[81alum]

And I think for it to do so they will need to have defensive depth.

This is absolutely the case, and to a large extent Stanford has already done the experiment, and repeated it several times. Obviously every team and every coach are a bit different, but Walsh did not run a "slow" tempo offense. Certainly Jack Elway didn't either. Stanford has historically been unable to recruit adequate depth on defense. We would have a few really outstanding defenders and a lot of quite marginal ones. We knew we had to outscore the other team by a fair amount, because at then end of the game our outstanding defenders would be gassed and couldn't cover for the marginal ones. It is probably true that a "good" linebacker can play 60 plays a game, but if he has to play 70 while covering for some guys who might be OK for 40, it doesn't work. We know this from experience..

I agree.  Gordy Ceresino could not make the Walsh I defense good enough to compete with the heavyweights Washington and USC.  We knew we would have to outscore such teams, since we had many more quality players on offense than defense.  We did give up 45 and 49 points, after all. At the time I heard some theories about why Stanford attracted top offensive players (Benjamin, Loften, Nelson, King) and not so many outstanding defenders (Ceresino).  I always wondered if that was really inherent in the nature of the university or just the coaching emphasis of Walsh and his predecessors.  Was it (is it?) true that the best students academically tend to opt for offensive positions, and more average students tend to opt for defensive positions?  That was the theory, but I've never known if there was evidence to support it.

The Harbaugh/Gerhardt system, I think, allowed thinner defensive rosters more of a chance to compete--by emphasizing ball control and keeping the defense off the field.  This was assisted by all the spread offenses of our opponents--all their speedy tempos might result in points, but at least they would score quickly and keep our defense from staying on the field forever.  The longer a weak defensive unit is on the field the greater the probability that the opposing Offensive Coordinator will find its weaknesses and exploit them when they are tired and vulnerable.  

I do remember very well Aliotti discussing the Oregon defenses he coached--how essential it was to have wholesale shift changes since his defenses would spend nearly twice as much time on the field as the Oregon offense. 

In short, there is plausibility to the conventional wisdom is that up-tempo offense demands a special level of defensive depth. 

Presumably our new defensive coordinator is knows all this.  He apparently has a reputation as a good recruiter.  Great!  He will need it.  Perhaps a selling point when recruiting defenders will be that many more players than usual will see the field.

[81alum]

And I think for it to do so they will need to have defensive depth.

This is absolutely the case, and to a large extent Stanford has already done the experiment, and repeated it several times. Obviously every team and every coach are a bit different, but Walsh did not run a "slow" tempo offense. Certainly Jack Elway didn't either. Stanford has historically been unable to recruit adequate depth on defense. We would have a few really outstanding defenders and a lot of quite marginal ones. We knew we had to outscore the other team by a fair amount, because at then end of the game our outstanding defenders would be gassed and couldn't cover for the marginal ones. It is probably true that a "good" linebacker can play 60 plays a game, but if he has to play 70 while covering for some guys who might be OK for 40, it doesn't work. We know this from experience..

I agree.  Gordy Ceresino could not make the Walsh I defense good enough to compete with the heavyweights Washington and USC.  We knew we would have to outscore such teams, since we had many more quality players on offense than defense.  We did give up 45 and 49 points, after all. At the time I heard some theories about why Stanford attracted top offensive players (Benjamin, Loften, Nelson, King) and not so many outstanding defenders (Ceresino).  I always wondered if that was really inherent in the nature of the university or just the coaching emphasis of Walsh and his predecessors.  Was it (is it?) true that the best students academically tend to opt for offensive positions, and more average students tend to opt for defensive positions?  That was the theory, but I've never known if there was evidence to support it.

The Harbaugh/Gerhardt system, I think, allowed thinner defensive rosters more of a chance to compete--by emphasizing ball control and keeping the defense off the field.  This was assisted by all the spread offenses of our opponents--all their speedy tempos might result in points, but at least they would score quickly and keep our defense from staying on the field forever.  The longer a weak defensive unit is on the field the greater the probability that the opposing Offensive Coordinator will find its weaknesses and exploit them when they are tired and vulnerable.  

I do remember very well Aliotti discussing the Oregon defenses he coached--how essential it was to have wholesale shift changes since his defenses would spend nearly twice as much time on the field as the Oregon offense. 

In short, there is plausibility to the conventional wisdom is that up-tempo offense demands a special level of defensive depth. 

Presumably our new defensive coordinator is knows all this.  He apparently has a reputation as a good recruiter.  Great!  He will need it.  Perhaps a selling point when recruiting defenders will be that many more players than usual will see the field.