[washingtonismoney]

Broadly speaking this seems quite true. It was particularly odd last season, where the defense should have been good, the offense was demonstrably much better than the defense, and the complaints on the board were primarily about the offense and in particular offensive play calling.

This year it's not so crazy, as the situation is roughly reversed. There was lots of reason to think the defense would struggle, yet it has at least occasionally risen to the occasion....

I agree that, in isolation, the offense performing below expectations and the defense performing roughly at par (perhaps) means that the offense should receive more scrutiny. 

But I'm thinking about trends here. Anderson started in 2014 and immediately piloted an excellent defense, as you note elsewhere in your post. (#6 on ESPN's FPI, which sounds about right). Since then he's put out the #43, #10, #54 and (currently) #43 defenses. That seems like a decent enough record, I suppose -- averaging around the #31 defense -- but for me is marred by the way it was achieved: reliance on two superstar defensive linemen in Solly and Horrible Harry, with some odd conceptual problems listed above. 

I think stupac raised the point above that the defense may be less talented than the offense, but at a certain point a lack of talent becomes less of an excuse and more of an indictment: namely, you'd think Stanford, given its record, should be able to recruit talented defensive players. Certainly there are enough NFL role models to point to; Stanford also has a pretty long record of putting up sacks, TFLs, etc., which again you'd think is appealing. 

I don't want to get into a discussion of "what's worse, the defense or the offense," but just say that I think there are enough problems on defense that that side of the ball shouldn't be exempt from discussion.

[washingtonismoney]

Broadly speaking this seems quite true. It was particularly odd last season, where the defense should have been good, the offense was demonstrably much better than the defense, and the complaints on the board were primarily about the offense and in particular offensive play calling.

This year it's not so crazy, as the situation is roughly reversed. There was lots of reason to think the defense would struggle, yet it has at least occasionally risen to the occasion....

I agree that, in isolation, the offense performing below expectations and the defense performing roughly at par (perhaps) means that the offense should receive more scrutiny. 

But I'm thinking about trends here. Anderson started in 2014 and immediately piloted an excellent defense, as you note elsewhere in your post. (#6 on ESPN's FPI, which sounds about right). Since then he's put out the #43, #10, #54 and (currently) #43 defenses. That seems like a decent enough record, I suppose -- averaging around the #31 defense -- but for me is marred by the way it was achieved: reliance on two superstar defensive linemen in Solly and Horrible Harry, with some odd conceptual problems listed above. 

I think stupac raised the point above that the defense may be less talented than the offense, but at a certain point a lack of talent becomes less of an excuse and more of an indictment: namely, you'd think Stanford, given its record, should be able to recruit talented defensive players. Certainly there are enough NFL role models to point to; Stanford also has a pretty long record of putting up sacks, TFLs, etc., which again you'd think is appealing. 

I don't want to get into a discussion of "what's worse, the defense or the offense," but just say that I think there are enough problems on defense that that side of the ball shouldn't be exempt from discussion.