[teejers1]

I am very concerned that Stanford's offense has become ... nothing in particular.



<snip>


Under the circumstances, I doubt that there was any scheme that would have made 2019 a very good offense. And perhaps it is true that when things are struggling it is hard to perceive an underlying plan even if there is one. Nonetheless, I am left to fear that there currently is no particular plan. Whatever-might-work-at-the-moment is not a long term building strategy.

I think that Shaw very much wanted/tried to go back to a "balanced" attack similar to what Stanford used with Gaffney and his predecessors. That was the plan. He has told us that he couldn't because 1) we were down by multiple scores early in many of the games and therefore had to pass, and 2) injuries on the OL forced freshmen to play who were just not strong enough/heavy enough to run block well. I believe the OL was a big problem. I am not convinced it was because there were three freshmen starters. I fear it is because they are just not good enough. Next year, we will know for sure about that. However, next year we do not have any "established" running back. Our two freshmen from this year didn't show much, and are both pretty small. This bodes ill for a balanced attack. Hopefully, we do get a boost from a 2020 running back admit and/or that the two freshmen step up. Otherwise, we will once again be "air raid lite", which just won't be pretty.

Preliminarily, if you're down 2 scores early, that does NOT mean you have to abandon the running game.  That's just a non sequitur.

But more fundamentally, I disagree with the precept that "Stanford should be a power running team."  That is so confining.  Stanford should be a multi-dimensional offense that is good at passing and running, with the ability to emphasize either if an opponent takes away one option.  I know this is simplistic and everyone (I expect) would agree with it, but the ideal offense should NOT be the Gaffney-esque pound and grind; but rather, the offenses under Willingham/Diedrick in the Rose Bowl and Seattle Bowl seasons.  Those were pro-style offenses that were prolific in both the passing and running games.  I'd dust off that playbook and start implementing it - of course, you need to have someone familiar with it who can help implement it.  Calling the man in the booth . . .

[teejers1]

I am very concerned that Stanford's offense has become ... nothing in particular.



<snip>


Under the circumstances, I doubt that there was any scheme that would have made 2019 a very good offense. And perhaps it is true that when things are struggling it is hard to perceive an underlying plan even if there is one. Nonetheless, I am left to fear that there currently is no particular plan. Whatever-might-work-at-the-moment is not a long term building strategy.

I think that Shaw very much wanted/tried to go back to a "balanced" attack similar to what Stanford used with Gaffney and his predecessors. That was the plan. He has told us that he couldn't because 1) we were down by multiple scores early in many of the games and therefore had to pass, and 2) injuries on the OL forced freshmen to play who were just not strong enough/heavy enough to run block well. I believe the OL was a big problem. I am not convinced it was because there were three freshmen starters. I fear it is because they are just not good enough. Next year, we will know for sure about that. However, next year we do not have any "established" running back. Our two freshmen from this year didn't show much, and are both pretty small. This bodes ill for a balanced attack. Hopefully, we do get a boost from a 2020 running back admit and/or that the two freshmen step up. Otherwise, we will once again be "air raid lite", which just won't be pretty.

Preliminarily, if you're down 2 scores early, that does NOT mean you have to abandon the running game.  That's just a non sequitur.

But more fundamentally, I disagree with the precept that "Stanford should be a power running team."  That is so confining.  Stanford should be a multi-dimensional offense that is good at passing and running, with the ability to emphasize either if an opponent takes away one option.  I know this is simplistic and everyone (I expect) would agree with it, but the ideal offense should NOT be the Gaffney-esque pound and grind; but rather, the offenses under Willingham/Diedrick in the Rose Bowl and Seattle Bowl seasons.  Those were pro-style offenses that were prolific in both the passing and running games.  I'd dust off that playbook and start implementing it - of course, you need to have someone familiar with it who can help implement it.  Calling the man in the booth . . .