16th out of 137 D-1 teams). 279 pass yards/game, 165 rush yards/game.
1982: 29.8 points per game (13th out of 113 D-1 teams). 301 pass yards/game, 113 rush yards/game.

Very good offenses all three seasons that Elway started. Balance offenses two of those seasons.

Yes, they also had John Elway…..  And they didnt win.  

All I know is that when Stanford was winning they did so by running and stopping the run.  The complimentary football was successful.  They had balance, but running the ball was job 1. And they were very physical. On both sides of the ball.

Now they are getting slaughtered at the LOS. 

Shaw is gonna be around at least a couple more years.   That’s a given.  I hope, somehow, they can get back to being a physically superior football team. I KNOW  they are never going to have elite speed.  Right now, they are slow and are getting physically dominated. On both sides of the ball.

RE: Just 3 things . . . - Goose - 11-07-2021

(11-07-2021, 05:12 PM)DC 86 Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 02:49 PM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 02:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  Was Stanford a "power running" team during the Elway years?  in 1999-200?  No.  But they were good, balanced offenses.  
Which Elway, Jack or John? If you meant John, no, they weren't good balanced offenses. They were neither good nor balanced.

The John Elway offenses were neither good nor balanced?

1980: 28.4 points per game (11th our of 138 D-1 teams). 266 pass yards/game, 167 rush yards/game.
1981: 28.5 points per game (16th out of 137 D-1 teams). 279 pass yards/game, 165 rush yards/game.
1982: 29.8 points per game (13th out of 113 D-1 teams). 301 pass yards/game, 113 rush yards/game.

Very good offenses all three seasons that Elway started. Balance offenses two of those seasons.
I am going to argue with that. The stats are very misleading. I watched those offenses in person, and I can tell you it was John Elway doing the impossible. The defense was pretty bad, so they spent a lot of time behind. They were playing catch-up football and had an all world-talent. The other team knew the ground game wouldn't beat them. They just had to keep Elway from beating them. That often was difficult, but it was usually possible, as the  6-5, 4-7, and 5-6 record demonstrates.

Darrin Nelson got 161 rushing attempts in 1980, a year I think you are arguing was "balanced". John Elway got 100 rushing attempts (including sacks). That year, 72% of Stanford's offensive plays were either an Elway rush or an Elway pass. Sorry, IMHO that is not balanced. That was the John Elway show with a cameo by Darrin Nelson. In 1981 the balance was good, with only 50% of the plays being an Elway run or pass. It did however produce the worst record. In 1982, Elway runs or passes were 63% of the attempts. Dotterer and White had the majority of the rushing attempts that year, a total of 201. Elway alone had 464 total attempts. For that reason, I would say the team relied pretty much totally on Elway.

Elway's sacks generally don't show up in the rushing yards. He was net positive in 1980, close to even in 1981, and only in 1982 was he significantly net negative. That makes things look much more balanced than they actually were. Counting the plays in addition to the yards paints a different picture.

RE: Just 3 things . . . - doubledub - 11-07-2021

Look at all of the failed coaching hires at Texas, a place with unlimited resources and talent. Could we really do better with someone better than Shaw?

RE: Just 3 things . . . - MV72018 - 11-07-2021

(11-06-2021, 01:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  You know whose offense was deadly predictable?  Utah’s.  They predictably ran the ball down our throat, with nothing fancy, to the tune of 441 yards rushing and 581 yards of total offense.  I mean, pretty much all of us knew that they were going to run it between the tackles most of the runs, and yet most of the time, the first time a Stanford defender touched the rusher around 5 yards downfield.  And with our poor tackling, they averaged 9.6 yards every single time a Utah running back touched the ball.

To the extent any team tried things like an end around and having the wildcat QB throw it to the tight end, it was Stanford.  The problem was not that we didn’t try anything innovative in the playcalling it’s that whatever we tried, whether predictable or not, generally didn’t work.

Which is to say, I would rather do a few unimaginative things really well, than fail to execute a brilliant plan.  The biggest indictment of the coaches is not that they call a predictable game, it’s that they have failed to teach the kids how to play fundamental football: blocking, tackling, assignments, etc.  “better play calling” ain't fixing that.

BC

When an O meets no D resistance, it doesn't need unpredictability. When an O, like ours, meets a lot of D resistance, it damn well  needs unpredictability.

RE: Just 3 things . . . - teejers1 - 11-07-2021

(11-07-2021, 06:59 PM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 05:12 PM)DC 86 Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 02:49 PM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 02:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  Was Stanford a "power running" team during the Elway years?  in 1999-200?  No.  But they were good, balanced offenses.  
Which Elway, Jack or John? If you meant John, no, they weren't good balanced offenses. They were neither good nor balanced.

The John Elway offenses were neither good nor balanced?

1980: 28.4 points per game (11th our of 138 D-1 teams). 266 pass yards/game, 167 rush yards/game.
1981: 28.5 points per game (16th out of 137 D-1 teams). 279 pass yards/game, 165 rush yards/game.
1982: 29.8 points per game (13th out of 113 D-1 teams). 301 pass yards/game, 113 rush yards/game.

Very good offenses all three seasons that Elway started. Balance offenses two of those seasons.
I am going to argue with that. The stats are very misleading. I watched those offenses in person, and I can tell you it was John Elway doing the impossible. The defense was pretty bad, so they spent a lot of time behind. They were playing catch-up football and had an all world-talent. The other team knew the ground game wouldn't beat them. They just had to keep Elway from beating them. That often was difficult, but it was usually possible, as the  6-5, 4-7, and 5-6 record demonstrates.

Darrin Nelson got 161 rushing attempts in 1980, a year I think you are arguing was "balanced". John Elway got 100 rushing attempts (including sacks). That year, 72% of Stanford's offensive plays were either an Elway rush or an Elway pass. Sorry, IMHO that is not balanced. That was the John Elway show with a cameo by Darrin Nelson. In 1981 the balance was good, with only 50% of the plays being an Elway run or pass. It did however produce the worst record. In 1982, Elway runs or passes were 63% of the attempts. Dotterer and White had the majority of the rushing attempts that year, a total of 201. Elway alone had 464 total attempts. For that reason, I would say the team relied pretty much totally on Elway.

Elway's sacks generally don't show up in the rushing yards. He was net positive in 1980, close to even in 1981, and only in 1982 was he significantly net negative. That makes things look much more balanced than they actually were. Counting the plays in addition to the yards paints a different picture.

I'd kill for that kind of offensive "balance" and effectiveness.  The problem with those teams was D, plain and simple.

I swear, I think the mind-numbingly dull Stanford offenses under Shaw have wiped away the fans' collective remembrances of what a good offensive football team looks like.  Hint:  it's not power running in a phone booth.  PPG and YPG were all so much better in most prior regimes.  The number of sub-350 yard total offense; sub-300 yard total offense; sub 250 yard total offense under this regime is shocking, given the recruited talent on O.  Shockingly bad.  Snap out of it, people!

RE: Just 3 things . . . - Phogge - 11-07-2021

Simple solution... pay Farhan Zaidi the nine million that is going to Shaw to run recruiting and another nine in hiring full time scouts. Let the staff coach and not recruit, leaving them to actually teach tackling and blocking. Forget the SAT and AP classes. After all what is the role of the university in 21st Century America? Winning football!

RE: Just 3 things . . . - 82lsju - 11-08-2021

(11-07-2021, 05:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  What happened that 25 teams left d1 in 1982?

BC

major re-org

Quote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_season#Conference_changes_and_new_programs

RE: Just 3 things . . . - Row80Critic - 11-08-2021

(11-07-2021, 02:58 AM)Austroturf Wrote:  Just one comment on BC's magnum opus.  

Yes, we are passing more now than in the early Shaw days, but out of necessity, not by intention or design.  I am certain Shaw would have loved to continue the power run game; but too often, he tried, failed and had to start slinging the ball to get us out of a hole.  In the Utah game, the first series (trailing 0-7) was run, run, run, punt.  In the second series (trailing 0-14), it was run, sack, sack, punt.  In the third series (trailing 0-14), it was run, pass (inc.), pass (inc.), punt.  And by the time the 4th series started, we were down 0-21, so Shaw had to start mixing things up even more (by inserting Sanders, for example).  And, obviously, when your defense cannot stop the opponent and you are already down by three scores, you cannot play power run, high TOP football the way we so successfully did in 2012 and 2013.  You have to change, but it doesn't appear to be by design.   

My gripe with Shaw is that he continues to believe we can impose our will on the defense by slamming bodies into the line.  That used to work (long ago), but has now become almost an absurd caricature of what we used to be.  Take Austin Jones in the Utah game.  He carried the ball 9 times for 33 yards.  Take out the one 19-yard carry, and he had 8 carries for 14 yards.  That's not even 2 yards a pop.  Peat's numbers were even worse (1 yard net on 4 carries).  Smith's numbers look better, but only because of one long 32-yard ramble.  Take that out, and he's at 4.5 yards a carry. The difference in this game is that we didn't have a Costello, Mills or McKee to come out slinging and try to jump-start an insipid offense.  Couple that with a sieve of a defense, and you have the disaster that unfolded.

In agreement with others on this board, I consider the O-line top priority: if this underperforming unit does not improve drastically, offensive schemes and play-calling will not matter.

My thoughts exactly.  If I had all the answers, I guess I'd be a head coach somewhere, but something sure ain't working.  That said, whatever the root cause, it appears to be systemic and go well beyond any one phase of the game.  Offense, defense, special teams, recruiting, scheme, credential-less assistants, roster selections, energy, etc., etc., -- all in need of real improvement.  The longest losing streak in the Pac-12.  Nuff said.  I'd love to see Shaw turn it all around, but he's not going to do that simply by blaming last week's game on poor tackling.

RE: Just 3 things . . . - Goose - 11-08-2021

(11-07-2021, 10:42 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  I'd kill for that kind of offensive "balance" and effectiveness.  The problem with those teams was D, plain and simple.


I swear, I think the mind-numbingly dull Stanford offenses under Shaw have wiped away the fans' collective remembrances of what a good offensive football team looks like.  Hint:  it's not power running in a phone booth.  PPG and YPG were all so much better in most prior regimes.  The number of sub-350 yard total offense; sub-300 yard total offense; sub 250 yard total offense under this regime is shocking, given the recruited talent on O.  Shockingly bad.  Snap out of it, people!
Sorry Teejers1 but I watched it, and no, it wasn't a good offense. It was John Elway. He would go out there and do things nobody else could do. Yes, it was a blast to watch. You also knew that as long as he was out there, we could win, no matter how bad the defense was playing. Again, great to watch.

However, the results were poor. Yes, the brobdingnagian problem was the defense. However, I can't call an offense a "good" offense when it relies on one player doing unbelievable things . Face it, the opposition knew that if they gave Elway any time at all he would destroy them. They had seen it happen to other quite good teams. You had to rush the hell out of Elway and at the same time play great pass defense. Running against a defense totally committed to stopping Elway wasn't too hard. However, our opponents counted Stanford running as a plus, because that meant Elway wasn't on a roll and eating them up.

The fact is we wasted three years of John Elway because we had no defense. The coaching staff recognized that we needed to keep our defense off the field so they tried (particularly in 1981) to run the ball a lot more. They did that and we lost more games. Would it have made sense to play phone booth football if your QB is John Elway and your running back is Darrin Nelson? No, it wouldn't. However, at the end of the day an offense that requires John Elway to function is not a "good" offense IMHO.

RE: Just 3 things . . . - teejers1 - 11-08-2021

(11-08-2021, 10:55 AM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 10:42 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  I'd kill for that kind of offensive "balance" and effectiveness.  The problem with those teams was D, plain and simple.


I swear, I think the mind-numbingly dull Stanford offenses under Shaw have wiped away the fans' collective remembrances of what a good offensive football team looks like.  Hint:  it's not power running in a phone booth.  PPG and YPG were all so much better in most prior regimes.  The number of sub-350 yard total offense; sub-300 yard total offense; sub 250 yard total offense under this regime is shocking, given the recruited talent on O.  Shockingly bad.  Snap out of it, people!
Sorry Teejers1 but I watched it, and no, it wasn't a good offense. It was John Elway. He would go out there and do things nobody else could do. Yes, it was a blast to watch. You also knew that as long as he was out there, we could win, no matter how bad the defense was playing. Again, great to watch.

However, the results were poor. Yes, the of immense proportions problem was the defense. However, I can't call an offense a "good" offense when it relies on one player doing unbelievable things . Face it, the opposition knew that if they gave Elway any time at all he would destroy them. They had seen it happen to other quite good teams. You had to rush the hell out of Elway and at the same time play great pass defense. Running against a defense totally committed to stopping Elway wasn't too hard. However, our opponents counted Stanford running as a plus, because that meant Elway wasn't on a roll and eating them up.

The fact is we wasted three years of John Elway because we had no defense. The coaching staff recognized that we needed to keep our defense off the field so they tried (particularly in 1981) to run the ball a lot more. They did that and we lost more games. Would it have made sense to play phone booth football if your QB is John Elway and your running back is Darrin Nelson? No, it wouldn't. However, at the end of the day an offense that requires John Elway to function is not a "good" offense IMHO.

I disagree with your entire take and recollection on those offenses.  The running game - with Darrin freaking Nelson, V-Dub, Dot, and others - was at least respectable.  The passing game explosive.  We don't have anything approaching either right now.  Again, the fans in these parts have been beaten down by the dreck we've seen, thinking this kind of plodding O is "the way it has to be at Stanford."  That's just so not true.

RE: Just 3 things . . . - gailtate - 11-08-2021

(11-08-2021, 12:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(11-08-2021, 10:55 AM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 10:42 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  I'd kill for that kind of offensive "balance" and effectiveness.  The problem with those teams was D, plain and simple.


I swear, I think the mind-numbingly dull Stanford offenses under Shaw have wiped away the fans' collective remembrances of what a good offensive football team looks like.  Hint:  it's not power running in a phone booth.  PPG and YPG were all so much better in most prior regimes.  The number of sub-350 yard total offense; sub-300 yard total offense; sub 250 yard total offense under this regime is shocking, given the recruited talent on O.  Shockingly bad.  Snap out of it, people!
Sorry Teejers1 but I watched it, and no, it wasn't a good offense. It was John Elway. He would go out there and do things nobody else could do. Yes, it was a blast to watch. You also knew that as long as he was out there, we could win, no matter how bad the defense was playing. Again, great to watch.

However, the results were poor. Yes, the of immense proportions problem was the defense. However, I can't call an offense a "good" offense when it relies on one player doing unbelievable things . Face it, the opposition knew that if they gave Elway any time at all he would destroy them. They had seen it happen to other quite good teams. You had to rush the hell out of Elway and at the same time play great pass defense. Running against a defense totally committed to stopping Elway wasn't too hard. However, our opponents counted Stanford running as a plus, because that meant Elway wasn't on a roll and eating them up.

The fact is we wasted three years of John Elway because we had no defense. The coaching staff recognized that we needed to keep our defense off the field so they tried (particularly in 1981) to run the ball a lot more. They did that and we lost more games. Would it have made sense to play phone booth football if your QB is John Elway and your running back is Darrin Nelson? No, it wouldn't. However, at the end of the day an offense that requires John Elway to function is not a "good" offense IMHO.

I disagree with your entire take and recollection on those offenses.  The running game - with Darrin freaking Nelson, V-Dub, Dot, and others - was at least respectable.  The passing game explosive.  We don't have anything approaching either right now.  Again, the fans in these parts have been beaten down by the dreck we've seen, thinking this kind of plodding O is "the way it has to be at Stanford."  That's just so not true.

For three years (1980-82) Stanford fans watched a generational talent. A generation later (2009-11) they would be treated to another one.  John Elway was Andrew Luck with more spectacular scrambling ability, elusiveness, raw horsepower and is, hands-down, the Farm's GOAT QB and a Super Bowl icon. He also had the misfortune in college of playing for a hapless HC and on teams that were defenseless. Never took a team a college bowl game. Never had a coach or a team that could get him there. Luck had a head coach who assembled a non-pareil staff that designed and coached a brand of football tailor-made for Luck's talent. In 2010 and '11, Luck led a compleat football team to two NY6 bowls: a supporting cast that every QB dreams of having. Today, Tanner McKee seems like a young Steve Stenstrom with a lesser team, tutored by a remarkably dazed and confused HC whose best days are behind him. This will not end well for anyone.

RE: Just 3 things . . . - Red80 - 11-08-2021

(11-08-2021, 12:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(11-08-2021, 10:55 AM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 10:42 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  I'd kill for that kind of offensive "balance" and effectiveness.  The problem with those teams was D, plain and simple.


I swear, I think the mind-numbingly dull Stanford offenses under Shaw have wiped away the fans' collective remembrances of what a good offensive football team looks like.  Hint:  it's not power running in a phone booth.  PPG and YPG were all so much better in most prior regimes.  The number of sub-350 yard total offense; sub-300 yard total offense; sub 250 yard total offense under this regime is shocking, given the recruited talent on O.  Shockingly bad.  Snap out of it, people!
Sorry Teejers1 but I watched it, and no, it wasn't a good offense. It was John Elway. He would go out there and do things nobody else could do. Yes, it was a blast to watch. You also knew that as long as he was out there, we could win, no matter how bad the defense was playing. Again, great to watch.

However, the results were poor. Yes, the of immense proportions problem was the defense. However, I can't call an offense a "good" offense when it relies on one player doing unbelievable things . Face it, the opposition knew that if they gave Elway any time at all he would destroy them. They had seen it happen to other quite good teams. You had to rush the hell out of Elway and at the same time play great pass defense. Running against a defense totally committed to stopping Elway wasn't too hard. However, our opponents counted Stanford running as a plus, because that meant Elway wasn't on a roll and eating them up.

The fact is we wasted three years of John Elway because we had no defense. The coaching staff recognized that we needed to keep our defense off the field so they tried (particularly in 1981) to run the ball a lot more. They did that and we lost more games. Would it have made sense to play phone booth football if your QB is John Elway and your running back is Darrin Nelson? No, it wouldn't. However, at the end of the day an offense that requires John Elway to function is not a "good" offense IMHO.

I disagree with your entire take and recollection on those offenses.  The running game - with Darrin freaking Nelson, V-Dub, Dot, and others - was at least respectable.  The passing game explosive.  We don't have anything approaching either right now.  Again, the fans in these parts have been beaten down by the dreck we've seen, thinking this kind of plodding O is "the way it has to be at Stanford."  That's just so not true.

I was listening to Nick Aliotti talk about Stanford's offense recently. Aliotti was Oregon's DC from '99-'13. He knows a lot about Stanford, and talked about what had made them difficult to deal with under Shaw. He said Stanford was "different", "unique", with their style of offense. He explained that while all the other Pac 12 teams were going to Spread offenses with 4 and 5 WR sets, Stanford did just the opposite, employing 3 TEs, a Fullback, and featured violent, downhill running. He said preparing for Stanford was almost like preparing for one of the service academies who ran wishbone and option offenses. Because no one else in the conference ran this type of system, opposing defenses were ill-equipped to deal with Stanford both physically and schematically. Opposing Ds used smaller, faster defenders to defend the more horizontal offenses that were now the norm. Aliotti said Stanford became a force in the P12 by going in this direction and called out David Shaw to bring back this offense and its signature play: Power. I felt like I was listening to myself. 

Speaking of Oregon and Aliotti, two of the greatest wins in Stanford football history were against Oregon in '12 and '13. UO was ranked #1 when SU beat them in Eugene, 17-14. One year later, #3 Oregon, averaging 55 points and 600 yards per game, was bludgeoned to death on national TV by a Stanford offense that held the ball for an astonishing 43 minutes. One of my all-time favorite Stanford football memories was watching virtually all of the many Oregon fans exiting the stadium by the end of the 3rd quarter.

RE: Just 3 things . . . - Goose - 11-08-2021

(11-08-2021, 02:20 PM)Red80 Wrote:  Speaking of Oregon and Aliotti, two of the greatest wins in Stanford football history were against Oregon in '12 and '13. UO was ranked #1 when SU beat them in Eugene, 17-14. One year later, #3 Oregon, averaging 55 points and 600 yards per game, was bludgeoned to death on national TV by a Stanford offense that held the ball for an astonishing 43 minutes. One of my all-time favorite Stanford football memories was watching virtually all of the many Oregon fans exiting the stadium by the end of the 3rd quarter.
IMHO David Shaw would bring back that offense if he could. He can't, because the players don't exist anymore, or to the extent they do they are not going to attend Stanford. High School football has gone toward the spread option and the passing game. The rules have done the same. There aren't a lot of big power backs out there. Offensive coordinators don't want to run that system because there is no glory in it, no big name and no NFL/Head Coach job. Players don't want to play in that system because it is viewed as a dead end. What happened 10 years ago is not available to Stanford any more. I think Shaw actively prefers that style (obviously I haven't been able to ask him myself). He has been forced to change over the last 6 or so years not necessarily because he wanted to but because he had to.

lex24 - lex24 - 11-08-2021

(11-08-2021, 02:20 PM)Red80 Wrote:  
(11-08-2021, 12:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(11-08-2021, 10:55 AM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-07-2021, 10:42 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  I'd kill for that kind of offensive "balance" and effectiveness.  The problem with those teams was D, plain and simple.


I swear, I think the mind-numbingly dull Stanford offenses under Shaw have wiped away the fans' collective remembrances of what a good offensive football team looks like.  Hint:  it's not power running in a phone booth.  PPG and YPG were all so much better in most prior regimes.  The number of sub-350 yard total offense; sub-300 yard total offense; sub 250 yard total offense under this regime is shocking, given the recruited talent on O.  Shockingly bad.  Snap out of it, people!
Sorry Teejers1 but I watched it, and no, it wasn't a good offense. It was John Elway. He would go out there and do things nobody else could do. Yes, it was a blast to watch. You also knew that as long as he was out there, we could win, no matter how bad the defense was playing. Again, great to watch.

However, the results were poor. Yes, the of immense proportions problem was the defense. However, I can't call an offense a "good" offense when it relies on one player doing unbelievable things . Face it, the opposition knew that if they gave Elway any time at all he would destroy them. They had seen it happen to other quite good teams. You had to rush the hell out of Elway and at the same time play great pass defense. Running against a defense totally committed to stopping Elway wasn't too hard. However, our opponents counted Stanford running as a plus, because that meant Elway wasn't on a roll and eating them up.

The fact is we wasted three years of John Elway because we had no defense. The coaching staff recognized that we needed to keep our defense off the field so they tried (particularly in 1981) to run the ball a lot more. They did that and we lost more games. Would it have made sense to play phone booth football if your QB is John Elway and your running back is Darrin Nelson? No, it wouldn't. However, at the end of the day an offense that requires John Elway to function is not a "good" offense IMHO.

I disagree with your entire take and recollection on those offenses.  The running game - with Darrin freaking Nelson, V-Dub, Dot, and others - was at least respectable.  The passing game explosive.  We don't have anything approaching either right now.  Again, the fans in these parts have been beaten down by the dreck we've seen, thinking this kind of plodding O is "the way it has to be at Stanford."  That's just so not true.

I was listening to Nick Aliotti talk about Stanford's offense recently. Aliotti was Oregon's DC from '99-'13. He knows a lot about Stanford, and talked about what had made them difficult to deal with under Shaw. He said Stanford was "different", "unique", with their style of offense. He explained that while all the other Pac 12 teams were going to Spread offenses with 4 and 5 WR sets, Stanford did just the opposite, employing 3 TEs, a Fullback, and featured violent, downhill running. He said preparing for Stanford was almost like preparing for one of the service academies who ran wishbone and option offenses. Because no one else in the conference ran this type of system, opposing defenses were ill-equipped to deal with Stanford both physically and schematically. Opposing Ds used smaller, faster defenders to defend the more horizontal offenses that were now the norm. Aliotti said Stanford became a force in the P12 by going in this direction and called out David Shaw to bring back this offense and its signature play: Power. I felt like I was listening to myself. 

Speaking of Oregon and Aliotti, two of the greatest wins in Stanford football history were against Oregon in '12 and '13. UO was ranked #1 when SU beat them in Eugene, 17-14. One year later, #3 Oregon, averaging 55 points and 600 yards per game, was bludgeoned to death on national TV by a Stanford offense that held the ball for an astonishing 43 minutes. One of my all-time favorite Stanford football memories was watching virtually all of the many Oregon fans exiting the stadium by the end of the 3rd quarter.

What the hell does Allioti know?  I mean he just was a longtime DC. 
Stanford has lost what put it on the football map amongst the elite.  POWER FOOTBALL.    Intellectual brutality. The thing that was the key to their best stretch ever.  It doesn’t mean (and it never did) that you run 80 pct of the time.  Or that you can’t also be creative. Or that you are channeling Woody Hayes.  It means you win at the LOS. You control the clock.  Control the tempo. Control the game.  And, to use a phrase that some like to deride - impose your will.

I remember a luncheon in SJ prior to one of the ND games.  It was either 2013 or 2015.  A former ND running back (Brooks, I think) was gushing about Stanford’s physical dominance.  He spoke of Stanford’s game versus Oregon in ‘13. One of my top five all time games. And one of the best game planned and executed offensive and defensive performances I’ve ever seen.  (Another, btw, was Denver beating GB in the SB.  On a day when one of the greatest QB’s of all time, generally just handed the ball off.  Why? Cause Shanahan knew Denver didn’t have GB’s firepower and the best way to beat them was to control the ball and keep Favre and Co off the field. Which was the only way Stanford during that stretch was going to beat Oregon). He mentioned that when you are playing you can see in the defenses eyes when they have had enough. And he saw that that game.

I have always had a hard time understanding what some don’t get about Stanford’s rise being based on physical dominance.

Stanford, up to that time, would often have some brilliant skill players.  But I can recall very few years  prior to 2010, where Stanford was the physically dominant  team on BOTH sides of the ball.  

I don’t care who the HC is.  But I firmly believe (and did before JH and Shaw proved it) that Stanford can consistent recruit and win by focusing on and recruiting  power more than with trying to recruit for speed.

The problem today is not that Shaw is confused or stubborn etc.  The problem is they have not recruited well enough to continue that physical dominance. Which is by no means a “defense” of Shaw.  Job 1 for any college HC is recruiting.  Saban is an excellent coach.  No question.  But he’s an even better recruiter.  Being able to line up every week knowing you have superior talent is a luxury.

For several years, Stanford had that luxury.  Those days, unfortunately, are gone. I hope they can somehow get it back.  But I think it’s doubtful.

RE: Just 3 things . . . - Red80 - 11-08-2021

(11-08-2021, 03:26 PM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-08-2021, 02:20 PM)Red80 Wrote:  Speaking of Oregon and Aliotti, two of the greatest wins in Stanford football history were against Oregon in '12 and '13. UO was ranked #1 when SU beat them in Eugene, 17-14. One year later, #3 Oregon, averaging 55 points and 600 yards per game, was bludgeoned to death on national TV by a Stanford offense that held the ball for an astonishing 43 minutes. One of my all-time favorite Stanford football memories was watching virtually all of the many Oregon fans exiting the stadium by the end of the 3rd quarter.
IMHO David Shaw would bring back that offense if he could. He can't, because the players don't exist anymore, or to the extent they do they are not going to attend Stanford. High School football has gone toward the spread option and the passing game. The rules have done the same. There aren't a lot of big power backs out there. Offensive coordinators don't want to run that system because there is no glory in it, no big name and no NFL/Head 


Coach job. Players don't want to play in that system because it is viewed as a dead end. What happened 10 years ago is not available to Stanford and more. I think Shaw actively prefers that style (obviously I haven't been able to ask him myself). He has been forced to change over the last 6 or so years not necessarily because he wanted to but because he had to.


Everything above could have been stated 10 years ago, and Shaw proved it wrong. And there are plenty of "Thumpers'" out there, big backs who would love to run downhill 30+ times a game. To say that Power O doesn't translate to the NFL is not true. There are elements of the offense that are used by just about every NFL team. The Power O system, however stigmatized, is more nuanced and has elements of finesse that the average fan is not aware of. The main reason(s) Shaw has drifted away from the Power O are injuries, recruiting mistakes, and lazy-a$$ recruiting. There's no good reason why it can't return. I'm all for tweaking the offense, especially if the right personnel comes along, but the at the crux has to be a punishing ground game that controls the clock, tempo, and assists Stanford's defense by keeping them off the field. 


lex24 - lex24 - 11-08-2021

(11-08-2021, 03:26 PM)Goose Wrote:  
(11-08-2021, 02:20 PM)Red80 Wrote:  Speaking of Oregon and Aliotti, two of the greatest wins in Stanford football history were against Oregon in '12 and '13. UO was ranked #1 when SU beat them in Eugene, 17-14. One year later, #3 Oregon, averaging 55 points and 600 yards per game, was bludgeoned to death on national TV by a Stanford offense that held the ball for an astonishing 43 minutes. One of my all-time favorite Stanford football memories was watching virtually all of the many Oregon fans exiting the stadium by the end of the 3rd quarter.
IMHO David Shaw would bring back that offense if he could. He can't, because the players don't exist anymore, or to the extent they do they are not going to attend Stanford. High School football has gone toward the spread option and the passing game. The rules have done the same. There aren't a lot of big power backs out there. Offensive coordinators don't want to run that system because there is no glory in it, no big name and no NFL/Head Coach job. Players don't want to play in that system because it is viewed as a dead end. What happened 10 years ago is not available to Stanford any more. I think Shaw actively prefers that style (obviously I haven't been able to ask him myself). He has been forced to change over the last 6 or so years not necessarily because he wanted to but because he had to.

I’m going to hazard a guess that Stanford put out more NFL  offensive players from 2010-2015 than any other 6 year period.  From 08 to 15 they had the Hiseman runner up 4 times.  Several coaches moved on HC jobs in College.  A few others  took coordinator jobs in the NFL.  

You certainly can find physically gifted offensive and defensive lineman. And running backs/QBs to play behind that line. There are several Big 10 teams that employ this style effectively. 

One question I have is the impact on the emphasis on less contact during practice