I, for the most part, agree with the statement that the problem *this week* was execution, not scheme. I think *the game's* problem, given the assets they had going into the week, was execution. There are longer-term, organizational issues that *led* to the bad situation going into the week, but I think the game plan was a good one for what they had on Monday.
I was there and was quite optimistic for a good amount of the game. First, the defense kept the team in it. That's an impressive thing to do against Oregon.
Second, more importantly, I agree with the game plan to mostly run the ball. As people around me screamed for more passing, I liked the run plays. Even in the first quarter, Oregon players weren't able to effectively tackle Cameron Scarlett. He was running great. This has been a signature way Stanford has had recent success against Oregon, and to a longer degree, UCLA. And if you can run the ball with success via PHYSICALITY in the first quarter, you're gonna run the ball even more effectively in the fourth quarter.
The problem was threefold. For this game plan to work, you needed a passing game with at least a tiny bit of credibility, which Stanford did not show yesterday. If you can mix in some passes, if you can fake some runs and successfully catch the ball, that helps ensure your running continues in its success. Second, to effectively run the ball with 3-10 yard run plays, you can't get penalties. Running the ball consistently can work if it's 1st and 10 and even 2nd and 7, but you are screwed with 1st and 25. And last, to stick with the run, you can't be behind by too many points.
The boredom, to me, is not a run-first, huddle, read-the-defense scheme. It's the lack of touchdowns. If Stanford had executed the drives without penalties, if Costello had thrown consistently, and if the receivers pulled down the balls, the drives (some of them long and consistent) could have yielded some touchdowns instead of just FG attempts, or sputtering out midfield. I would have been perfectly entertained if Stanford was able to execute its early drives mistake-free in the first half, leaned on a lead, grinded the clock, and worn down the defense late in the game. If there had been a credible threat of passing, if Stanford had been able to actually complete a drive without shooting themselves in the foot with penalties, the run game would have become even more and more successful as the game wore on.
I do think this has been a bad year, and I think it's fair for there to be some pressure and consequences for Shaw. I do think there have been some recruiting failures (in terms of numbers and targeting thin areas) in the past few years, and the thinness is coming back to haunt the team. There have been some staff changes in strength & conditioning & training, and Stanford has had a much higher rate of injury, and ultimately, the coach is responsible for the program. They are sitting next to one of the greatest research hospitals in the world with extraordinary medical professionals all over the areas, with a university that out-fundraises any other school on the planet (overall, not necessarily for sports, but it shows the potential). And, there is growing evidence that Shaw has used at least one new hire to value loyalty and buy-in and chemistry when other programs have been showing a greater willingness to find exceptional new minds to challenge him. So yes, I think it'd be fair that he should get some pressure and face some consequences to fix the organizational issues. But I don't see much benefit howling for staff changes at this moment -- it's not like you're going to get a great QBs coach in week 5 of the season.
I disagree with the constant calls for a Leach-type offense. I don't think that's necessarily the right call. I wouldn't give up on the offensive scheme yet. I'd say, fill your darn scholarship slots, recruit with more fire (like the UCF coach who drove out to the airport to convince a QB who was flying out to visit USC), get the darn medical, strength & conditioning and training support you need, demand that the AD create a schedule that isn't stupid (there would be fewer injuries and more time to practice if they were playing San Jose State, Davis, Nevada, UNLV... etc for 2 of the 3 non-conference games) and hire and fire staff in a manner more reflective of the fast-moving, super-demanding landscape. I think if Shaw did those things -- if he still has the fire in his belly to do those things -- then the offensive scheme could lead to even greater future success -- even greater than 2010, 2011 and 2015.
I was there and was quite optimistic for a good amount of the game. First, the defense kept the team in it. That's an impressive thing to do against Oregon.
Second, more importantly, I agree with the game plan to mostly run the ball. As people around me screamed for more passing, I liked the run plays. Even in the first quarter, Oregon players weren't able to effectively tackle Cameron Scarlett. He was running great. This has been a signature way Stanford has had recent success against Oregon, and to a longer degree, UCLA. And if you can run the ball with success via PHYSICALITY in the first quarter, you're gonna run the ball even more effectively in the fourth quarter.
The problem was threefold. For this game plan to work, you needed a passing game with at least a tiny bit of credibility, which Stanford did not show yesterday. If you can mix in some passes, if you can fake some runs and successfully catch the ball, that helps ensure your running continues in its success. Second, to effectively run the ball with 3-10 yard run plays, you can't get penalties. Running the ball consistently can work if it's 1st and 10 and even 2nd and 7, but you are screwed with 1st and 25. And last, to stick with the run, you can't be behind by too many points.
The boredom, to me, is not a run-first, huddle, read-the-defense scheme. It's the lack of touchdowns. If Stanford had executed the drives without penalties, if Costello had thrown consistently, and if the receivers pulled down the balls, the drives (some of them long and consistent) could have yielded some touchdowns instead of just FG attempts, or sputtering out midfield. I would have been perfectly entertained if Stanford was able to execute its early drives mistake-free in the first half, leaned on a lead, grinded the clock, and worn down the defense late in the game. If there had been a credible threat of passing, if Stanford had been able to actually complete a drive without shooting themselves in the foot with penalties, the run game would have become even more and more successful as the game wore on.
I do think this has been a bad year, and I think it's fair for there to be some pressure and consequences for Shaw. I do think there have been some recruiting failures (in terms of numbers and targeting thin areas) in the past few years, and the thinness is coming back to haunt the team. There have been some staff changes in strength & conditioning & training, and Stanford has had a much higher rate of injury, and ultimately, the coach is responsible for the program. They are sitting next to one of the greatest research hospitals in the world with extraordinary medical professionals all over the areas, with a university that out-fundraises any other school on the planet (overall, not necessarily for sports, but it shows the potential). And, there is growing evidence that Shaw has used at least one new hire to value loyalty and buy-in and chemistry when other programs have been showing a greater willingness to find exceptional new minds to challenge him. So yes, I think it'd be fair that he should get some pressure and face some consequences to fix the organizational issues. But I don't see much benefit howling for staff changes at this moment -- it's not like you're going to get a great QBs coach in week 5 of the season.
I disagree with the constant calls for a Leach-type offense. I don't think that's necessarily the right call. I wouldn't give up on the offensive scheme yet. I'd say, fill your darn scholarship slots, recruit with more fire (like the UCF coach who drove out to the airport to convince a QB who was flying out to visit USC), get the darn medical, strength & conditioning and training support you need, demand that the AD create a schedule that isn't stupid (there would be fewer injuries and more time to practice if they were playing San Jose State, Davis, Nevada, UNLV... etc for 2 of the 3 non-conference games) and hire and fire staff in a manner more reflective of the fast-moving, super-demanding landscape. I think if Shaw did those things -- if he still has the fire in his belly to do those things -- then the offensive scheme could lead to even greater future success -- even greater than 2010, 2011 and 2015.