[d4cohn]

I don't think that all these comments about suddenly this year opposing teams are selling out to stop our run game are remotely true, and doubt Shaw really believes it. While it's true that the scheme SDSU runs is unique, it looks to me as if their approach last year was basically the same. More broadly, every team that plays Stanford for a decade now believes that first and foremost their job is to stop our run game. There are wrinkles of course, there always are - but fundamentally Stanford is seeing what Stanford teams have seen for some time.

FWIW, I do not agree. You are correct that Stanford's opponents have for many years realized that stopping the run was critical. The tactics they are now using are different.  In previous years, teams tried to "muscle up" against Stanford, and it didn't work. We had a big line and big strong backs. We could make four yards against anybody. When our back was Gaffney, that changed a bit. We ran a bit more outside and not so much between the tackles. With CMac, it changed even more. We were a different kind of run offense, but still very effective. I think that is the point at which we became more of a zone blocking team, allowing the back to read the play and pick the hole, rather than quickly attacking a predetermined point in a predetermined manner. That was great because CMac was real good at this.
However, after Hogan left, we had serious issues at QB. We simply weren't a competent passing team. It took a while, but defenses figured out a new way to attack our run game. More and more, they started not only stacking the box, but committing to doing so all the time. Previously, they possibly walked a safety up. Now, they plant them in the box and maybe drop back one sometimes. You can do this if your defense has the right personnel and the other team can't effectively throw the ball.
WSU and SDSU showed the way last year. They also added lots of pre-snap movement to confuse our blocking, as well as run blitzing. While these tactics by themselves are not new, using them all the time in all situations was new. Last year, SDSU did this frequently, but also played a "base" defense some of the time. This year, they did it exclusively the entire game, even on third and long and when they were behind in the game. USC ran all kinds of line stunts basically all the time instead of coming right at us. This is very different for a team that normally just tried to push us back (and often could.)
They are daring us to pass over this type of defense. We often have three receivers covered man-to-man, and always have at least one receiver with man coverage. Fortunately, it appears we have the talent to do this. If we can, eventually the defenses will have to dial back using such an aggressive run defense. It is also true that some teams will not run this type of defense, either because they are not quick enough or because the coach thinks they will get better results with a more conventional approach. WSU will not fall into this camp. Notre Dame may. Oregon, I have no guess. UW will not stack the box most of the time, I expect, and will play a more conventional defense, because they think they can.
If we had Toby or Stepfan, we could man block and run right at the defense. That isn't Loves game. He reads, like CMac, and then explodes through his chosen hole. He can't do that if the backside rush gets to him before the hole opens or if the hole is immediately filled with an unblocked man. It produces explosive plays when it works, not much when it doesn't. The OL can't fix that. Throwing the ball can and will.

+1 for the great analysis. Completely agree with all of this.

[d4cohn]

I don't think that all these comments about suddenly this year opposing teams are selling out to stop our run game are remotely true, and doubt Shaw really believes it. While it's true that the scheme SDSU runs is unique, it looks to me as if their approach last year was basically the same. More broadly, every team that plays Stanford for a decade now believes that first and foremost their job is to stop our run game. There are wrinkles of course, there always are - but fundamentally Stanford is seeing what Stanford teams have seen for some time.

FWIW, I do not agree. You are correct that Stanford's opponents have for many years realized that stopping the run was critical. The tactics they are now using are different.  In previous years, teams tried to "muscle up" against Stanford, and it didn't work. We had a big line and big strong backs. We could make four yards against anybody. When our back was Gaffney, that changed a bit. We ran a bit more outside and not so much between the tackles. With CMac, it changed even more. We were a different kind of run offense, but still very effective. I think that is the point at which we became more of a zone blocking team, allowing the back to read the play and pick the hole, rather than quickly attacking a predetermined point in a predetermined manner. That was great because CMac was real good at this.
However, after Hogan left, we had serious issues at QB. We simply weren't a competent passing team. It took a while, but defenses figured out a new way to attack our run game. More and more, they started not only stacking the box, but committing to doing so all the time. Previously, they possibly walked a safety up. Now, they plant them in the box and maybe drop back one sometimes. You can do this if your defense has the right personnel and the other team can't effectively throw the ball.
WSU and SDSU showed the way last year. They also added lots of pre-snap movement to confuse our blocking, as well as run blitzing. While these tactics by themselves are not new, using them all the time in all situations was new. Last year, SDSU did this frequently, but also played a "base" defense some of the time. This year, they did it exclusively the entire game, even on third and long and when they were behind in the game. USC ran all kinds of line stunts basically all the time instead of coming right at us. This is very different for a team that normally just tried to push us back (and often could.)
They are daring us to pass over this type of defense. We often have three receivers covered man-to-man, and always have at least one receiver with man coverage. Fortunately, it appears we have the talent to do this. If we can, eventually the defenses will have to dial back using such an aggressive run defense. It is also true that some teams will not run this type of defense, either because they are not quick enough or because the coach thinks they will get better results with a more conventional approach. WSU will not fall into this camp. Notre Dame may. Oregon, I have no guess. UW will not stack the box most of the time, I expect, and will play a more conventional defense, because they think they can.
If we had Toby or Stepfan, we could man block and run right at the defense. That isn't Loves game. He reads, like CMac, and then explodes through his chosen hole. He can't do that if the backside rush gets to him before the hole opens or if the hole is immediately filled with an unblocked man. It produces explosive plays when it works, not much when it doesn't. The OL can't fix that. Throwing the ball can and will.

+1 for the great analysis. Completely agree with all of this.