[teejers1]

Hank, I agree with your particular example NOT being an appropriate criticism of play calling.

The problem is that almost every play called, if perfectly "executed," should result in a TD.  Buddy Teevens kept harping on the fact that his pathetic offenses were the result of poor execution (a missed block here, an imperfect route there, etc.) when that plainly was not the case.  Even Ted Leland eventually admitted as much in a lunch that Terry and I attended.

Now, I'm not saying that Shaw's offense is Teevens-esque, but I AM saying that there have been WAY too many Teevens-like offensive performances (i.e., pathetically low YPG) under this regime, especially given the talent level on the roster.  Sea Hang, from TOS, used to keep a running tally of these games (some of which Stanford won due to exceptional defensive play).  It was and is hard to believe that such games are all "execution." 

BTW, I'm resigned to the fact that the O we've been seeing - shotgun heavy, read option the closest thing we have to deception, heavy reliance on Love - is the O we'll continue to see.  I just hope that opposing defenses do not sell out to stop Love because right now he IS Stanford's offense.  What he is doing is remarkable.  He single-handedly is winning games for Stanford (or at least keeping the Cardinal competitive). 

Is it sustainable?  We shall see.  The OL continuing to improve will be a big part of any hope on this front.  I have no faith that Chryst will suddenly become a good (let alone very good) college QB.  Serviceable might be the ceiling there, which might be enough for a couple opponents.  And that, of course, raises its own set of questions, which need not be belabored here.

[teejers1]

Hank, I agree with your particular example NOT being an appropriate criticism of play calling.

The problem is that almost every play called, if perfectly "executed," should result in a TD.  Buddy Teevens kept harping on the fact that his pathetic offenses were the result of poor execution (a missed block here, an imperfect route there, etc.) when that plainly was not the case.  Even Ted Leland eventually admitted as much in a lunch that Terry and I attended.

Now, I'm not saying that Shaw's offense is Teevens-esque, but I AM saying that there have been WAY too many Teevens-like offensive performances (i.e., pathetically low YPG) under this regime, especially given the talent level on the roster.  Sea Hang, from TOS, used to keep a running tally of these games (some of which Stanford won due to exceptional defensive play).  It was and is hard to believe that such games are all "execution." 

BTW, I'm resigned to the fact that the O we've been seeing - shotgun heavy, read option the closest thing we have to deception, heavy reliance on Love - is the O we'll continue to see.  I just hope that opposing defenses do not sell out to stop Love because right now he IS Stanford's offense.  What he is doing is remarkable.  He single-handedly is winning games for Stanford (or at least keeping the Cardinal competitive). 

Is it sustainable?  We shall see.  The OL continuing to improve will be a big part of any hope on this front.  I have no faith that Chryst will suddenly become a good (let alone very good) college QB.  Serviceable might be the ceiling there, which might be enough for a couple opponents.  And that, of course, raises its own set of questions, which need not be belabored here.