[msqueri]

I resist the notion we need an offensive-minded head coach at all. That could be a good model, but so could a defensive-minded head coach who hires a good offensive coordinator or a CEO-type head coach not known for Xs and Os wizardry at all. Multiple ways to skin the cat. I think fans of all teams are way too focused on the offensive whiz model. That was popular in college football in the 2000s and in the NFL the last few years, but it's not the only model and, tellingly, not where college football teams have found the most success in recent years. The way to find success in recent years is to get somebody who is already a winning head coach.

Agree.  And I certainly don’t think up-tempo is the right way to go.  Stanford always has depth issues.  

Stanford had a model for success: a dominant offensive line.  A strong front 7 on defense. Physical complimentary football.  

You want a winner that has successfully used that model - Paul Chryst.  My only question is why was he fired.  Was there something besides a blip in on field performance? 

Or, what’s Mark D’Ontonio doing these days?

A brain fart inspired by your post and an answer on Chryst.....

Brain fart: Among the top coaches there's a mix between offensive and defensive backgrounds. Fans gravitate to offense but I don't think that should necessarily be the case. Saban, Smart, Kelly, Whittingham, Narduzzi, Mendenhall, and Klieman are all defensive guys. The latter three on this list would be plausible/attractive candidates for Stanford, as would up and coming guys like Leonard and Minter.

Chryst: I think there's a through line to some degree between Chryst, Shaw, Mendenhall, Cutcliffe, and others - lots of success but when things faltered very low appetite to change ways. Oftentimes this manifests in a loyalty/refusal to let go of under-performing assistants. I think Chryst would be an extremely plausible candidate for Stanford, just flagging that if fans want to move on from a coach being overly loyal/set in his ways/etc. Chryst has some baggage.

[msqueri]

I resist the notion we need an offensive-minded head coach at all. That could be a good model, but so could a defensive-minded head coach who hires a good offensive coordinator or a CEO-type head coach not known for Xs and Os wizardry at all. Multiple ways to skin the cat. I think fans of all teams are way too focused on the offensive whiz model. That was popular in college football in the 2000s and in the NFL the last few years, but it's not the only model and, tellingly, not where college football teams have found the most success in recent years. The way to find success in recent years is to get somebody who is already a winning head coach.

Agree.  And I certainly don’t think up-tempo is the right way to go.  Stanford always has depth issues.  

Stanford had a model for success: a dominant offensive line.  A strong front 7 on defense. Physical complimentary football.  

You want a winner that has successfully used that model - Paul Chryst.  My only question is why was he fired.  Was there something besides a blip in on field performance? 

Or, what’s Mark D’Ontonio doing these days?

A brain fart inspired by your post and an answer on Chryst.....

Brain fart: Among the top coaches there's a mix between offensive and defensive backgrounds. Fans gravitate to offense but I don't think that should necessarily be the case. Saban, Smart, Kelly, Whittingham, Narduzzi, Mendenhall, and Klieman are all defensive guys. The latter three on this list would be plausible/attractive candidates for Stanford, as would up and coming guys like Leonard and Minter.

Chryst: I think there's a through line to some degree between Chryst, Shaw, Mendenhall, Cutcliffe, and others - lots of success but when things faltered very low appetite to change ways. Oftentimes this manifests in a loyalty/refusal to let go of under-performing assistants. I think Chryst would be an extremely plausible candidate for Stanford, just flagging that if fans want to move on from a coach being overly loyal/set in his ways/etc. Chryst has some baggage.