[teejers1]

It's not confirmation bias.

Game day commentary is limited to the roster you have.  The Defenses under Shaw, except for the very early years with the Harbaugh recruits, had WAY less talent than the O side of the ball - and that discrepancy has only increased as of late.



So yeah, problem #1 is improving roster talent, especially on D.



But when the roster is what the roster is, you need to maximize your game day talent to optimize your chances of winning.  That has not been Shaw's strength, imo, on O.  But I fully acknowledge and applaud that this year the O, to my eye test anyway, appeared better run with fewer "we're doing this on this play" decisions.  The heavy side bunch formation from a center hike still is overly-telegraphed - but I think Shaw knows that and doesn't care, possibly because the play has had some success (though it's also subject to stuffage at or behind LOS when teams sell out on it). 



The D talent is so unimpressive that I favored way more blitzing this year (and last) than we saw.  Doing something to create scheme advantage when you can't play straight up is what my gut says was needed.  I also think, however, that the DL performed pretty well, all things considered (including lack of depth - so a lot of guys played a ton).  That was a pleasant surprise.  The rest of the D? . . .



P.S.  I also noticed the deferral practice by Shaw.  OMG, you mean it might be possible to teach an old dog a new trick?

I think that's what we've been saying for going on five years now.  Shaw has repeatedly demonstrated that he can build Pac-12 championship calliber teams when he has Pac-12 championship players, but that when he doesn't have such players, his teams are going to struggle.  So the solution to me seems to focus less on the play-calling, which seems to be your bugaboo, and worry about the recruiting and development of players.

The Bloomgren to Tavita transition probably will result in a more consistent offense not because Pritchard is a better playcaller than Bloomgren, but because Carberry is a better OL recruiter than Bloomgren who struggled to recruit depth behind high profile guys like Walker Little.  Likewise, I think the Hansen to Turner transition will (eventually) wind up being an upgrade, because I don't expect to have an empty cupboard again.  But, we need to see more recruitment on defensive line and better recruitment at safety.  I think we can get there, but it will take a few years to rebuild the defense.  The reason I am lukewarm on Anderson is not that he doesn't blitz enough, but rather that for years now we have under-recruited at defensive positions.

BC

BC, we go round and round on this.  You seem to think that scheme and 'coaching 'em up' doesn't matter - unless you have the horses, you can't win.  I disagree; even though it's a truism that the more horses you have, the greater the chances for winning/being successful.  You can say Jessie's and Joe's more important than Xs and Os - and that's entirely possible (especially if you're talking really good players vs. really not good players).  But on game day, none of us can change or comment or encourage or bitch about the roster.  It is what it is.  

It's what you do with the roster, once it's set, that matters.

But I do not want to belabor my long-held beliefs on Shaw as an offensive mind.  But I do want to reiterate that the management of the O (including getting plays in on time; not needlessly burning TOs or scrambling to avoid DOGs) appeared better; as did the kinds of plays run.  It wasn't perfect, by any means (it never is for any team), but it was noticeably better.  And you may think that's only because "the plays worked" a fair amount and/or Stanford finished 4-2 - but that is not at all how I evaluate things.

[teejers1]

It's not confirmation bias.

Game day commentary is limited to the roster you have.  The Defenses under Shaw, except for the very early years with the Harbaugh recruits, had WAY less talent than the O side of the ball - and that discrepancy has only increased as of late.



So yeah, problem #1 is improving roster talent, especially on D.



But when the roster is what the roster is, you need to maximize your game day talent to optimize your chances of winning.  That has not been Shaw's strength, imo, on O.  But I fully acknowledge and applaud that this year the O, to my eye test anyway, appeared better run with fewer "we're doing this on this play" decisions.  The heavy side bunch formation from a center hike still is overly-telegraphed - but I think Shaw knows that and doesn't care, possibly because the play has had some success (though it's also subject to stuffage at or behind LOS when teams sell out on it). 



The D talent is so unimpressive that I favored way more blitzing this year (and last) than we saw.  Doing something to create scheme advantage when you can't play straight up is what my gut says was needed.  I also think, however, that the DL performed pretty well, all things considered (including lack of depth - so a lot of guys played a ton).  That was a pleasant surprise.  The rest of the D? . . .



P.S.  I also noticed the deferral practice by Shaw.  OMG, you mean it might be possible to teach an old dog a new trick?

I think that's what we've been saying for going on five years now.  Shaw has repeatedly demonstrated that he can build Pac-12 championship calliber teams when he has Pac-12 championship players, but that when he doesn't have such players, his teams are going to struggle.  So the solution to me seems to focus less on the play-calling, which seems to be your bugaboo, and worry about the recruiting and development of players.

The Bloomgren to Tavita transition probably will result in a more consistent offense not because Pritchard is a better playcaller than Bloomgren, but because Carberry is a better OL recruiter than Bloomgren who struggled to recruit depth behind high profile guys like Walker Little.  Likewise, I think the Hansen to Turner transition will (eventually) wind up being an upgrade, because I don't expect to have an empty cupboard again.  But, we need to see more recruitment on defensive line and better recruitment at safety.  I think we can get there, but it will take a few years to rebuild the defense.  The reason I am lukewarm on Anderson is not that he doesn't blitz enough, but rather that for years now we have under-recruited at defensive positions.

BC

BC, we go round and round on this.  You seem to think that scheme and 'coaching 'em up' doesn't matter - unless you have the horses, you can't win.  I disagree; even though it's a truism that the more horses you have, the greater the chances for winning/being successful.  You can say Jessie's and Joe's more important than Xs and Os - and that's entirely possible (especially if you're talking really good players vs. really not good players).  But on game day, none of us can change or comment or encourage or bitch about the roster.  It is what it is.  

It's what you do with the roster, once it's set, that matters.

But I do not want to belabor my long-held beliefs on Shaw as an offensive mind.  But I do want to reiterate that the management of the O (including getting plays in on time; not needlessly burning TOs or scrambling to avoid DOGs) appeared better; as did the kinds of plays run.  It wasn't perfect, by any means (it never is for any team), but it was noticeably better.  And you may think that's only because "the plays worked" a fair amount and/or Stanford finished 4-2 - but that is not at all how I evaluate things.