Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread

Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - 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: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread (/thread-22663.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - teejers1 - 11-29-2021

(11-29-2021, 07:27 PM)winflop Wrote:
(11-29-2021, 12:05 PM)terry Wrote: In general, I think it's not very useful to spend much time analyzing Shaw's press conferences because I don't think he reveals much about what he's really thinking.

In Shaw's post-ND press conference, he indicated that he is turning his focus to recruiting. I got the impression that Shaw was trying to be as positive as circumstances would allow in an attempt to support his recruiting efforts. I think maybe he wanted to avoid scaring recruits away by being too negative about the program. I would view his comments in that context.

That said, I thought Shaw made a couple of brief comments that I found interesting:

"A lot of things we have to do, a lot of discussions we have to have, some difficult discussions. . . ."

"Some things coaching-wise, which I won't go into detail, that we need to look at. . . ."

I think my frustration with Shaw's press conferences comes down to issues with style. I would prefer that he be more explicitly accountable and not just drone on with platitudes about execution and opportunities. Even if it's just stating the obvious, the margin between success and where this team is at is NOT a couple of plays here and there. and I think not being honest about that and not owning it at the mic is detrimental to him.

I would also prefer that he not get so defiant & defensive in those rare occasions where the media who cover him come anywhere close to questioning him. I'd prefer that he acknowledge the validity of the question and not be so defensive in his answers. It's OK to admit that you don't have the answers and that you'll look into it. But to just flat out deny the issues and make the questioner feel like they've crossed a line isn't OK with me.

Yes. And the more he engages in this kind of petulant activity, the more he diminishes his legacy - and I'm now talking about the off-field legacy . . . . you know, the "Good Role Model," "Great Representative" talk that accompanies all current commentary about Shaw. If he's not careful, The Commentariat could shift to "Denial," "Refusal to address obvious problems," "Blindly obstinate."

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - BostonCard - 11-29-2021

Lol. Please give me one example of a press conference that has made an iota of a difference on someone’s legacy. I get the frustration with the press conferences. If he is not going to be fired (he won’t), then he should at least be forced to endure some punishment, even if it is self-flagellation. I mean, if we are forced to endure the last four football games, he should at least be forced to endure a verbal tirade of some sort, amiright?

Every job has box-checking exercises that people think are pointless but have to do anyways. Shaw views press conferences as a box-checking exercise, and no amount of petulant complaints about his demeanor here are going to make him embrace his inner Jim Mora.

https://youtu.be/Tie0tz7jGDI

BC

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - Austroturf - 11-30-2021

(11-29-2021, 11:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Lol. Please give me one example of a press conference that has made an iota of a difference on someone’s legacy. I get the frustration with the press conferences. If he is not going to be fired (he won’t), then he should at least be forced to endure some punishment, even if it is self-flagellation. I mean, if we are forced to endure the last four football games, he should at least be forced to endure a verbal tirade of some sort, amiright?

Every job has box-checking exercises that people think are pointless but have to do anyways. Shaw views press conferences as a box-checking exercise, and no amount of petulant complaints about his demeanor here are going to make him embrace his inner Jim Mora.

https://youtu.be/Tie0tz7jGDI

BC

Box-checking exercise, yes. But it is also a messaging opportunity (and the legendary Mora press conference is a messaging opportunity gone awry!). In my view, Shaw failed that messaging opportunity. What he said made me grimace and shake my head in disbelief, and I am not the only one, evidently. His tone and demeanor killed any empathy or support I might have mustered for his current plight (because he clearly doesn't see 3-9 as a plight). In short, he made me like him and the program he runs even less than I did before the press conference. Failed messaging opportunity. Instead of getting the audience on his 2022 turnaround bandwagon, he made us feel as if we just aren't smart enough to understand how awesome he and the team already are. I mean, look at those ten best plays every game. Can't you see that we are really excellent? Self-flagellation doesn't serve any purpose; but a realistic framing of the status quo and his commitment to improving on it would buy him a lot more support and goodwill.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - OutsiderFan - 11-30-2021

Press conferences are meaningless unless they aren't.

I challenge you to watch Kyle Shanahan after the Niners were drilled by the Cardinals to drop their record to 3-5, and compare to David Shaw.

Shanahan answers challenging questions matter of factly, explaining how he sees things and why he makes the decisions he does. There is not an ounce of defensiveness in his answers. No excuse-making, and he doesn't blame.

Yes, he does answer a lot of things with boiler plate "we have to play better" and "we have to execute better," but that's where he leaves it. Not only does Shaw make excuses, he gets defensive and says things aren't as bad as everyone can see. That loses you copious credibility.

You lose enough credibility when losing. That's just the way sports are. But it demonstrates very poor judgment to get defensive and give people something to talk about. I've never heard anyone complain about Shanahan's press conference performances. Why? Because he is a straight shooter who doesn't make excuses, doesn't get defensive, and answers every question, no matter how challenging or silly, with a grounded, attitude-free answer, unless he uses humor, which he sometimes does to show he's not bothered by questions.

If David Shaw did this, he wouldn't be facing a credibility crisis and nobody would be calling him entitled and arrogant - which are not superlative traits and erodes the support he needs right now - because he never would have come off that way in public. Not only did he reveal his off-putting attitude, but he tried to insult the intelligence of anyone listening to him.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - fullmetal - 12-07-2021

@branner - As a Texan born and raised, I would say that there are a lot of folks in the education system here who don't understand the nature of top-tier universities even if it's their job to do so. It's not great, and we suffer for it. But hey, a lot of kids from big name schools are still going to Stanford -- look at EJ, Ingram, and all the rest of the names (incl. Luck!)...hard to say that all of them were "wrong" about an aspect of a school and had their lives affected by it.

@thatboy - I admit, there are a lot of things that some Texans believe that are completely detached from reality.

Priority 1A needs to be S&C on the line. Priority 1B needs to be staffing improvements, particularly offensive coordinator and all player development aspects of coaching (looking at the QB position).

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - Goose - 12-07-2021

(12-07-2021, 01:51 AM)fullmetal Wrote: Priority 1A needs to be S&C on the line. Priority 1B needs to be staffing improvements, particularly offensive coordinator and all player development aspects of coaching (looking at the QB position).

I do not share the belief that the OL problems are related to S&C coaching failures. They may be, but it seems very improbable to me. Strength is one of the few aspects of performance that can actually be (and has been) objectively measured. If this years OL players can do fewer reps at a given weight than players from previous years, that is a recorded, known fact. Shaw et al simply aren't going to pass up such an obvious failure and do nothing. There are plenty of S&C people out there. Replacing an S&C coach isn't going to be controversial. You can do it and virtually nobody outside the program will notice. They don't make lots of money, so that isn't an issue. It is similar to the "facilities" group at a big company. They are critical to success and noticed only when they fail. But when they fail, action is taken RTFN. There is no way an obviously "bad" S&C situation would not be addressed. The OL coach himself would be screaming to high heaven if his players were just physically not up to par.
It may be Turley was a great S&C coach. It also may be that he in addition coached some pretty great players who were "all in" and did the work asked plus more. When it is pointed out that Turley was still S&C coach well after the decline in the OL was obvious, people assert that since he was promoted to a higher position the S&C training fell off. It seems improbable if he were such a guru that he would let the standards in his department fall so rapidly upon his promotion.
Actually, I wish I thought it was that simple. There are plenty of teams out there that pushed us around. If it is really S&C related, hire away any one of those S&C coaches. Should be easy with so many candidates. IMHO there is no way this obvious solution would go unnoticed by the entire coaching staff, or the players themselves for that matter. Therefore I doubt that is a material contributor to the problem.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - cardcrimson - 12-07-2021

(12-07-2021, 09:01 AM)Goose Wrote: There is no way an obviously "bad" S&C situation would not be addressed.

Well, obviously "bad" situations at OC, QB, OL, and DL haven't been addressed. . . .

(11-29-2021, 11:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Lol. Please give me one example of a press conference that has made an iota of a difference on someone’s legacy.

BC

This one certainly made an iota of a difference on someone's legacy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK3Jx2yvtVE

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - Goose - 12-07-2021

(12-07-2021, 09:42 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 09:01 AM)Goose Wrote: There is no way an obviously "bad" S&C situation would not be addressed.

Well, obviously "bad" situations at OC, QB, OL, and DL haven't been addressed. . . .

The obviously bad OL issue has been addressed. Shaw has gone through three OL coaches addressing it. It has been addressed, not solved. The DL recruiting has certainly changed focus, becoming much more front and center. No question that has been addressed. Whether it has been "solved" is at least a year away and TBD.

I am unsure why you believe we have an obviously "bad" situation at QB. As far as I can tell, McKee appears to have a lot of potential and upside. He also played pretty well given the teams other limitations. Patu also looks promising. We are in a lot better place than we were back in the days of Burns and Chryst IMHO. I get it that you most probably don't like Tavita as the OC, but IMHO the problems on OL and DL are not a matter of opinion. They exist without question. Nobody I know of, including Shaw, would argue otherwise. The OC issue is not in that category.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - teejers1 - 12-07-2021

(12-07-2021, 10:47 AM)Goose Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 09:42 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 09:01 AM)Goose Wrote: There is no way an obviously "bad" S&C situation would not be addressed.

Well, obviously "bad" situations at OC, QB, OL, and DL haven't been addressed. . . .
The obviously bad OL issue has been addressed. Shaw has gone through three OL coaches addressing it. It has been addressed, not solved. The DL recruiting has certainly changed focus, becoming much more front and center. No question that has been addressed. Whether it has been "solved" is at least a year away and TBD.

I am unsure why you believe we have an obviously "bad" situation at QB. As far as I can tell, McKee appears to have a lot of potential and upside. He also played pretty well given the teams other limitations. Patu also looks promising. We are in a lot better place than we were back in the days of Burns and Chryst IMHO. I get it that you most probably don't like Tavita as the OC, but IMHO the problems on OL and DL are not a matter of opinion. They exist without question. Nobody I know of, including Shaw, would argue otherwise. The OC issue is not in that category.

How can anyone have an informed opinion on Tavita as Offensive Coordinator when it is so obvious that headset-wearing-Denny's-Menu-Staring David Shaw calls all the plays and runs the offense?

Tavita could be a GREAT OC, or he could SUCK - but there is no way any of us can know one way or the other given Shaw's control over the O.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - gailtate - 12-07-2021

(12-07-2021, 11:57 AM)teejers1 Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 10:47 AM)Goose Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 09:42 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 09:01 AM)Goose Wrote: There is no way an obviously "bad" S&C situation would not be addressed.

Well, obviously "bad" situations at OC, QB, OL, and DL haven't been addressed. . . .
The obviously bad OL issue has been addressed. Shaw has gone through three OL coaches addressing it. It has been addressed, not solved. The DL recruiting has certainly changed focus, becoming much more front and center. No question that has been addressed. Whether it has been "solved" is at least a year away and TBD.

I am unsure why you believe we have an obviously "bad" situation at QB. As far as I can tell, McKee appears to have a lot of potential and upside. He also played pretty well given the teams other limitations. Patu also looks promising. We are in a lot better place than we were back in the days of Burns and Chryst IMHO. I get it that you most probably don't like Tavita as the OC, but IMHO the problems on OL and DL are not a matter of opinion. They exist without question. Nobody I know of, including Shaw, would argue otherwise. The OC issue is not in that category.

How can anyone have an informed opinion on Tavita as Offensive Coordinator when it is so obvious that headset-wearing-Denny's-Menu-Staring David Shaw calls all the plays and runs the offense?

Tavita could be a GREAT OC, or he could SUCK - but there is no way any of us can know one way or the other given Shaw's control over the O.

This is troubling. Can he really be all that good? Evidently, he's not brimming with ambition. Yes, I know it's cu$hy gig, but a guy with fire in his belly would want get into the arena and grow, right?

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - SamuelMcF - 12-07-2021

(12-07-2021, 01:26 PM)gailtate Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 11:57 AM)teejers1 Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 10:47 AM)Goose Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 09:42 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 09:01 AM)Goose Wrote: There is no way an obviously "bad" S&C situation would not be addressed.

Well, obviously "bad" situations at OC, QB, OL, and DL haven't been addressed. . . .
The obviously bad OL issue has been addressed. Shaw has gone through three OL coaches addressing it. It has been addressed, not solved. The DL recruiting has certainly changed focus, becoming much more front and center. No question that has been addressed. Whether it has been "solved" is at least a year away and TBD.

I am unsure why you believe we have an obviously "bad" situation at QB. As far as I can tell, McKee appears to have a lot of potential and upside. He also played pretty well given the teams other limitations. Patu also looks promising. We are in a lot better place than we were back in the days of Burns and Chryst IMHO. I get it that you most probably don't like Tavita as the OC, but IMHO the problems on OL and DL are not a matter of opinion. They exist without question. Nobody I know of, including Shaw, would argue otherwise. The OC issue is not in that category.

How can anyone have an informed opinion on Tavita as Offensive Coordinator when it is so obvious that headset-wearing-Denny's-Menu-Staring David Shaw calls all the plays and runs the offense?

Tavita could be a GREAT OC, or he could SUCK - but there is no way any of us can know one way or the other given Shaw's control over the O.

This is troubling. Can he really be all that good? Evidently, he's not brimming with ambition. Yes, I know it's cu$hy gig, but a guy with fire in his belly would want get into the arena and grow, right?

I don't necessarily correlate being good at your current role with having ambition. Seriously, Pritchard could be an offensive genius and we'd have no idea. I do think we see glimpses of it in non-3rd down, non-RZ situations before it's blatantly Shaw making the calls. I've been seeing a lot more slants lately.

- Bud Foster, VT's DC for over 20 years before retiring in 2019, was fantastic and fielded HC calls yearly. (He didn't attend VT, nor was he from Virginia.)
- Our very own former DL coach Randy Hart was a college DL coach for 42 years. Only 4 of those were spent as a DC in the late 90's, where he still coached the DL.
- Bobby Kennedy, probably our best assistant coach at the moment, has coached WRs in college since 1993 and never been an OC.

On the flip side, Peter Hansen had ambition. So far, both UNLV defenses he has coached ranked #100 or worse in nearly every single metric there is. The Peter Principle is real and we see it all the time.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - gailtate - 12-07-2021

(12-07-2021, 02:17 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 01:26 PM)gailtate Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 11:57 AM)teejers1 Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 10:47 AM)Goose Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 09:42 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Well, obviously "bad" situations at OC, QB, OL, and DL haven't been addressed. . . .
The obviously bad OL issue has been addressed. Shaw has gone through three OL coaches addressing it. It has been addressed, not solved. The DL recruiting has certainly changed focus, becoming much more front and center. No question that has been addressed. Whether it has been "solved" is at least a year away and TBD.

I am unsure why you believe we have an obviously "bad" situation at QB. As far as I can tell, McKee appears to have a lot of potential and upside. He also played pretty well given the teams other limitations. Patu also looks promising. We are in a lot better place than we were back in the days of Burns and Chryst IMHO. I get it that you most probably don't like Tavita as the OC, but IMHO the problems on OL and DL are not a matter of opinion. They exist without question. Nobody I know of, including Shaw, would argue otherwise. The OC issue is not in that category.

How can anyone have an informed opinion on Tavita as Offensive Coordinator when it is so obvious that headset-wearing-Denny's-Menu-Staring David Shaw calls all the plays and runs the offense?

Tavita could be a GREAT OC, or he could SUCK - but there is no way any of us can know one way or the other given Shaw's control over the O.

This is troubling. Can he really be all that good? Evidently, he's not brimming with ambition. Yes, I know it's cu$hy gig, but a guy with fire in his belly would want get into the arena and grow, right?

I don't necessarily correlate being good at your current role with having ambition. Seriously, Pritchard could be an offensive genius and we'd have no idea. I do think we see glimpses of it in non-3rd down, non-RZ situations before it's blatantly Shaw making the calls. I've been seeing a lot more slants lately.

- Bud Foster, VT's DC for over 20 years before retiring in 2019, was fantastic and fielded HC calls yearly. (He didn't attend VT, nor was he from Virginia.)
- Our very own former DL coach Randy Hart was a college DL coach for 42 years. Only 4 of those were spent as a DC in the late 90's, where he still coached the DL.
- Bobby Kennedy, probably our best assistant coach at the moment, has coached WRs in college since 1993 and never been an OC.

On the flip side, Peter Hansen had ambition. So far, both UNLV defenses he has coached ranked #100 or worse in nearly every single metric there is. The Peter Principle is real and we see it all the time.

I should have been more clear. I see someone at Stanford with the job title of OC who is not an OC in fact. I don't know about the other assistants you mention, but if your job title is nothing more that titular with none of accountability that comes with actual responsibility, you are misrepresented. Even so, who would want to carry the title of Stanford OC today, or DC for that matter? Hardly a good statistical look these days.
The importance of a title is to facilitate performance reviews and to hold people accountable. The latter seems to have limited importance to Shaw and it's killing his program.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - cardcrimson - 12-07-2021

(12-07-2021, 03:23 PM)gailtate Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 02:17 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 01:26 PM)gailtate Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 11:57 AM)teejers1 Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 10:47 AM)Goose Wrote: The obviously bad OL issue has been addressed. Shaw has gone through three OL coaches addressing it. It has been addressed, not solved. The DL recruiting has certainly changed focus, becoming much more front and center. No question that has been addressed. Whether it has been "solved" is at least a year away and TBD.

I am unsure why you believe we have an obviously "bad" situation at QB. As far as I can tell, McKee appears to have a lot of potential and upside. He also played pretty well given the teams other limitations. Patu also looks promising. We are in a lot better place than we were back in the days of Burns and Chryst IMHO. I get it that you most probably don't like Tavita as the OC, but IMHO the problems on OL and DL are not a matter of opinion. They exist without question. Nobody I know of, including Shaw, would argue otherwise. The OC issue is not in that category.

How can anyone have an informed opinion on Tavita as Offensive Coordinator when it is so obvious that headset-wearing-Denny's-Menu-Staring David Shaw calls all the plays and runs the offense?

Tavita could be a GREAT OC, or he could SUCK - but there is no way any of us can know one way or the other given Shaw's control over the O.

This is troubling. Can he really be all that good? Evidently, he's not brimming with ambition. Yes, I know it's cu$hy gig, but a guy with fire in his belly would want get into the arena and grow, right?

I don't necessarily correlate being good at your current role with having ambition. Seriously, Pritchard could be an offensive genius and we'd have no idea. I do think we see glimpses of it in non-3rd down, non-RZ situations before it's blatantly Shaw making the calls. I've been seeing a lot more slants lately.

- Bud Foster, VT's DC for over 20 years before retiring in 2019, was fantastic and fielded HC calls yearly. (He didn't attend VT, nor was he from Virginia.)
- Our very own former DL coach Randy Hart was a college DL coach for 42 years. Only 4 of those were spent as a DC in the late 90's, where he still coached the DL.
- Bobby Kennedy, probably our best assistant coach at the moment, has coached WRs in college since 1993 and never been an OC.

On the flip side, Peter Hansen had ambition. So far, both UNLV defenses he has coached ranked #100 or worse in nearly every single metric there is. The Peter Principle is real and we see it all the time.

I should have been more clear. I see someone at Stanford with the job title of OC who is not an OC in fact. I don't know about the other assistants you mention, but if your job title is nothing more that titular with none of accountability that comes with actual responsibility, you are misrepresented. Even so, who would want to carry the title of Stanford OC today, or DC for that matter? Hardly a good statistical look these days.
The importance of a title is to facilitate performance reviews and to hold people accountable. The latter seems to have limited importance to Shaw and it's killing his program.

Addressed vs Solved is semantics.

Our lines on both sides of the ball were terrible this year. Still a big unsolved problem

QB? Has Tavita or Shaw coached anybody up as of late, if ever? Interesting quote from the Sporting News : "While Mills was once the promised prince coming out of high school, limited tape and playing time in college made him something of a wild card on Sundays." What aspiring HS quarterback would want to come to Stanford (well I guess the #33 last year, and the number #63 this year). Were KJ, Mills, or West much better when they left the Farm than when they arrived?
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/davis-mills-college-draft-stanford/5fiw975v42da1hb1kvl2s1b5r

OC? Shaw is no better now than he was when Harbs pseudo demoted him to allow Greg Roman more control of the offense.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - TrumpCard - 12-07-2021

Stanford had incredible luck with starting QBs and RBs avoiding injury from 2009 through November 2016. Other than Luck missing the Sun Bowl in 2019 did any starter miss a game during that almost 8 season long run of luck?

Things obviously went south starting with Christ’s injury in the Sun Bowl in 2016. In my view, Chryst, Costello, and Mills ALL were good QBs who failed to reach their potential at Stanford in significant part due to the injury bug. That’s not an excuse, but an explanation. I think the mere fact that all of them suffered significant injuries reflects the declining performance of the OL, which is partially attributable to coaching. But I don’t think QB development was bad. I actually thought that Chryst looked really good in late 2016 and Costello looked really good in late 2018 prior to their injury woes. Mills obviously was injured from Day 1 and almost never seemed to be fully healthy. Again, this doesn’t exonerate the program, but I think OL development has been a bigger problem than QB development.

Edit: In an alternate universe hypothetical, I have to wonder what would have happened to Stanford football if Bloomgren had a better 2017. He bungled recruiting for the 2018 class beyond belief, chased Casey Tucker into a voluntary redshirt year, and couldn't keep his troops healthy or working in sync. Was he pushed out after that year, or did he prefer the Rice head coaching gig? I have trouble believing he wanted to go out on that note instead of looking for a P5 coaching gig. If he had performed a little better in 2017 or just stayed a couple more years to turn things back around, would he have been able to do better than Carberry and Heffernan at OL and better than Tavita at OC? I have to think that's a resounding yes.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - Goose - 12-07-2021

(12-07-2021, 11:57 AM)teejers1 Wrote: How can anyone have an informed opinion on Tavita as Offensive Coordinator when it is so obvious that headset-wearing-Denny's-Menu-Staring David Shaw calls all the plays and runs the offense?

Tavita could be a GREAT OC, or he could SUCK - but there is no way any of us can know one way or the other given Shaw's control over the O.

OMG, I absolutely agree. FWIW, that is going to be true of any OC, more or less, as long as Shaw is the head coach. I don't know if you read it, but I posted a link to a Salt Lake Trib article talking about the Utah OC position and they basically said it was the exact same thing.
There is one area where Pritchard does have responsibilities that we can somewhat measure. He is the QB coach. All in all, I think he has done a pretty good job. It is obviously clear that the raw material is a big part of this evaluation. He has recruited, or help recruit, some pretty successful guys. He has been the QB coach for 8 years. However, once again, how much is Shaw and how much is the QB coach.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - BostonCard - 12-07-2021

There is more to being an offensive coordinator than telling the QB what play to run.

BC

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - old spanish trail - 12-07-2021

(12-07-2021, 09:01 AM)Goose Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 01:51 AM)fullmetal Wrote: Priority 1A needs to be S&C on the line. Priority 1B needs to be staffing improvements, particularly offensive coordinator and all player development aspects of coaching (looking at the QB position).
I do not share the belief that the OL problems are related to S&C coaching failures. They may be, but it seems very improbable to me. Strength is one of the few aspects of performance that can actually be (and has been) objectively measured. If this years OL players can do fewer reps at a given weight than players from previous years, that is a recorded, known fact. Shaw et al simply aren't going to pass up such an obvious failure and do nothing. There are plenty of S&C people out there. Replacing an S&C coach isn't going to be controversial. You can do it and virtually nobody outside the program will notice. They don't make lots of money, so that isn't an issue. It is similar to the "facilities" group at a big company. They are critical to success and noticed only when they fail. But when they fail, action is taken RTFN. There is no way an obviously "bad" S&C situation would not be addressed. The OL coach himself would be screaming to high heaven if his players were just physically not up to par.
It may be Turley was a great S&C coach. It also may be that he in addition coached some pretty great players who were "all in" and did the work asked plus more. When it is pointed out that Turley was still S&C coach well after the decline in the OL was obvious, people assert that since he was promoted to a higher position the S&C training fell off. It seems improbable if he were such a guru that he would let the standards in his department fall so rapidly upon his promotion.
Actually, I wish I thought it was that simple. There are plenty of teams out there that pushed us around. If it is really S&C related, hire away any one of those S&C coaches. Should be easy with so many candidates. IMHO there is no way this obvious solution would go unnoticed by the entire coaching staff, or the players themselves for that matter. Therefore I doubt that is a material contributor to the problem.

You may well be right. Then why is the OL made up of fairly highly rated recruits so unable to move any team's DL. Again, and again, and again. Could scheme be totally to blame? That doesn't seem reasonable. I find it all weird.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - BostonCard - 12-07-2021

When you are this bad, multiple things are likely wrong.

Scheme or S&C?

[Image: why-not-both-why-not.gif]

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - SamuelMcF - 12-07-2021

(12-07-2021, 10:33 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 09:01 AM)Goose Wrote:
(12-07-2021, 01:51 AM)fullmetal Wrote: Priority 1A needs to be S&C on the line. Priority 1B needs to be staffing improvements, particularly offensive coordinator and all player development aspects of coaching (looking at the QB position).
I do not share the belief that the OL problems are related to S&C coaching failures. They may be, but it seems very improbable to me. Strength is one of the few aspects of performance that can actually be (and has been) objectively measured. If this years OL players can do fewer reps at a given weight than players from previous years, that is a recorded, known fact. Shaw et al simply aren't going to pass up such an obvious failure and do nothing. There are plenty of S&C people out there. Replacing an S&C coach isn't going to be controversial. You can do it and virtually nobody outside the program will notice. They don't make lots of money, so that isn't an issue. It is similar to the "facilities" group at a big company. They are critical to success and noticed only when they fail. But when they fail, action is taken RTFN. There is no way an obviously "bad" S&C situation would not be addressed. The OL coach himself would be screaming to high heaven if his players were just physically not up to par.
It may be Turley was a great S&C coach. It also may be that he in addition coached some pretty great players who were "all in" and did the work asked plus more. When it is pointed out that Turley was still S&C coach well after the decline in the OL was obvious, people assert that since he was promoted to a higher position the S&C training fell off. It seems improbable if he were such a guru that he would let the standards in his department fall so rapidly upon his promotion.
Actually, I wish I thought it was that simple. There are plenty of teams out there that pushed us around. If it is really S&C related, hire away any one of those S&C coaches. Should be easy with so many candidates. IMHO there is no way this obvious solution would go unnoticed by the entire coaching staff, or the players themselves for that matter. Therefore I doubt that is a material contributor to the problem.

You may well be right. Then why is the OL made up of fairly highly rated recruits so unable to move any team's DL. Again, and again, and again. Could scheme be totally to blame? That doesn't seem reasonable. I find it all weird.

Recall Carberry's first line being similarly terrible with three 5th year players with similar recruit ratings. These guys are all younger. Heff will get them right.

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - BostonCard - 12-07-2021

From your slips to someone’s ears, Sam. If there is one way to be sanguine about the team next year, it is that the entire line comes back, and that the disruptions caused by COVID mean that we should really think of the 2021 version of the OL as composed of freshmen and sophomores rather than sophomores and juniors. The usual suspects will poo poo the possibility that a Shaw coaches team will do it, but there is a possibility that we will go from the worst line in the PAC-12 to an average line, and with that, get to an above average offense next year. Maybe I’m being Pollyanna, but hope can spring eternal until the season starts.

BC