10-23-2017, 01:48 PM
Wait, you mean Coach Shaw isn't obligated to cater to my whims on offense?!? BC, what a crushing revelation . . .
What I am saying is that I don't think Shaw's O maximizes the talent and productivity on the roster. But there is no doubt that Love has made this offense explosive this season. Let's all hope he is healthy and can keep it up.
And I witnessed all those Stanford teams of yesteryear, too (well, a lot of them, anyway). Where I depart from Red State (and Lex and others) is this: I don't believe that the Rose Bowl/Seattle Bowl offense under Willingham/Diedrick is incompatible with/mutually exclusive of a great defense. Indeed, the Seattle Bowl team was quite accomplished on D, IIRC. So I don't buy the notion that Stanford has to run "bully ball" to be successful - Stanford can have a very good D w/o playing Bully Ball.Â
All the other years that Red State (and I) witnessed typically involved a less than stellar D. See Elway years. That explained the "losing" part of "losing season."
What I am saying is that I don't think Shaw's O maximizes the talent and productivity on the roster. But there is no doubt that Love has made this offense explosive this season. Let's all hope he is healthy and can keep it up.
And I witnessed all those Stanford teams of yesteryear, too (well, a lot of them, anyway). Where I depart from Red State (and Lex and others) is this: I don't believe that the Rose Bowl/Seattle Bowl offense under Willingham/Diedrick is incompatible with/mutually exclusive of a great defense. Indeed, the Seattle Bowl team was quite accomplished on D, IIRC. So I don't buy the notion that Stanford has to run "bully ball" to be successful - Stanford can have a very good D w/o playing Bully Ball.Â
All the other years that Red State (and I) witnessed typically involved a less than stellar D. See Elway years. That explained the "losing" part of "losing season."