[81alum]

I read that Oregon State's Jonathan Smith has agreed to speak with Stanford. I doubt he'd leave his alma mater, however.

I like him a lot and the job he's doing at OSU. Favors a run-heavy, ball-control offense, which I think best suits Stanford. Love their OL coach as well, probably the best in the league.

An honest question:  why do you (and others) think a ball-control offense suits us best?  Back in the Walsh years when we were "Quarterback U" it was felt that a passing-oriented offense suited us.  What is it about Stanford that makes it more suitable to ball control rather than to other offenses-- other than the fact that we did ball control well in the Gerhardt/Taylor/Gaffney years?  We did downfield passing pretty well in the 
Benjamin/Dils/Stenstrom/Elway years.

Back in the Benjamin/Dils years it was an offense that was contrarian to almost all others. It gave Stanford their best chance to compete and win some games against superior rushing teams.

Today, the trend is air-raid, spread-run, spread-pass, up tempo offenses that feature many speed, twitch athletes in 4-5 receiver sets. Stanford simply does not have the athletes to run these schemes. In fact, they've tried to do so since 2019 and the results speak for themselves. 

From 2012-17 Stanford played another version of contrary football: Ground and Pound. They dominated TOP, kept opposing high powered offenses off the field for long lengths of time, and scored enough to win A LOT of football games. Opposing teams hated playing Stanford for this reason. 

In both eras, these against-the-grain offenses gave Stanford its best chance to compete. I desperately want to see Stanford realign with Big Boy, Smash Mouth Football!

Thanks for that explanation.  I like a contrarian philosophy.  However, I did begin to feel as if ground-and-pound wore out its contrarian nature as more and more teams figured out they could put 8 or 9 in the box to defend us.  I am remembering Michigan State in the Rose Bowl, for example, but this board was filled with people complaining that opposing defensive coordinators had "solved" our offense and that Shaw stubbornly clung to ground and pound and needed to punish the 8-in-a-box defenses.  This was long before the worst of our decline began.  Our defense carried us at times, and Shaw eventually became much more balanced on offense.

But there seem to be two arguments here.  1) We would do well to develop a contrarian offense.  (I like that approach, and think it makes sense, so long as sit genuinely presents difficulties to the defenses of our opponents.)  But it has been suggested that 2) there is something about Stanford that means we only attract certain kinds of athletes that are suitable to certain styles of play, and thus we need to build around that style.  I guess I need more explanation about 2.

[81alum]

I read that Oregon State's Jonathan Smith has agreed to speak with Stanford. I doubt he'd leave his alma mater, however.

I like him a lot and the job he's doing at OSU. Favors a run-heavy, ball-control offense, which I think best suits Stanford. Love their OL coach as well, probably the best in the league.

An honest question:  why do you (and others) think a ball-control offense suits us best?  Back in the Walsh years when we were "Quarterback U" it was felt that a passing-oriented offense suited us.  What is it about Stanford that makes it more suitable to ball control rather than to other offenses-- other than the fact that we did ball control well in the Gerhardt/Taylor/Gaffney years?  We did downfield passing pretty well in the 
Benjamin/Dils/Stenstrom/Elway years.

Back in the Benjamin/Dils years it was an offense that was contrarian to almost all others. It gave Stanford their best chance to compete and win some games against superior rushing teams.

Today, the trend is air-raid, spread-run, spread-pass, up tempo offenses that feature many speed, twitch athletes in 4-5 receiver sets. Stanford simply does not have the athletes to run these schemes. In fact, they've tried to do so since 2019 and the results speak for themselves. 

From 2012-17 Stanford played another version of contrary football: Ground and Pound. They dominated TOP, kept opposing high powered offenses off the field for long lengths of time, and scored enough to win A LOT of football games. Opposing teams hated playing Stanford for this reason. 

In both eras, these against-the-grain offenses gave Stanford its best chance to compete. I desperately want to see Stanford realign with Big Boy, Smash Mouth Football!

Thanks for that explanation.  I like a contrarian philosophy.  However, I did begin to feel as if ground-and-pound wore out its contrarian nature as more and more teams figured out they could put 8 or 9 in the box to defend us.  I am remembering Michigan State in the Rose Bowl, for example, but this board was filled with people complaining that opposing defensive coordinators had "solved" our offense and that Shaw stubbornly clung to ground and pound and needed to punish the 8-in-a-box defenses.  This was long before the worst of our decline began.  Our defense carried us at times, and Shaw eventually became much more balanced on offense.

But there seem to be two arguments here.  1) We would do well to develop a contrarian offense.  (I like that approach, and think it makes sense, so long as sit genuinely presents difficulties to the defenses of our opponents.)  But it has been suggested that 2) there is something about Stanford that means we only attract certain kinds of athletes that are suitable to certain styles of play, and thus we need to build around that style.  I guess I need more explanation about 2.