I believe the approach that has historically worked best for Stanford (early and middle Shaw) was to minimize the number of offensive possessions by both teams. Stanford had an offense that was designed to make each possession by our offense result in a touchdown (duh!) and to do that by out-executing our opponent. It took advantage of our (at the time) ability to create a good OL and to have at least adequate running backs. When we also had a QB that could throw the ball with accuracy (and/or receivers that were just much bigger than the opposition) we would wear out opposing defenses. Athletically, we often weren't "better" than our opponent but we were oriented towards making few mistakes and maximizing what strength we did have.
Our defense was usually not as good relative to our opponent's offense, even when it was successful. We had a "bend but don't break" approach. We had enough athletes that were competitive with our opponents for our "first 11" to be "average or better". We pretty much always lacked depth and if our defense was on the field a lot we would invariably wear down. As I evaluated it, we were good for 3 or 4 "stops" a game. By stops I mean situations where the opponent did everything right and we forced them to punt anyway because our defense played equally well or better. This doesn't include turnovers where we made a great play or they made a bad one, because these are somewhat random events.
This small number of stops doesn't mean the opponent always scored otherwise. Our strategy was to prevent the big play and make the opponent execute lots of plays. On some of them our defense would get a slight advantage and put them behind the chains. When that happened the small differences in execution would often force a punt. It wasn't that we "stopped" them, it was partly luck and partly slightly outplaying them for 3 plays in a row. Lots of possessions by the opponent ended that way. The other very large factor was that (during that time) college teams seldom could sustain a long (say > 7 play) drive without making a big mistake, like the QB not seeing an open receiver, somebody completely missing a block, or running the wrong pattern etc. Our defense was competent enough to blow those plays up (when the first 11 were out there) and effectively the opponent would stop themselves. We would get 3 or 4 of those a game as well. Kal under Dykes and UCLA with Rosen could be counted on to do this predictably. OTOH, our offense seldom did this, so that was a net plus.
Limiting the total number of possessions maximized our strengths and allowed us to get by with a pretty thin defense. Today, this approach is not working. It is not working for three reasons. First, we are not more effective at the LOS than our opponents and can't reliably execute long drives to keep our opponent's offense off the field. This requires our defense to function for more snaps which means we either wear down or have to play guys who really aren't as good. It also gives our opponents opportunities to locate where we aren't as good by trial and error. When they do, look out!
Second, opposing offenses are getting better (IMHO at least) in not beating themselves. It still happens, (see Oregon last year) but less frequently. I think this is partly driven by opposing coaches recognizing that the best way to attack Stanford's defense is just go right at them. Don't be too "cute" and beat yourself. Make Stanford beat you (and they probably can't). We have recently been relying on a few really good players to make up for some not-so-good players. Teams now strategize neutralizing our real good players and assume the rest will take care of itself.
Third, the quality of our defense overall has dropped. This dead horse has been beaten long and hard here, but it is true. Our "bend but don't break" philosophy doesn't work when you give up 7 yards or more on first down. You have to be athletic enough to force the opponent to execute lots of plays for this approach to work. We recently have not been able to do that. In the past, by the fourth quarter we were sometimes in that situation. At that point, we just knew we were going to get beat because we couldn't stop them. We had to hope they stopped themselves. Recently that has been true (at times) from the first play of the game.
Our recent change in philosophy to a simpler, more "attack" oriented defense may be a reaction to these three problems. However, the attack oriented approach, much like "all or nothing" battleship armor, is great when it's assumptions are valid and disastrous when they are not. Normally, attacking defenses work best when you are possibly a bit undersized but posses superior speed. I kind of doubt that describes our players strengths. I hope I am wrong.
Our defense was usually not as good relative to our opponent's offense, even when it was successful. We had a "bend but don't break" approach. We had enough athletes that were competitive with our opponents for our "first 11" to be "average or better". We pretty much always lacked depth and if our defense was on the field a lot we would invariably wear down. As I evaluated it, we were good for 3 or 4 "stops" a game. By stops I mean situations where the opponent did everything right and we forced them to punt anyway because our defense played equally well or better. This doesn't include turnovers where we made a great play or they made a bad one, because these are somewhat random events.
This small number of stops doesn't mean the opponent always scored otherwise. Our strategy was to prevent the big play and make the opponent execute lots of plays. On some of them our defense would get a slight advantage and put them behind the chains. When that happened the small differences in execution would often force a punt. It wasn't that we "stopped" them, it was partly luck and partly slightly outplaying them for 3 plays in a row. Lots of possessions by the opponent ended that way. The other very large factor was that (during that time) college teams seldom could sustain a long (say > 7 play) drive without making a big mistake, like the QB not seeing an open receiver, somebody completely missing a block, or running the wrong pattern etc. Our defense was competent enough to blow those plays up (when the first 11 were out there) and effectively the opponent would stop themselves. We would get 3 or 4 of those a game as well. Kal under Dykes and UCLA with Rosen could be counted on to do this predictably. OTOH, our offense seldom did this, so that was a net plus.
Limiting the total number of possessions maximized our strengths and allowed us to get by with a pretty thin defense. Today, this approach is not working. It is not working for three reasons. First, we are not more effective at the LOS than our opponents and can't reliably execute long drives to keep our opponent's offense off the field. This requires our defense to function for more snaps which means we either wear down or have to play guys who really aren't as good. It also gives our opponents opportunities to locate where we aren't as good by trial and error. When they do, look out!
Second, opposing offenses are getting better (IMHO at least) in not beating themselves. It still happens, (see Oregon last year) but less frequently. I think this is partly driven by opposing coaches recognizing that the best way to attack Stanford's defense is just go right at them. Don't be too "cute" and beat yourself. Make Stanford beat you (and they probably can't). We have recently been relying on a few really good players to make up for some not-so-good players. Teams now strategize neutralizing our real good players and assume the rest will take care of itself.
Third, the quality of our defense overall has dropped. This dead horse has been beaten long and hard here, but it is true. Our "bend but don't break" philosophy doesn't work when you give up 7 yards or more on first down. You have to be athletic enough to force the opponent to execute lots of plays for this approach to work. We recently have not been able to do that. In the past, by the fourth quarter we were sometimes in that situation. At that point, we just knew we were going to get beat because we couldn't stop them. We had to hope they stopped themselves. Recently that has been true (at times) from the first play of the game.
Our recent change in philosophy to a simpler, more "attack" oriented defense may be a reaction to these three problems. However, the attack oriented approach, much like "all or nothing" battleship armor, is great when it's assumptions are valid and disastrous when they are not. Normally, attacking defenses work best when you are possibly a bit undersized but posses superior speed. I kind of doubt that describes our players strengths. I hope I am wrong.