'21 recuiting (per 247Sports) - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: '21 recuiting (per 247Sports) (/thread-20351.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: '21 recuiting (per 247Sports) (/thread-20351.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: '21 recuiting (per 247Sports) - teejers1 - 08-30-2020
(08-29-2020, 10:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I mean the buck stops on Shaw’s desk, so I’m not disagreeing with you there. But I think an accurate diagnosis is the first step to improvement, and if Shaw had focused on offensive play-calling, my guess is that we would be no better.
BC
That's certainly possible. But I focus on the O primarily because that is where the under-performance to talent (imo) has been most stark. (Stanford has put a bunch of O players in the NFL in the last decade and far fewer on the defensive side). If you don't have the horses on D, is it reasonable to expect them to perform at high levels? Secondarily, there is a symbiosis between good Os and good Ds. The better an offense is, the more pressure it relieves from the D (and vice versa). I distinctly remember during the Teevens years thinking that the D was WAY better than the final stats would indicate, but because the O was so pathetic the D was on the field all game and almost always got worn down as the game progressed. Shaw's offenses haven't been pathetic (and some have been good). But especially when the D talent is not there and that side of the ball is weaker, the O needs to be better than okay or pretty good - they need to play closer to their potential.
Having said all of the above, I agree that greatest impact on game day would be if Stanford recruited more impact players on D . . . and didn't lose good players with eligibility, like the 2 DL who bailed on Stanford this past off-season. Stanford has traditionally had so little margin for error on D (that predates Shaw), that the Cardinal can't afford to lose good players with eligibility.
RE: '21 recuiting (per 247Sports) - Mick - 08-30-2020
(08-30-2020, 12:05 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-29-2020, 10:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I mean the buck stops on Shaw’s desk, so I’m not disagreeing with you there. But I think an accurate diagnosis is the first step to improvement, and if Shaw had focused on offensive play-calling, my guess is that we would be no better.
BC
That's certainly possible. But I focus on the O primarily because that is where the under-performance to talent (imo) has been most stark. (Stanford has put a bunch of O players in the NFL in the last decade and far fewer on the defensive side). If you don't have the horses on D, is it reasonable to expect them to perform at high levels? Secondarily, there is a symbiosis between good Os and good Ds. The better an offense is, the more pressure it relieves from the D (and vice versa). I distinctly remember during the Teevens years thinking that the D was WAY better than the final stats would indicate, but because the O was so pathetic the D was on the field all game and almost always got worn down as the game progressed. Shaw's offenses haven't been pathetic (and some have been good). But especially when the D talent is not there and that side of the ball is weaker, the O needs to be better than okay or pretty good - they need to play closer to their potential.
Having said all of the above, I agree that greatest impact on game day would be if Stanford recruited more impact players on D . . . and didn't lose good players with eligibility, like the 2 DL who bailed on Stanford this past off-season. Stanford has traditionally had so little margin for error on D (that predates Shaw), that the Cardinal can't afford to lose good players with eligibility.
Gentlemen, gentlemen. Let us not debase ourselves in conflict. Can we not agree that both offense (ranked #109 of 130) and defense (ranked #80) were Greek tragedies and that there is plenty of blame and discredit to go around?
FBS Total Offense Rankings:
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2019-team-offense.html
FBS Total Defense Rankings:
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2019-team-defense.html
RE: '21 recuiting (per 247Sports) - Phogge - 08-30-2020
Greek tragedies need an Alexander of Pella to come in and create a new Empire.
RE: '21 recuiting (per 247Sports) - BostonCard - 08-30-2020
I'm not sure why that matters.
I would rather a top-25 offense that somewhat underperformed its recruiting rankings than a median offense that overperformed its recruiting rankings; ditto with the defense. Of course last year we underperformed middling recruiting on both sides of the ball, but focusing on the playcalling misses the forest for the trees. Scouting and signing players and coaching them up is as much a job of the coaching staff (if not more so) than is play-calling on gameday. If you have vastly superior talent and have gotten that talent to execute, you could pick plays out of a hat and still see them be successful most of the time. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if your brilliant play call caught the secondary napping and sprung a wide receiver all alone if the offensive line can't block and the QB is on his back. Likewise, it doesn't matter if you called the perfect defensive scheme and have the runner bottled up behind the line of scrimmage if you miss the tackle. Last year we had way too much of the latter.
That doesn't excuse the coach. He was responsible for recruiting the players, and for too many years we were late with offers, didn't even fill our classes, talented players didn't develop adequately, and as a result the talent level on the field was dramatically reduced compared to the period from 2010 to 2015. We are headed for another poor recruiting year, and at least some of that is slow and inadequate recruiting. At least 2022 is starting out on much better footing, to get back to consistent excellence we will need sustained effort each and every year (not one good class and then take a few years off). To the extent that there is criticism of the class of 2022 it is that disproportionate effort has been expended on the offense, when, given our struggles, we actually need to expend more effort recruiting defensive players. But at least we have offers out!
BC
RE: '21 recuiting (per 247Sports) - Maple Leaf - 08-30-2020
Hopefully the 2019 season is the catalyst that will turn around the program. I would guess that neither Shaw or Muir would like to be associated with the decline of this program. I just get a feel that there has been a sense of entitlement/hubris as a result of the previous successes. I had the same feeling in Willingham's last few years, but that could have very well been a result of the lack of support from the AD at the time.
RE: '21 recuiting (per 247Sports) - Goose - 08-30-2020
(08-30-2020, 02:55 PM)Maple Leaf Wrote: I just get a feel that there has been a sense of entitlement/hubris as a result of the previous successes. I had the same feeling in Willingham's last few years, but that could have very well been a result of the lack of support from the AD at the time.I believe it was the normal human reaction of continuing to do what you believed has led to previous success. If things you did previously quit working, you need to adapt. However, you probably won't realize that until you have become convinced it isn't just a fluke or bad luck. Some coaches never adapt. Sometimes their success wasn't due to what they did, but rather a confluence of events that no longer exists. At least Shaw has shown some interest in adapting.
RE: '21 recuiting (per 247Sports) - slide - 08-30-2020
(08-29-2020, 04:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Completely agreed. With a competent defense we could have been a bowl team last year, but all anyone ever wants to complain about is the offense (which was not good, at 5.59 yards per play, but wasn't 109th in the nation).
BC
79th scoring defense in the country
108th (tied) scoring offense in the country
not so sure if I'd lay last year's non-bowl appearance on the defense.
with a competent offense, a bowl game was certainly possible.
may be trade in the Denny's play sheet for something simpler: a Waffle House menu?
RE: '21 recuiting (per 247Sports) - gailtate - 08-31-2020
(08-30-2020, 06:02 PM)slide Wrote:(08-29-2020, 04:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Completely agreed. With a competent defense we could have been a bowl team last year, but all anyone ever wants to complain about is the offense (which was not good, at 5.59 yards per play, but wasn't 109th in the nation).
BC
79th scoring defense in the country
108th (tied) scoring offense in the country
not so sure if I'd lay last year's non-bowl appearance on the defense.
with a competent offense, a bowl game was certainly possible.
may be trade in the Denny's play sheet for something simpler: a Waffle House menu?
Whatever the content of the playbook, ya gotta have the horses to make it work. Seems that there's a serious disconnect between what Shaw wants to do -- and the players he puts on the field.
RE: '21 recuiting (per 247Sports) - SamuelMcF - 08-31-2020
(08-31-2020, 08:19 AM)gailtate Wrote: Whatever the content of the playbook, ya gotta have the horses to make it work. Seems that there's a serious disconnect between what Shaw wants to do -- and the players he puts on the field.
I remember keeping track of the number of times we ran 4 TE sets in the RZ or short yardage situations, using walk-on Kyle McCombs (or late in the season, frosh OL Drake Nugent) as the fourth TE/ogre. I believe it was 6, and we netted zero yards total. We did it 3 straight times in one game (I want to say ND, but don't quote me on that) for no gain and kicked a FG at the 2. Just mind-boggling. I remember seeing a super cool pick play where Michael Wilson beat the corner to the pylon for our very first TD of the year against Northwestern; why didn't we ever try that again?!
That said, we can say the same about Anderson's constantly-in-nickel defense and the litany of freshmen and walk-ons we had to throw out there in the secondary. (I am excited for Kelly and McGill's futures though.) Akina pulled had-offers-from-Clemson-and-Alabama-in-HS Stuart Head for walk-on JJ Parson in Big Game and I almost doubled over in laughter. Oh, and all 4 starters at ILB and S were converted from other positions: Antoine and Williamson both originally CBs, Robinson originally an OLB (and he really should've been at ILB the entire way), Pryts originally a S. So yeah. Very clearly didn't have the horses. Obvious why we're signing 4 safeties in the '21 class, which gets back to the title of the post. Also, Coach Sanders has his hands full trying to rebuild the ILB room, and I'd argue it's in just as bad of shape as the disaster that was the OL room when Carberry arrived.