[JohnR34231]

I'd kill for that kind of offensive "balance" and effectiveness.  The problem with those teams was D, plain and simple.


I swear, I think the mind-numbingly dull Stanford offenses under Shaw have wiped away the fans' collective remembrances of what a good offensive football team looks like.  Hint:  it's not power running in a phone booth.  PPG and YPG were all so much better in most prior regimes.  The number of sub-350 yard total offense; sub-300 yard total offense; sub 250 yard total offense under this regime is shocking, given the recruited talent on O.  Shockingly bad.  Snap out of it, people!

Sorry Teejers1 but I watched it, and no, it wasn't a good offense. It was John Elway. He would go out there and do things nobody else could do. Yes, it was a blast to watch. You also knew that as long as he was out there, we could win, no matter how bad the defense was playing. Again, great to watch.

However, the results were poor. Yes, the of immense proportions problem was the defense. However, I can't call an offense a "good" offense when it relies on one player doing unbelievable things . Face it, the opposition knew that if they gave Elway any time at all he would destroy them. They had seen it happen to other quite good teams. You had to rush the hell out of Elway and at the same time play great pass defense. Running against a defense totally committed to stopping Elway wasn't too hard. However, our opponents counted Stanford running as a plus, because that meant Elway wasn't on a roll and eating them up.

The fact is we wasted three years of John Elway because we had no defense. The coaching staff recognized that we needed to keep our defense off the field so they tried (particularly in 1981) to run the ball a lot more. They did that and we lost more games. Would it have made sense to play phone booth football if your QB is John Elway and your running back is Darrin Nelson? No, it wouldn't. However, at the end of the day an offense that requires John Elway to function is not a "good" offense IMHO.

I disagree with your entire take and recollection on those offenses.  The running game - with Darrin freaking Nelson, V-Dub, Dot, and others - was at least respectable.  The passing game explosive.  We don't have anything approaching either right now.  Again, the fans in these parts have been beaten down by the dreck we've seen, thinking this kind of plodding O is "the way it has to be at Stanford."  That's just so not true.

Apologies for not reading all the posts, but if anyone is suggesting the Elway/Nelson years were similar and/or remotely as bad as what Stanford has now, then I have to assume they never saw those teams in person.  Nelson was truly incredible.   And Elway -- forget about it.  Luck was a fantastic first round franchise QB, but Elway literally did everything better -- stronger arm, better eyes, way more mobile -- one of the very best to play QB anywhere, ever.  And by the way, those guys were wildly entertaining to watch.  Comparing those teams to what we are seeing right now is like comparing apples and squirrels.

I think there is a bit of a "way we were" attitude toward the Elway years. Elway was no doubt a great player, but can you imagine how nuts this board would have gone in 1981 when we were 1-7 before making it slightly better by beating three teams that had a combined five wins between them. Or 1980, our only winning year at 6-5,  when we blew a bowl invitation by losing to a Kal team that had two wins up to that point. Or 1982, for that matter, when we lost the last three games to turn what looked like a decent season into another losing one.  Speaking for myself, I found them more frustrating than "wildly entertaining", despite the play of Elway and Nelson.

[JohnR34231]

I'd kill for that kind of offensive "balance" and effectiveness.  The problem with those teams was D, plain and simple.


I swear, I think the mind-numbingly dull Stanford offenses under Shaw have wiped away the fans' collective remembrances of what a good offensive football team looks like.  Hint:  it's not power running in a phone booth.  PPG and YPG were all so much better in most prior regimes.  The number of sub-350 yard total offense; sub-300 yard total offense; sub 250 yard total offense under this regime is shocking, given the recruited talent on O.  Shockingly bad.  Snap out of it, people!

Sorry Teejers1 but I watched it, and no, it wasn't a good offense. It was John Elway. He would go out there and do things nobody else could do. Yes, it was a blast to watch. You also knew that as long as he was out there, we could win, no matter how bad the defense was playing. Again, great to watch.

However, the results were poor. Yes, the of immense proportions problem was the defense. However, I can't call an offense a "good" offense when it relies on one player doing unbelievable things . Face it, the opposition knew that if they gave Elway any time at all he would destroy them. They had seen it happen to other quite good teams. You had to rush the hell out of Elway and at the same time play great pass defense. Running against a defense totally committed to stopping Elway wasn't too hard. However, our opponents counted Stanford running as a plus, because that meant Elway wasn't on a roll and eating them up.

The fact is we wasted three years of John Elway because we had no defense. The coaching staff recognized that we needed to keep our defense off the field so they tried (particularly in 1981) to run the ball a lot more. They did that and we lost more games. Would it have made sense to play phone booth football if your QB is John Elway and your running back is Darrin Nelson? No, it wouldn't. However, at the end of the day an offense that requires John Elway to function is not a "good" offense IMHO.

I disagree with your entire take and recollection on those offenses.  The running game - with Darrin freaking Nelson, V-Dub, Dot, and others - was at least respectable.  The passing game explosive.  We don't have anything approaching either right now.  Again, the fans in these parts have been beaten down by the dreck we've seen, thinking this kind of plodding O is "the way it has to be at Stanford."  That's just so not true.

Apologies for not reading all the posts, but if anyone is suggesting the Elway/Nelson years were similar and/or remotely as bad as what Stanford has now, then I have to assume they never saw those teams in person.  Nelson was truly incredible.   And Elway -- forget about it.  Luck was a fantastic first round franchise QB, but Elway literally did everything better -- stronger arm, better eyes, way more mobile -- one of the very best to play QB anywhere, ever.  And by the way, those guys were wildly entertaining to watch.  Comparing those teams to what we are seeing right now is like comparing apples and squirrels.

I think there is a bit of a "way we were" attitude toward the Elway years. Elway was no doubt a great player, but can you imagine how nuts this board would have gone in 1981 when we were 1-7 before making it slightly better by beating three teams that had a combined five wins between them. Or 1980, our only winning year at 6-5,  when we blew a bowl invitation by losing to a Kal team that had two wins up to that point. Or 1982, for that matter, when we lost the last three games to turn what looked like a decent season into another losing one.  Speaking for myself, I found them more frustrating than "wildly entertaining", despite the play of Elway and Nelson.