[Austroturf]

 
3) ... Watching Herbert and the Ducks, I saw clearly that they were using the pass to set up the run.  The Oregon O-line looked more solid than ours; but it helps the running backs a lot when they can often be the second option and not always the first.

I don't see that is what Oregon did, at least as a strategy. 
In this game, Oregon ran on a high percentage of their plays overall, a high percentage of first down plays, and a high percentage of first down plays in the first half when they were still determining what was establishing what. 
Oregon ran on over 65% of their plays overall, 69% of their first downs overall, and 66% of their first down plays in the first half. All big fractions (and all much higher than Stanford).
  
Oregon did pass very successfully, so in that sense may have had the Stanford D looking pass more than run. However, it wasn't a strategy so much as simply a matter of success. 

6) … I hope the learning from this game is that it's OK to evolve the offense and use the strengths of the personnel without totally abandoning Stanford's identity. 

Stanford's offense has evolved significantly over the years and some over the course of this season, though isn't the common narrative. Not all of these evolutions have been for the better, IMO, but have clearly happened. A few of the most blatant:
- Over the past few years Stanford has moved to largely operating out of the shotgun instead of heavily favoring the I.
- Over the past few years Stanford has moved to being more a zone blocking team and less man blocking.
- This year Stanford started off intending to rely primarily upon Love, and other backs, carrying most of the load. Now they have evolved into team that passes more than it runs (51%). In recent years that fraction was 43% (2017), 37% (2016), 34% (2015). 

I am not sure that it is possible to go further along this route without abandoning what has been Stanford's identity. 
In fact, that train may have already left the station. We're really more of a down-field-passing-run-to-keep-the-defense-honest offense right now. 
While personally I am hoping that improved health and re-establishing coordination along the OL will get us back some of our identity, I guess I don't care if we win with a deep-ball happy offense. 
  

7) ... I think I counted only two sacks (maybe three).  

Stanford had 4 sacks of Herbert for 28 yards.
Oregon had 2 sacks of Costello for 8 yards. 

9) ... The way he is now being used is ... destroying his draft stock.

I have been wondering about this, or at least whether the drop in his productivity might do this. 
The NFL clearly doesn't draft players purely based upon their college stats but in many cases on what they imagine a player could become. 
With Love, it is already clear to NFL scouts he can have a big season and threaten a TD on any play, so doing that over and over by itself probably won't help much. This year he is showing he can pass protect much better, which might be key for a third-down back as many seem to have pegged him. 
I guess the dangers are a general lack of hype, and allowing for the idea to be planted that he may have lost his special burst.

Good points.  Regarding Oregon's offense, it was evident that their running backs simply had more space; and Herbert's ability to stretch the field also spread our defense.  When I look at our offensive schemes, it often appears so painfully obvious that Love is going to get the ball; and all the personnel is crowded into the proverbial phone both.  When our OL is not hitting on all cylinders, this is normally a recipe for no gain or negative yardage.  Perhaps the difference vs. Oregon is that our defense had to respect Herbert's passing game at short, medium and long-range, his running/scrambling abilities AND the corps of running backs.  Oregon could key on Love in the first half, knowing that Shaw was going to give him a lot of touches, and only needed to worry about our sizable receiver corps, which only really became lethal in the second half.  If this part of our offense were more regularly used, I am convinced it would soften up the middle for the running game and effectively spread the field for Love and his colleagues in the backfield.  

Yes, the offense has evolved; but I still see certain old habits that reveal Shaw's obdurate devotion to the run-first identity.  In many ways, this game reminded me of the Wazzu contest back in 2015 at Martin stadium.  We ventured north with a solid O-line, an all-world tailback (McCaffrey), a veteran signal-caller (Hogan) and a pretty decent defense to take on a Cougar team that had lost to Portland State and Cal in the first half of the season.  I was convinced we would run right through their D-line and comfortably exit that tough venue with a W.  All throughout the first two quarters, Wazzu moved the ball effectively into Stanford territory.  Fortunately, our D tightened in the red zone, allowing the Cougars only 12 first half points on four FGs.  But our offense had been totally neutered, as McCaffrey slammed unrelentingly into the teeth of the WSU speed-D.  We got a single FG for our efforts.  In the second half, Shaw finally adjusted and started using McCaffey as a decoy.  We escaped that place with a W only because a) Hogan started using his legs; b) Meeks picked off two errant Luke Falk passes in the 2nd half; c) Leach exhibited bad clock management (by continually throwing the ball, which stopped the clock on incompletions and set up one of Meeks' interceptions); and d) a makeable Cougar FG went wide right as time expired.  Our comeback in this game was not nearly as miraculous as the one last Saturday, but it was the same "tale of two halves", with a stubborn devotion to the initial game plan that was clearly not working.  And we needed the errors and bad decisions of our opponent to pull it off.  I would just like to see Shaw adjust earlier when our schemes are not working; and maybe that means "evolving" the offense faster within games when an opposing defense has us stymied.    

I hope you are right about Love: it would really be a shame if his decision to come back severely damaged his shot at the NFL.

[Austroturf]

 
3) ... Watching Herbert and the Ducks, I saw clearly that they were using the pass to set up the run.  The Oregon O-line looked more solid than ours; but it helps the running backs a lot when they can often be the second option and not always the first.

I don't see that is what Oregon did, at least as a strategy. 
In this game, Oregon ran on a high percentage of their plays overall, a high percentage of first down plays, and a high percentage of first down plays in the first half when they were still determining what was establishing what. 
Oregon ran on over 65% of their plays overall, 69% of their first downs overall, and 66% of their first down plays in the first half. All big fractions (and all much higher than Stanford).
  
Oregon did pass very successfully, so in that sense may have had the Stanford D looking pass more than run. However, it wasn't a strategy so much as simply a matter of success. 

6) … I hope the learning from this game is that it's OK to evolve the offense and use the strengths of the personnel without totally abandoning Stanford's identity. 

Stanford's offense has evolved significantly over the years and some over the course of this season, though isn't the common narrative. Not all of these evolutions have been for the better, IMO, but have clearly happened. A few of the most blatant:
- Over the past few years Stanford has moved to largely operating out of the shotgun instead of heavily favoring the I.
- Over the past few years Stanford has moved to being more a zone blocking team and less man blocking.
- This year Stanford started off intending to rely primarily upon Love, and other backs, carrying most of the load. Now they have evolved into team that passes more than it runs (51%). In recent years that fraction was 43% (2017), 37% (2016), 34% (2015). 

I am not sure that it is possible to go further along this route without abandoning what has been Stanford's identity. 
In fact, that train may have already left the station. We're really more of a down-field-passing-run-to-keep-the-defense-honest offense right now. 
While personally I am hoping that improved health and re-establishing coordination along the OL will get us back some of our identity, I guess I don't care if we win with a deep-ball happy offense. 
  

7) ... I think I counted only two sacks (maybe three).  

Stanford had 4 sacks of Herbert for 28 yards.
Oregon had 2 sacks of Costello for 8 yards. 

9) ... The way he is now being used is ... destroying his draft stock.

I have been wondering about this, or at least whether the drop in his productivity might do this. 
The NFL clearly doesn't draft players purely based upon their college stats but in many cases on what they imagine a player could become. 
With Love, it is already clear to NFL scouts he can have a big season and threaten a TD on any play, so doing that over and over by itself probably won't help much. This year he is showing he can pass protect much better, which might be key for a third-down back as many seem to have pegged him. 
I guess the dangers are a general lack of hype, and allowing for the idea to be planted that he may have lost his special burst.

Good points.  Regarding Oregon's offense, it was evident that their running backs simply had more space; and Herbert's ability to stretch the field also spread our defense.  When I look at our offensive schemes, it often appears so painfully obvious that Love is going to get the ball; and all the personnel is crowded into the proverbial phone both.  When our OL is not hitting on all cylinders, this is normally a recipe for no gain or negative yardage.  Perhaps the difference vs. Oregon is that our defense had to respect Herbert's passing game at short, medium and long-range, his running/scrambling abilities AND the corps of running backs.  Oregon could key on Love in the first half, knowing that Shaw was going to give him a lot of touches, and only needed to worry about our sizable receiver corps, which only really became lethal in the second half.  If this part of our offense were more regularly used, I am convinced it would soften up the middle for the running game and effectively spread the field for Love and his colleagues in the backfield.  

Yes, the offense has evolved; but I still see certain old habits that reveal Shaw's obdurate devotion to the run-first identity.  In many ways, this game reminded me of the Wazzu contest back in 2015 at Martin stadium.  We ventured north with a solid O-line, an all-world tailback (McCaffrey), a veteran signal-caller (Hogan) and a pretty decent defense to take on a Cougar team that had lost to Portland State and Cal in the first half of the season.  I was convinced we would run right through their D-line and comfortably exit that tough venue with a W.  All throughout the first two quarters, Wazzu moved the ball effectively into Stanford territory.  Fortunately, our D tightened in the red zone, allowing the Cougars only 12 first half points on four FGs.  But our offense had been totally neutered, as McCaffrey slammed unrelentingly into the teeth of the WSU speed-D.  We got a single FG for our efforts.  In the second half, Shaw finally adjusted and started using McCaffey as a decoy.  We escaped that place with a W only because a) Hogan started using his legs; b) Meeks picked off two errant Luke Falk passes in the 2nd half; c) Leach exhibited bad clock management (by continually throwing the ball, which stopped the clock on incompletions and set up one of Meeks' interceptions); and d) a makeable Cougar FG went wide right as time expired.  Our comeback in this game was not nearly as miraculous as the one last Saturday, but it was the same "tale of two halves", with a stubborn devotion to the initial game plan that was clearly not working.  And we needed the errors and bad decisions of our opponent to pull it off.  I would just like to see Shaw adjust earlier when our schemes are not working; and maybe that means "evolving" the offense faster within games when an opposing defense has us stymied.    

I hope you are right about Love: it would really be a shame if his decision to come back severely damaged his shot at the NFL.