[lex24]

Cal had significantly better linebackers (particularly inside) and a much better overall secondary. Did you notice how their safeties flew to the ball. Wilcox is a very good defensive coach.

As for Anderson, I truly doubt he has gotten worse at his job. He simply doesn’t have the same level of talent.

If Cal, with no better talent than Stanford has, can be #2 (#16), there really is no reason Stanford shouldn't be better on Defense.

If Shaw does prioritize getting better on Defense and running the ball more effectively, and mixes in a potent passing attack with the best QB he's had since Luck, maybe 2019 can be one of those odd year runs to a conference title. But there must be staff changes because it seems clear some new thinking needs to be infused into the program.

You raise a very valid point here.  Under Sonny Dykes, Cal's defense was hopeless.  Wilcox basically took the players Dykes recruited, added a few freshly-recruited underclassmen and turned the Cal D into a strong unit.  Nobody can tell me Cal has better raw material on the defensive side of the ball than Stanford has.  All Wilcox could do is coach up the players he had, change the schemes and emphasize the importance of a stout defense.  He simply hasn't had the time to recruit an entirely new roster for the defense and put his own players in place.

So the legitimate question is: why the decline in Stanford's defense over this same period of time? In 2014, our D was still a monster; now, it is in the lower third of the conference.  How would it have performed if Wilcox had been coaching it?  What opportunities have we missed with the personnel we currently have?  Ultimately, is Anderson the right coach to revitalize the Stanford defense?

---

Synergy. Stanford’s clock grinding ball control style certainly helped their defense. Playing a fast tempo offensively puts more pressure on your defense as they are on the field more. I don’t think you need different athletes. You just need more of them. When Oregon was at its best, Allito ran people in and out defensively. I heard him comment that you need more depth defensively if you play fast offensively. Makes perfect sense.

It’s another reason I think Stanford is better off playing power oriented, ball control offense. They won’t usually have great defensive depth. But things change. Right now they aren’t equipped to play a power running style. I don’t expect that to change next year

I think a point, that may have been mentioned previously, but is important to consider in the context of our defense, is that
our defense, in order to be most effective, has to stylistically complement our offense. I.e. If we play up-tempo spread offense,
the defense should expect to be on the field for a longer period of time each game, and as such, I would probably emphasize
speed/endurance over size/strength to a degree. Likewise, if you play the type of offense we played from 2010-2014, ball control,
run football, bleed clock etc., a bigger defense with maybe not the same level of speed/endurance might work well.

As our style of football has changed offensively, particularly with the big change this year, our defense has had to adapt. Our defense
is on the field longer now than previously (at least when we optimally executed our strategy from 2010-2014), so I don't think the level of performance previously seen by the defense is realistic. By the same token, the offense is far scoring more points, so we perhaps don't
need that level of defensive performance to win games. Not saying we don't need to improve on defense, but expecting a 2012-2014 defense
with our new offensive philosophy may not be realistic. 

Our defense was generally good enough against lesser competition (UCLA game aside, when we really only gave up 35 points on defense). However, against good-to-elite competition, the defense wasn't good enough. In particular, I thought our middle linebackers, and a potential lack of speed, got exposed against that level of competition. We couldn't keep up with receivers in the middle of the field.

[lex24]

Cal had significantly better linebackers (particularly inside) and a much better overall secondary. Did you notice how their safeties flew to the ball. Wilcox is a very good defensive coach.

As for Anderson, I truly doubt he has gotten worse at his job. He simply doesn’t have the same level of talent.

If Cal, with no better talent than Stanford has, can be #2 (#16), there really is no reason Stanford shouldn't be better on Defense.

If Shaw does prioritize getting better on Defense and running the ball more effectively, and mixes in a potent passing attack with the best QB he's had since Luck, maybe 2019 can be one of those odd year runs to a conference title. But there must be staff changes because it seems clear some new thinking needs to be infused into the program.

You raise a very valid point here.  Under Sonny Dykes, Cal's defense was hopeless.  Wilcox basically took the players Dykes recruited, added a few freshly-recruited underclassmen and turned the Cal D into a strong unit.  Nobody can tell me Cal has better raw material on the defensive side of the ball than Stanford has.  All Wilcox could do is coach up the players he had, change the schemes and emphasize the importance of a stout defense.  He simply hasn't had the time to recruit an entirely new roster for the defense and put his own players in place.

So the legitimate question is: why the decline in Stanford's defense over this same period of time? In 2014, our D was still a monster; now, it is in the lower third of the conference.  How would it have performed if Wilcox had been coaching it?  What opportunities have we missed with the personnel we currently have?  Ultimately, is Anderson the right coach to revitalize the Stanford defense?

---

Synergy. Stanford’s clock grinding ball control style certainly helped their defense. Playing a fast tempo offensively puts more pressure on your defense as they are on the field more. I don’t think you need different athletes. You just need more of them. When Oregon was at its best, Allito ran people in and out defensively. I heard him comment that you need more depth defensively if you play fast offensively. Makes perfect sense.

It’s another reason I think Stanford is better off playing power oriented, ball control offense. They won’t usually have great defensive depth. But things change. Right now they aren’t equipped to play a power running style. I don’t expect that to change next year

I think a point, that may have been mentioned previously, but is important to consider in the context of our defense, is that
our defense, in order to be most effective, has to stylistically complement our offense. I.e. If we play up-tempo spread offense,
the defense should expect to be on the field for a longer period of time each game, and as such, I would probably emphasize
speed/endurance over size/strength to a degree. Likewise, if you play the type of offense we played from 2010-2014, ball control,
run football, bleed clock etc., a bigger defense with maybe not the same level of speed/endurance might work well.

As our style of football has changed offensively, particularly with the big change this year, our defense has had to adapt. Our defense
is on the field longer now than previously (at least when we optimally executed our strategy from 2010-2014), so I don't think the level of performance previously seen by the defense is realistic. By the same token, the offense is far scoring more points, so we perhaps don't
need that level of defensive performance to win games. Not saying we don't need to improve on defense, but expecting a 2012-2014 defense
with our new offensive philosophy may not be realistic. 

Our defense was generally good enough against lesser competition (UCLA game aside, when we really only gave up 35 points on defense). However, against good-to-elite competition, the defense wasn't good enough. In particular, I thought our middle linebackers, and a potential lack of speed, got exposed against that level of competition. We couldn't keep up with receivers in the middle of the field.