[Goose]

All the evidence demonstrates the Offensive Coordinator (or whoever is in charge of the offense) needs to be replaced.

OF, you evidence doesn't support that conclusion. What your evidence shows is that Stanford is performing poorly with respect to other teams in the conference on offense given the current sample of games. You then conclude that since it is the OC's job to make it perform well, he should be replaced if it is not doing so. There are lots of problems with that conclusion.

First of all, it assumes that relative performance in these statistics is the only possible way to evaluate an OC. Clearly, they aren't the only way. These statistics are also based on a small sample (1/3) of one season. They are also highly skewed by poor performance in one area, the passing game. Total offense and long gains are hard to come by if you can't complete some deep passes. Second, it assumes that some hypothetical replacement would perform better. That being counterfactual speculation, there is no way to know. It may be that with the players we have, this is as good as it gets. It may also be that that problem could not be avoided, as the guys we have are as good a we could get. We just can't know.

It is real tempting to look at the problem and say that coaching is the cause. In fact, it may be the cause. However, many teams change coaches and the "problem" either remains or gets worse. It is often difficult to know exactly what the "problem" is. However, your evidence doesn't show that coaching is the problem. There is no demonstration of causality. You just don't like what you see. You may be right, but it is subjective. Eventually, it may come down to "This isn't working. We have to change something." Are we there yet? IMHO, no.

My explanation of the problem is that we have not yet found receivers who can get open. Wilson is a sophomore. He hasn't yet demonstrated he needs to be double covered or he will kill you. He is also one guy. We also have problems on the OL due to inexperience. I am not privy to why we are doing what we are doing on offense. OF thinks we have a scheme problem. We may, but it also may be the receivers really limit the scheme and just aren't very good.

I do believe that in 2018 Shavita was surprised at how ineffective our running game was. That is shown by their initial "stubborn" attempts to run when it just wasn't working. What worries me is that they didn't recognize this problem before the season started. They had all spring and summer to figure it out. They didn't figure it out and had to scramble to find an alternative. They finally did. It wasn't optimal that it took so long into the season, and it wasn't optimal in that it required a somewhat risky approach (throwing into coverage), but it was probably the best we could do. However, it was clearly true they didn't expect that situation. That is a demonstrable shortcoming that it was reasonable to expect a good staff to avoid.

I worry that this year we have the same problem in reverse. We can run a bit, but we can't get receivers open. Did Shavita know this at the start of the year? Maybe. They can't say "Yes, we can't pass effectively. Our receivers just aren't up to it." in public, even if they know that to be true. Is their some similar kluge available to overcome this problem? We have tried "dink and dunk", and so far, it hasn't worked. OF doesn't like the scheme, but maybe Shavita knows already that we can't execute any other. Is it really true that we just "aren't executing", or are we not capable of executing? Like OF, I don't like what I see. Unlike OF, I am not convinced the OC is the problem. He may be, but it also may be that we have a big hole at WR that we knew about but couldn't avoid.

[Goose]

All the evidence demonstrates the Offensive Coordinator (or whoever is in charge of the offense) needs to be replaced.

OF, you evidence doesn't support that conclusion. What your evidence shows is that Stanford is performing poorly with respect to other teams in the conference on offense given the current sample of games. You then conclude that since it is the OC's job to make it perform well, he should be replaced if it is not doing so. There are lots of problems with that conclusion.

First of all, it assumes that relative performance in these statistics is the only possible way to evaluate an OC. Clearly, they aren't the only way. These statistics are also based on a small sample (1/3) of one season. They are also highly skewed by poor performance in one area, the passing game. Total offense and long gains are hard to come by if you can't complete some deep passes. Second, it assumes that some hypothetical replacement would perform better. That being counterfactual speculation, there is no way to know. It may be that with the players we have, this is as good as it gets. It may also be that that problem could not be avoided, as the guys we have are as good a we could get. We just can't know.

It is real tempting to look at the problem and say that coaching is the cause. In fact, it may be the cause. However, many teams change coaches and the "problem" either remains or gets worse. It is often difficult to know exactly what the "problem" is. However, your evidence doesn't show that coaching is the problem. There is no demonstration of causality. You just don't like what you see. You may be right, but it is subjective. Eventually, it may come down to "This isn't working. We have to change something." Are we there yet? IMHO, no.

My explanation of the problem is that we have not yet found receivers who can get open. Wilson is a sophomore. He hasn't yet demonstrated he needs to be double covered or he will kill you. He is also one guy. We also have problems on the OL due to inexperience. I am not privy to why we are doing what we are doing on offense. OF thinks we have a scheme problem. We may, but it also may be the receivers really limit the scheme and just aren't very good.

I do believe that in 2018 Shavita was surprised at how ineffective our running game was. That is shown by their initial "stubborn" attempts to run when it just wasn't working. What worries me is that they didn't recognize this problem before the season started. They had all spring and summer to figure it out. They didn't figure it out and had to scramble to find an alternative. They finally did. It wasn't optimal that it took so long into the season, and it wasn't optimal in that it required a somewhat risky approach (throwing into coverage), but it was probably the best we could do. However, it was clearly true they didn't expect that situation. That is a demonstrable shortcoming that it was reasonable to expect a good staff to avoid.

I worry that this year we have the same problem in reverse. We can run a bit, but we can't get receivers open. Did Shavita know this at the start of the year? Maybe. They can't say "Yes, we can't pass effectively. Our receivers just aren't up to it." in public, even if they know that to be true. Is their some similar kluge available to overcome this problem? We have tried "dink and dunk", and so far, it hasn't worked. OF doesn't like the scheme, but maybe Shavita knows already that we can't execute any other. Is it really true that we just "aren't executing", or are we not capable of executing? Like OF, I don't like what I see. Unlike OF, I am not convinced the OC is the problem. He may be, but it also may be that we have a big hole at WR that we knew about but couldn't avoid.