[Goose]

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. 

I agree, Stanford doesn't "have to" run "bully ball" to have a good defense. However, as others have pointed out here, Stanford has problems recruiting a good D line. That has been a problem forever it seems. Some years, we have a good one, and in those years it isn't so important to minimize the time the D spends on the field. More often than not, we don't have a great DL. In those years, no matter how good the rest of the D is, it is vitally important we control tempo. To do that, we need to play "bully ball". Since you can't switch offensive personalities at will from year to year, and since often we need "bully ball", then "bully ball" it must be. Certainly Shaw does adapt his play calling to what his defense can give him, but it isn't a switch from crazy pass heavy to crazy run heavy. We have had better defenses in the past 10 years or so partly because we recruited better, but also because we didn't expose them to the full fury of a bunch of 3 and outs. For Stanford, run the damn ball is a proper and necessary exhortation. We came back from the dead by heeding this call, and we certainly have no wish to repeat that journey.
Certainly there is room to vary exactly what we run, and Shaw has done that, adapting to smaller, faster backs after several years of big, punishing guys. We also are capable of taking deep shots, at least most years. It isn't like we are Navy in what we do. But it is methodical and conservative, because that is what works for us.

[Goose]

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. 

I agree, Stanford doesn't "have to" run "bully ball" to have a good defense. However, as others have pointed out here, Stanford has problems recruiting a good D line. That has been a problem forever it seems. Some years, we have a good one, and in those years it isn't so important to minimize the time the D spends on the field. More often than not, we don't have a great DL. In those years, no matter how good the rest of the D is, it is vitally important we control tempo. To do that, we need to play "bully ball". Since you can't switch offensive personalities at will from year to year, and since often we need "bully ball", then "bully ball" it must be. Certainly Shaw does adapt his play calling to what his defense can give him, but it isn't a switch from crazy pass heavy to crazy run heavy. We have had better defenses in the past 10 years or so partly because we recruited better, but also because we didn't expose them to the full fury of a bunch of 3 and outs. For Stanford, run the damn ball is a proper and necessary exhortation. We came back from the dead by heeding this call, and we certainly have no wish to repeat that journey.
Certainly there is room to vary exactly what we run, and Shaw has done that, adapting to smaller, faster backs after several years of big, punishing guys. We also are capable of taking deep shots, at least most years. It isn't like we are Navy in what we do. But it is methodical and conservative, because that is what works for us.