[washingtonismoney]

We criticize the offense because they don't score.  We admire the defense because they give up very few points.  So let me put it another way.  The offense scored 15 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 126th of 130 FBS teams.  The defense gave up 14 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 8th out of 130 FBS teams.

#126 vs. #8.  Offense bad, defense good.

Well, while I agree the offense deserves more criticism proportionally than the defense, I do think Stanford fans' expectations for the offense are somewhat more rigorously deployed than their expectations for the defense. That is, when things go wrong defensively fans tend to say, "Enh, Lance Anderson is a good coach" and give him deference. When things go badly for the offense it's time for Shaw to hire a good offensive coordinator etc. etc.

To go deeper, the arguments against Shaw's tenure on offense tend to look like this:
1) Shaw inherited a great deal of talent, therefore his 2011 season isn't really reflective of his skill;
2) His offense is too complicated and inconsistent, it only tends to produce results when the players are experienced, which means there's too much of an ebb-and-flow cycle;
3) Relatedly, talented players on offense take too long to get up to speed.

Being a devil's advocate, I think you could use the same set of arguments against Lance Anderson. Anderson inherited a great deal of talent for his loaded 2014 defense. Shaw tends to alternate good/great offenses with so-so or worse ones (2011, 2013, 2015 and now 2017 are all good offenses; 2012, 14, and 2016 not so much). Anderson, too, has followed the same pattern (2014 and 2016 are good defenses; 2015 and 2017 are...not.) Note that the 2017 offense is the young side of the ball this year; by contrast, the 2017 defense is in fact quite experienced. And, finally, with respect to talented players on defense ... well, I'll just say the Aziz Shittu and Curtis Robinson redshirt burns look misguided. (Whereas the Walker Little redshirt burn looks...smart.)

Of course I don't really believe either Shaw or Anderson is precisely a bad coach. Instead I'd point to the vagaries of talent and recruiting as a good explanation for why Stanford can put out both elite, playoff-quality offenses and defenses on the field...but never at the same time. (At least not since 2013.) Some of that is just, hey, recruiting is tough and especially so for Stanford. Some of that is that Shaw's staff could do better at recruiting, by making sure they don't allow holes in the talent pipeline to develop. (For example, it seems quite possible the '18 class will bring in anywhere between 0 and 3 offensive linemen, which would be somewhere between a grievous blunder and an unforced error.)

[washingtonismoney]

We criticize the offense because they don't score.  We admire the defense because they give up very few points.  So let me put it another way.  The offense scored 15 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 126th of 130 FBS teams.  The defense gave up 14 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 8th out of 130 FBS teams.

#126 vs. #8.  Offense bad, defense good.

Well, while I agree the offense deserves more criticism proportionally than the defense, I do think Stanford fans' expectations for the offense are somewhat more rigorously deployed than their expectations for the defense. That is, when things go wrong defensively fans tend to say, "Enh, Lance Anderson is a good coach" and give him deference. When things go badly for the offense it's time for Shaw to hire a good offensive coordinator etc. etc.

To go deeper, the arguments against Shaw's tenure on offense tend to look like this:
1) Shaw inherited a great deal of talent, therefore his 2011 season isn't really reflective of his skill;
2) His offense is too complicated and inconsistent, it only tends to produce results when the players are experienced, which means there's too much of an ebb-and-flow cycle;
3) Relatedly, talented players on offense take too long to get up to speed.

Being a devil's advocate, I think you could use the same set of arguments against Lance Anderson. Anderson inherited a great deal of talent for his loaded 2014 defense. Shaw tends to alternate good/great offenses with so-so or worse ones (2011, 2013, 2015 and now 2017 are all good offenses; 2012, 14, and 2016 not so much). Anderson, too, has followed the same pattern (2014 and 2016 are good defenses; 2015 and 2017 are...not.) Note that the 2017 offense is the young side of the ball this year; by contrast, the 2017 defense is in fact quite experienced. And, finally, with respect to talented players on defense ... well, I'll just say the Aziz Shittu and Curtis Robinson redshirt burns look misguided. (Whereas the Walker Little redshirt burn looks...smart.)

Of course I don't really believe either Shaw or Anderson is precisely a bad coach. Instead I'd point to the vagaries of talent and recruiting as a good explanation for why Stanford can put out both elite, playoff-quality offenses and defenses on the field...but never at the same time. (At least not since 2013.) Some of that is just, hey, recruiting is tough and especially so for Stanford. Some of that is that Shaw's staff could do better at recruiting, by making sure they don't allow holes in the talent pipeline to develop. (For example, it seems quite possible the '18 class will bring in anywhere between 0 and 3 offensive linemen, which would be somewhere between a grievous blunder and an unforced error.)