[Griffins78]

The current Stanford power running model is what was common everywhere when Walsh became a head coach.  His offense was so entirely different and unpredictable from that model that it created major problems for other defenses.  Over the years his offense became almost standard for most teams and it lost its novelty.

The new novel offense became the spread offense--and it still has not run its course entirely, but more and more teams are recruiting and building defenses to stop it--but those kinds of defenses are not necessarily well suited to stopping power running.  Hence we have had a pretty good run.

I think Walsh was a pragmatist, an innovator, and he was very demanding on technical execution.  Shaw as his student knew Walsh during his second coming, when I think Walsh was not quite as energetic or hands-on.  Walsh would have recognized Harbaugh's success in bringing back power running when other teams were not well suited to stop it.  And I sense Walsh's influence on the unbalanced lines, multiple tight ends, etc.  Walsh did his master's thesis on the evolution of flank formation football and often talked about the transformation from imbalanced to balanced lines.  Playing around with that just seems like the kind of thing Walsh would do--I wonder if he and Harbaugh and Shaw just "shot the breeze" one day early in Harbaugh's tenure here, in Spring 2007 while Bill was still alive, talking about ways of digging way back into football history so as to make some old ideas into new ideas.  I think I recall Harbaugh talking about such a conversation.

Walsh served as a game commentator for stretches late in his career, and he usually saved his most critical remarks for play calling that was predictable, particularly at the college level.  He did not like to criticize college players much, but he made it clear that he thought that their coaches sometimes let them down when they allowed their own lack of imagination or stubborness to hurt the player's chances to perform.  I specifically remember him complaining about a sequence in which the ball was run up the middle several times in a row without success.  He said something to the effect that this kind of  Woody Hayes "macho" play calling might be popular with old-guard coaches who would almost rather lose a game than embrace misdirection plays that might earn them the dreaded "finesse" label. 

And that is just it.  Even yesterday I heard commentators saying "Stanford reversed its fortunes when it stopped being a finesse team" and went to "power football."  Where is it graven in stone that you can't be both?  Walsh always resented the "finesse" label, but sometimes finesse works, and sometimes power works, and why in heaven's name would you want to leave one tool out of your bag? 

Walsh would be scheming new ways to take advantage of the limited practice time of college teams.  Doing a Woody Hayes immitation for a couple of years worked wonderfully, but you can't expect it to last forever.  Maybe this just means innovation within the running game--not abandoning the running game--but Walsh would not be sitting pat on an old formula.

Even better! Well thought and described 81alum.

I agree that Walsh was an innovator that would have adapted and changed to stay a step ahead. The spread seems like an evolution of the West Coast maintaining the short-passing ball control approach that spreads the defense across the field and opens up the run and isolates the defense in one on one situations which can be exploited.

I love having strength, toughness, skill, and power. But deception (if you want to call it finesse) or unpredictability, even in the run game, is a key concept that we seem to have less of.

[Griffins78]

The current Stanford power running model is what was common everywhere when Walsh became a head coach.  His offense was so entirely different and unpredictable from that model that it created major problems for other defenses.  Over the years his offense became almost standard for most teams and it lost its novelty.

The new novel offense became the spread offense--and it still has not run its course entirely, but more and more teams are recruiting and building defenses to stop it--but those kinds of defenses are not necessarily well suited to stopping power running.  Hence we have had a pretty good run.

I think Walsh was a pragmatist, an innovator, and he was very demanding on technical execution.  Shaw as his student knew Walsh during his second coming, when I think Walsh was not quite as energetic or hands-on.  Walsh would have recognized Harbaugh's success in bringing back power running when other teams were not well suited to stop it.  And I sense Walsh's influence on the unbalanced lines, multiple tight ends, etc.  Walsh did his master's thesis on the evolution of flank formation football and often talked about the transformation from imbalanced to balanced lines.  Playing around with that just seems like the kind of thing Walsh would do--I wonder if he and Harbaugh and Shaw just "shot the breeze" one day early in Harbaugh's tenure here, in Spring 2007 while Bill was still alive, talking about ways of digging way back into football history so as to make some old ideas into new ideas.  I think I recall Harbaugh talking about such a conversation.

Walsh served as a game commentator for stretches late in his career, and he usually saved his most critical remarks for play calling that was predictable, particularly at the college level.  He did not like to criticize college players much, but he made it clear that he thought that their coaches sometimes let them down when they allowed their own lack of imagination or stubborness to hurt the player's chances to perform.  I specifically remember him complaining about a sequence in which the ball was run up the middle several times in a row without success.  He said something to the effect that this kind of  Woody Hayes "macho" play calling might be popular with old-guard coaches who would almost rather lose a game than embrace misdirection plays that might earn them the dreaded "finesse" label. 

And that is just it.  Even yesterday I heard commentators saying "Stanford reversed its fortunes when it stopped being a finesse team" and went to "power football."  Where is it graven in stone that you can't be both?  Walsh always resented the "finesse" label, but sometimes finesse works, and sometimes power works, and why in heaven's name would you want to leave one tool out of your bag? 

Walsh would be scheming new ways to take advantage of the limited practice time of college teams.  Doing a Woody Hayes immitation for a couple of years worked wonderfully, but you can't expect it to last forever.  Maybe this just means innovation within the running game--not abandoning the running game--but Walsh would not be sitting pat on an old formula.

Even better! Well thought and described 81alum.

I agree that Walsh was an innovator that would have adapted and changed to stay a step ahead. The spread seems like an evolution of the West Coast maintaining the short-passing ball control approach that spreads the defense across the field and opens up the run and isolates the defense in one on one situations which can be exploited.

I love having strength, toughness, skill, and power. But deception (if you want to call it finesse) or unpredictability, even in the run game, is a key concept that we seem to have less of.