One reason why I am in favor of being more patient with the running game and trying more to tweak it is based on the benefits of having an identity and sticking to it.
A danger of lacking an identity is that it hurts your recruiting and the program in the longer term. Will all those offensive linemen, pro-style QBs and RBs want to come if we don't run a run-first, pro-style system? I also love the results of this style of play, even if it is, as some complain, "boring" (I don't). But a smashsmouth style means fewer plays run, which means fewer injuries, making it a great fit like a relatively thinner program like Stanford's (and its admissions requirements). A smashmouth style relies on getting offensive linemen, which is a great fit for Stanford's admissions requirements (did you know the highest Wonderlic scores (I know, a flawed measure) go to Tackles, Centers, QBs, Guards and Tight Ends?). And while attacks like the Air Raid or gadget-heavy offenses can be fun to watch, can you think of any that was able to deliver results in a P5 conference as consistently as Stanford's?
Look at how "stubborn" Chip Kelly is willing to stick with his system, even when the personnel doesn't fit *at the moment*. But kids could be watching at home thinking the right talent would get an opportunity there because the program sticks to its identity.
I definitely agree Stanford needs to get its stuff together. The run game must improve. The blocking must improve. A lot of tactical changes should be made (strength? drills? schematic? game plans?) within the season. And if those results don't come in, which hasn't happened yet, but if that happened, then you could talk personnel changes in the off-season.
But I think there are a lot of possible tweaks that can and should be made. And I'd give the coaches a chance to figure it out. They have many times in the past, so I'm hopeful they will figure it out again this time. Anyway, a well-timed bye week for now.
A danger of lacking an identity is that it hurts your recruiting and the program in the longer term. Will all those offensive linemen, pro-style QBs and RBs want to come if we don't run a run-first, pro-style system? I also love the results of this style of play, even if it is, as some complain, "boring" (I don't). But a smashsmouth style means fewer plays run, which means fewer injuries, making it a great fit like a relatively thinner program like Stanford's (and its admissions requirements). A smashmouth style relies on getting offensive linemen, which is a great fit for Stanford's admissions requirements (did you know the highest Wonderlic scores (I know, a flawed measure) go to Tackles, Centers, QBs, Guards and Tight Ends?). And while attacks like the Air Raid or gadget-heavy offenses can be fun to watch, can you think of any that was able to deliver results in a P5 conference as consistently as Stanford's?
Look at how "stubborn" Chip Kelly is willing to stick with his system, even when the personnel doesn't fit *at the moment*. But kids could be watching at home thinking the right talent would get an opportunity there because the program sticks to its identity.
I definitely agree Stanford needs to get its stuff together. The run game must improve. The blocking must improve. A lot of tactical changes should be made (strength? drills? schematic? game plans?) within the season. And if those results don't come in, which hasn't happened yet, but if that happened, then you could talk personnel changes in the off-season.
But I think there are a lot of possible tweaks that can and should be made. And I'd give the coaches a chance to figure it out. They have many times in the past, so I'm hopeful they will figure it out again this time. Anyway, a well-timed bye week for now.