[BostonCard]

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 . . .

I too loved the 1999 (34.1 ppg) and 2001 (35.2 ppg) offenses.  At times, they seemed like they were not defensible. And they do seem like a good template for success for a Stanford team, with a few tweaks. For example, the 1999 didn’t make much use of the tight end as a receiver (12 total receptions); I would think an updated version of that offense would take advantage of our ability to recruit pass catching tight ends.  But still, an offense with a QB principally under center in an I formation handing off or throwing off of play action is fundamentally a sound way to run an offense. And a 50/50 mix of run and pass (1999 we ran 37 times a game, including sacks, and passed 35) makes sense, though the 2001 team was much more run heavy than you remember (we had 46 carries per game, including sacks and scrambles, versus 30 pass attempts per game, so about 60% runs).

Still the same offensive brain trust that produced those nice years, also produced the 2000 offense. That team, which went 5-6, averaged 23.7 ppg, worse than any Shaw year, bar this one.  Yeah, Fasani was injured for part of that year, but Chris Lewis was one of the top QB recruits in the country (and we never had a game with our third string QB looking like a deer in the headlights behind a duct tape and bailing wire offensive line that functioned as an ineffective turn style). My point is not to denigrate the scheme, which I liked then and I still like now (and which isn’t all that different from what Shaw ran with Hogan and Taylor/Gaffney). My point is that no scheme is bulletproof, and if you think the Willingham/Deitrick offense is the model, you will have to acknowledge that it is susceptible to bad seasons too.

BC

[BostonCard]

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 . . .

I too loved the 1999 (34.1 ppg) and 2001 (35.2 ppg) offenses.  At times, they seemed like they were not defensible. And they do seem like a good template for success for a Stanford team, with a few tweaks. For example, the 1999 didn’t make much use of the tight end as a receiver (12 total receptions); I would think an updated version of that offense would take advantage of our ability to recruit pass catching tight ends.  But still, an offense with a QB principally under center in an I formation handing off or throwing off of play action is fundamentally a sound way to run an offense. And a 50/50 mix of run and pass (1999 we ran 37 times a game, including sacks, and passed 35) makes sense, though the 2001 team was much more run heavy than you remember (we had 46 carries per game, including sacks and scrambles, versus 30 pass attempts per game, so about 60% runs).

Still the same offensive brain trust that produced those nice years, also produced the 2000 offense. That team, which went 5-6, averaged 23.7 ppg, worse than any Shaw year, bar this one.  Yeah, Fasani was injured for part of that year, but Chris Lewis was one of the top QB recruits in the country (and we never had a game with our third string QB looking like a deer in the headlights behind a duct tape and bailing wire offensive line that functioned as an ineffective turn style). My point is not to denigrate the scheme, which I liked then and I still like now (and which isn’t all that different from what Shaw ran with Hogan and Taylor/Gaffney). My point is that no scheme is bulletproof, and if you think the Willingham/Deitrick offense is the model, you will have to acknowledge that it is susceptible to bad seasons too.

BC