(10-07-2018, 02:27 PM)d4cohn Wrote: Respectfully, so what is your argument here? That the program would have been better off if Harbaugh had stayed after the 2010 season? That institutional rot has progressed?
My argument here is certainly not that we would have been better off if Harbaugh had stayed. I am simply comparing teams since Stanford football was resurrected from the dead back in the late noughts of this century. The PPG data is also only meant to complement the rushing data, which for me are far more important. Let's recap for a moment.
The Stanford football identity established by Harbaugh and further expanded and maintained by Shaw consists of the following crucial elements.
1) A consistent and strong run game that enables the team to string together long, sustained drives resulting in 3 or, even more desirable, 7 points.
2) This keeps the opposing offense off the field and maximizes TOP.
3) These long, sustained drives keep Stanford's defense OFF the field and keeps them fresh.
4) The defense, in turn, needs to get the ball back as soon as possible for the offense and get off the field, either by forcing the opposing offense to go 3-and-out or by getting a take-away. This is the philosophy of "trusting the defense to get the stop".
5) Repeat points 1-4, make it a 2-3 possession game, then kill the clock.
There have been some masterful examples of this kind of football in the past. Oregon in 2013; UCLA in 2014. Sometimes, when the opposing team also has strong line-play, this system breaks down (Utah 2013, MSU Rose Bowl 2014). But overall the success of the Stanford football identity has been undeniable. Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney all fit this system; and our O-lines and D-lines were built to play this kind of football.
Beginning in 2014, we faced our first real issues with an underperforming O-line that did not really gel until very late in the season. The defense was still excellent and kept us in most games; but we did not have the running back or the O-line to be successful with the Stanford system. Hogan threw a lot more that year; but the losses piled up until we were sitting at 5-5 with a trip to Cal's Memorial Stadium awaiting and bowl-eligibility on the line. This was the turning point in the season and got us to our ultimate 8-5 record, including a pounding of the top ten UCLA Bruins in the Rose Bowl.
2015 was already a bit of a departure from Stanford's usual system. McCaffrey was such an all-around threat (kick-off returns, receiving, rushing) that the offense took on a somewhat different character. The methodical drives became less time-consuming and more explosive; Hogan aired it out more to Cajuste and Rector. The O-line was in excellent shape by the third game. But in this year, the first cracks in the defense became apparent, as opponents were suddenly rushing for 40% more yards per game. It was a decent defense that got better as the year progressed; but it was already giving up more rushing yards than even the early Harbaugh years and significantly more than the 2010-2014 years. This was also Lance Anderson's second year; and we were starting to see the bend-don't-break mode of defense, which partially explains the greater offensive production by our opponents. PPG by our opponents also went up, but our offensive fireworks overshadowed this.
Since this banner year, we have continued to see challenges on the O-line and D-line. We have been losing the TOP battle more often. Bryce Love is a phenomenal back, but has been more a home-run hitter than a bruising back good for methodical 5-yard pops. Our defense is spending far more time on the field with the bend-don't break defensive approach. In short, we are finding it increasingly difficult to execute Stanford football. In fact, we are very much seeing our opponents out-Stanford us, winning the TOP battle, getting ahead on the scoreboard and enjoying long, methodical drives while our offense is on the field for shorter periods of time.
The accomplishments of Stanford football under David Shaw are beyond reproach: winningest all-time coach; three Pac-12 titles; four NY6 bowls; high graduation rates; a scandal-free program; 5 10+ win seasons in seven years (and nearly got another one last year). So there is no quibbling with the results. But it is very apparent that we have seen a downward spiral in our ability to execute the style of football that Shaw is unequivocally committed to. Our ability to stuff opposing offenses and get our defense off the field has declined markedly; our offense, on the other hand, is getting stuffed more and more and is spending less time on the field. We get behind early and have to make a torrid comeback. The only exception to this pattern all season was the USC game, which was the closest I have seen us get to true "Stanford football" in 2018.
This raises a lot of questions. If we used to overachieve versus our recruiting rankings, why is this no longer the case? Some of this could be bad luck; some could be a natural regression to the mean; some could be a decline in player development and coaching; some could be due to the ability of other teams to figure out our schemes and counter them. The point is: the 2018 version of Cardinal football is currently unable to execute the style of football Shaw would like to execute. And this has been developing over multiple years. I do not believe we are lacking talent; but clearly the players either don't have the right profile for Stanford's style of football or they have not been properly coached to execute it. I personally believe there has been a drop-off in coaching; too much promoting from within; not enough new blood and fresh-thinking from outside. Pep Hamilton (OC), Derek Mason (DC), Randy Hart (DL) and Mike Bloomgren (OC/OL) were all significant losses. Duane Akina was a good catch from Texas; Ron Gould has a solid track record. Otherwise? Posing the question the other way around: which coach on the staff is in danger of being poached by another university?
So this leaves the program with some serious choices to make. To get back to Stanford's football ethos, Shaw needs to recruit differently, coach differently or do both. If not, then he needs to change that ethos and the identity of the team. To believe otherwise is to ignore the reality we are currently facing.
Finally, I do not agree that the second half of the season will be markedly easier than the first half. UW and WSU will severely test the mettle of this team. ASU in Tempe will probably prove to be tough (they took us apart four years ago in their stadium). Cal is probably at its best in the last six years, and we have to play them in Berkeley. OSU at home should be a W. UCLA played Washington to a one-score game. We may have the misfortune of catching Chip Kelly's new team when they start to hit their stride. I agree that the Pac-12 has become more competitive during the last four years (not necessarily better). Stanford and Oregon used to dominate and were perennially in the top ten (sometimes the top 5, as in the final regular season rankings of 2011). This is more a testament to how excellent Stanford and Oregon were during this phase than to weakness among the other Pac-12 teams. If we ever want to sniff the rare air of top ten rankings again, David Shaw will have to make some tough choices this year and in the next two years. When you are a run-first team and your rushing offense is ranked 124 out of 130 in the nation, I would say there is a fundamental issue. And that is the point I have been trying to raise in this thread.
