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)

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - gailtate - 12-08-2021

(12-07-2021, 11:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  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

Muir and Shaw must go. Until they do, which they certainly will not in the foreseeable future, football remains mired in the
ditch. Cheerleaders here can "poo poo" this to their hearts' content but it won't alter the dismal reality.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - winflop - 12-08-2021

(12-07-2021, 06:56 PM)Goose Wrote:  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.

I think it's a pretty mixed bag when it comes to Pritchard as a QB coach. He's been there 8 years, and in that time I can only see two successes - Hogan & Mills. Jury's still out on McKee, and I think it could be argued that Costello's downfall was as much due to injury as anything else. Everyone else who was on scholarship during those 8 years is a bust as far as I'm concerned, and regardless of the reasons they didn't become a starter and/or get drafted, ultimately it all is on Pritchard.

Do I expect that every QB recruit gets drafted? Of course not. But 25% is not a number that screams success to me. Success would be 50% or higher.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - martyup - 12-08-2021

---

Goodbye 2021 Stanford football season.  RIP

---

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - DC 86 - 12-08-2021

(12-08-2021, 01:32 PM)winflop Wrote:  Do I expect that every QB recruit gets drafted? Of course not. But 25% is not a number that screams success to me. Success would be 50% or higher.

Are you saying the bar is for 50% (minimum) of recruited scholarship quarterbacks to ultimately be drafted?

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - SamuelMcF - 12-08-2021

(12-08-2021, 01:32 PM)winflop Wrote:  Do I expect that every QB recruit gets drafted? Of course not. But 25% is not a number that screams success to me. Success would be 50% or higher.

Nearly every single college QB coach in the country would be a dismal failure by this metric.

Also keep in mind that the NFL also drafts QBs on projectability. How much credit do we give Wyoming's QB coach for producing a statistically-lackluster Josh Allen, who just happened to be tall and have a cannon?

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - old spanish trail - 12-08-2021

(12-07-2021, 10:56 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  

(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.

Thanks, Sam. Best news of this thread as I respect your info and knowledge.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - TrumpCard - 12-08-2021

On the question of whether the problem is recruiting or player development (or both!):

Shaw’s recent misses among highly rated recruits tend to be at positions where he hasn’t recruited volume (qb, ol, dl) and where the guys are athletic but undersized (ol/dl). Failing to recruit sufficient numbers magnifies the misses and recruiting guys with relatively smaller frames on a regular basis makes it more likely the team will get pushed around. Not rocket science but makes sense of the incongruity between recruiting ratings and results.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - CardinalSagehen - 12-08-2021

(12-08-2021, 07:10 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:  

(12-07-2021, 10:56 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  

(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.

Thanks, Sam. Best news of this thread as I respect your info and knowledge.

Regarding Carberry developing his line, I don't really remember any of his lines truly excelling.  Maybe I'm not remembering the timelines all that well.  I remember Bryce Love had an unreal 8ypc in 2017 and then a disappointing ~4.x in 2018 when Carberry arrived.  In 2019, we had shot-putters joining the team due to a rash of injuries and the offense struggled mightily.  I do remember enjoying the UW game and our unexpected dominance in the offensive trenches, with 3 freshmen playing (the same guys we have now.)  You must be referring to the short 2020 season, with the departed Dalman and Sarell being our top performers. It's true we were better then, but not great, and particularly not great in the run game.  

Maybe a better example of a young line suddenly gelling would be the transition from 2014 to 2015.  I'm hoping to see some sort of caterpillar-to-butterfly transition like that. Hoping is the right word.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card - 12-09-2021

(12-08-2021, 01:32 PM)winflop Wrote:   How much credit do we give Wyoming's QB coach for producing a statistically-lackluster Josh Allen, who just happened to be tall and have a cannon?

Tough to know how much credit to give Wyoming's coaches. But you have to give them some credit, as they did find him at a junior college when the whole world took a pass on him. [Iirc, it might have been one of those "scouting  someone else and unexpectedly saw an amazing  player" stories.]

Josh did get better in Laramie. But he needed to get better still after he left.

Btw, the same coaches who found and coached Josh also found and coached Carson Wentz at NDSU. That was an easier find, though, as he was an in state recruit.

But I think a case can be made that the coaching duo (head coach and offensive  coordinator) who found and coached both Wentz and Allen deserve  kudos. Especially  since both happened a level or two below the Power Five.

NFL success is a problematic barometer for the judging of college coaching. But college coaching does matter. Or, at least, it can matter.

To be fair, I don't remember who the QB coach at Wyoming or NDSU was. My remarks concern the head coach and offensive coordinator (who is now the Montana State head coach, I think).

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - DC 86 - 12-09-2021

(12-09-2021, 02:02 PM)Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card Wrote:  To be fair, I don't remember who the QB coach at Wyoming or NDSU was. My remarks concern the head coach and offensive coordinator (who is now the Montana State head coach, I think).

Brent Vigen (who is now HC at Montana State, as you said) was OC/QB coach at North Dakota State and Wyoming.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card - 12-09-2021

(12-09-2021, 02:22 PM)DC 86 Wrote:  

(12-09-2021, 02:02 PM)Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card Wrote:  To be fair, I don't remember who the QB coach at Wyoming or NDSU was. My remarks concern the head coach and offensive coordinator (who is now the Montana State head coach, I think).

Brent Vigen (who is now HC at Montana State, as you said) was OC/QB coach at North Dakota State and Wyoming.

Thanks. Our son coached one (or was it two?) of his sons in junior high football. I knew he was OC, but I couldn't  remember  if he was also QB coach.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - fullmetal - 12-10-2021

Goose, I think your example of strength metric is not a great proxy for on-field performance.  First, reps in a weight room don't always translate to "functional strength" or explosiveness.  Isolating muscle groups for magnitude and reps is great for bodybuilding, but I think Turley and many other high-level coaches have moved on to full-body motions and then isolating and improving weak links in a player's kinetic chain.  I seem to recall players not acing the Combine workouts and yet turning in effective careers.  Conversely, there have been many Combine studs who didn't pan out on the field.

Secondly, we don't even know that the weights/reps in the Stanford S&C room are even at the same level where they used to be.  Injuries can be a big setback to players, and there have been many injuries.  The cumulative effect of injuries over a several-year college football career can be significant.

I still don't think Tavita has ever coached up a QB at Stanford.  Remember Hogan retooled his throwing motion in one NFL offseason after he was drafted after no one at Stanford seemed to touch it all his years here.  If Tavita is a hotshot OC waiting to break out, he'd be interviewing and getting jobs at other places.  I can't imagine him not wanting to get experience elsewhere and making a real name for himself if he were that good.  If a better position than Stanford OC/QB coach opens up at Stanford, it's not as if he wouldn't be near the top of the list for consideration if he wanted to come back.

I could be wrong, but I feel like the results on the field bear out my opinions.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - TrumpCard - 12-10-2021

(12-10-2021, 10:54 AM)fullmetal Wrote:  Goose, I think your example of strength metric is not a great proxy for on-field performance.  First, reps in a weight room don't always translate to "functional strength" or explosiveness.  Isolating muscle groups for magnitude and reps is great for bodybuilding, but I think Turley and many other high-level coaches have moved on to full-body motions and then isolating and improving weak links in a player's kinetic chain.  I seem to recall players not acing the Combine workouts and yet turning in effective careers.  Conversely, there have been many Combine studs who didn't pan out on the field.

Secondly, we don't even know that the weights/reps in the Stanford S&C room are even at the same level where they used to be.  Injuries can be a big setback to players, and there have been many injuries.  The cumulative effect of injuries over a several-year college football career can be significant.

I still don't think Tavita has ever coached up a QB at Stanford.  Remember Hogan retooled his throwing motion in one NFL offseason after he was drafted after no one at Stanford seemed to touch it all his years here.  If Tavita is a hotshot OC waiting to break out, he'd be interviewing and getting jobs at other places.  I can't imagine him not wanting to get experience elsewhere and making a real name for himself if he were that good.  If a better position than Stanford OC/QB coach opens up at Stanford, it's not as if he wouldn't be near the top of the list for consideration if he wanted to come back.

I could be wrong, but I feel like the results on the field bear out my opinions.

I'm no fan of Pritchard as OC, but I think he coached up QBs.  

Hogan was a 4th year QB by the time Pritchard was promoted to QB coach.  Hogan started that year pretty shaky (understandably due to his dad's illness and death), but Hogan had a good end of 2014 and a great 2015 season, both of which were better than he had shown in prior years.  I certainly don't blame Pritchard for declining to retool Hogan's throwing motion at that late stage of his college career, while Hogan also was dealing with personal issues.  

I also think Tavita coached up Chryst and Costello.  Those two QBs aren't ideal examples because injuries derailed both of them, but they both improved dramatically from the time they arrived through the time they were healthy.  

I guess Burns and West are counter examples, but not every QB will pan out, even with good coaching.  I categorize those more as recruiting failures (which also is on the QB coach, so maybe the selection of West is a demerit against Pritchard, though the selection of Burns predated Pritchard's promotion).  

Really the key to Pritchard's overall grade as a QB coach is how you look at Mills and McKee.  Both seem reasonably likely to pan out as NFL QBs, but maybe you conclude that they were so talented that they didn't need a good QB coach (or maybe that they were so taltented that they overcame a bad one).  I don't have a good enough eye to make a judgment there.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - DC 86 - 12-10-2021

(12-10-2021, 10:54 AM)fullmetal Wrote:  Goose, I think your example of strength metric is not a great proxy for on-field performance.  First, reps in a weight room don't always translate to "functional strength" or explosiveness.  Isolating muscle groups for magnitude and reps is great for bodybuilding, but I think Turley and many other high-level coaches have moved on to full-body motions and then isolating and improving weak links in a player's kinetic chain.  I seem to recall players not acing the Combine workouts and yet turning in effective careers.  Conversely, there have been many Combine studs who didn't pan out on the field.

+1. The job of the S&C coach is to maximize football performance, not win weightlifting contests. McCaffrey turned in a pitiful lifting performance at the combine but was healthy and explosive at Stanford. Post-Turley overall health and performance have declined, but of course it's impossible to quantify what portion of that can be ascribed to S&C and what portion is the result of other factors. Anecdotally it seems that Turley's departure was a loss for Stanford and that the S&C area of the football program is one where there's room for improvement, but there's no way to prove this.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - OutsiderFan - 12-10-2021

Just look at the players in uniform for Stanford vs. say Utah or Notre Dame. Stanford players in general aren't nearly as physically developed, just from an appearance standpoint, as their better performing peers.

That said, I also remember during Turley's time, Stanford players didn't look especially muscular either. Turley didn't emphasize developing muscles.  He was only interested in functional football playing strength and flexibility, not weight room strength.

So it seems now, Stanford players aren't developing their bodies, nor are they developing functional football playing strength any more. I'd be super curious how many 225 bench press reps a guy like DWP can do. Is he not strong enough? Did he play with poor technique, or both?

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - teejers1 - 12-10-2021

(12-10-2021, 10:54 AM)fullmetal Wrote:  If Tavita is a hotshot OC waiting to break out, he'd be interviewing and getting jobs at other places.  I can't imagine him not wanting to get experience elsewhere and making a real name for himself if he were that good.  If a better position than Stanford OC/QB coach opens up at Stanford, it's not as if he wouldn't be near the top of the list for consideration if he wanted to come back.

I could be wrong, but I feel like the results on the field bear out my opinions.

I think the results on the field - i.e., the O under Shaw while Tavita is the titular OC - preclude Tavita from getting any interest from a P5 program.  If you're arguing that Tavita should go to a lower division team and shine there . . . okay.  But it's tough to expect a P5 coordinator to voluntarily take on a similar job at a lower level.  That would be a big roll of the dice professionally to have to rationalize (and the roll only comes up box cars if Tavita turns the lower division O into a powerhouse).  So yeah, in theory, that's a possibly circuitous career move for Tavita.  Just think it's one few coaches would voluntarily take, regardless of how confident they were in their abilities.

The bottom line is that it's impossible to tell how good (or bad) an OC Tavita is because Shaw calls all the shots.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - Goose - 12-10-2021

(12-10-2021, 11:34 AM)DC 86 Wrote:  

(12-10-2021, 10:54 AM)fullmetal Wrote:  Goose, I think your example of strength metric is not a great proxy for on-field performance.  First, reps in a weight room don't always translate to "functional strength" or explosiveness.  Isolating muscle groups for magnitude and reps is great for bodybuilding, but I think Turley and many other high-level coaches have moved on to full-body motions and then isolating and improving weak links in a player's kinetic chain.  I seem to recall players not acing the Combine workouts and yet turning in effective careers.  Conversely, there have been many Combine studs who didn't pan out on the field.

Secondly, we don't even know that the weights/reps in the Stanford S&C room are even at the same level where they used to be.  Injuries can be a big setback to players, and there have been many injuries.  The cumulative effect of injuries over a several-year college football career can be significant.

+1. The job of the S&C coach is to maximize football performance, not win weightlifting contests. McCaffrey turned in a pitiful lifting performance at the combine but was healthy and explosive at Stanford. Post-Turley overall health and performance have declined, but of course it's impossible to quantify what portion of that can be ascribed to S&C and what portion is the result of other factors. Anecdotally it seems that Turley's departure was a loss for Stanford and that the S&C area of the football program is one where there's room for improvement, but there's no way to prove this.

I totally agree that S&C is more than how much you can lift. I would imagine that there are metrics that have been established for the various types of explosiveness as well. As you also correctly point out, we as fans don't know what the numbers show. However, the coaches do know that, so if there has been a general drop off in strength, due to injury or other factors, they would know. I am pretty sure that if they thought there was even a possibility of an S&C problem they would get some outside known "expert" S&C guy to come through and take a look at the program. While losing Turley may have been a factor, as others have repeatedly pointed out things were going downhill on the OL before Turley left.
The S&C program may have "lost a step" from what it was, but it certainly can't be the primary cause of the OL just getting run over by Utah (and others) without the coaches knowing it. By all means, we should have the best strength and condition program imaginable, but It is hard for me to believe that is a major contributor to the OL problem and nobody notices it. The players themselves talk to other guys on other teams. If there are things that others are doing and they are not, it would be known. I think the majority of the problem lies elsewhere, unfortunately. Even more unfortunately, I don't know where that is.
As a side note, Cmac spent basically two full off seasons developing his upper body strength, which he felt was inadequate for the NFL. He isn't an OL guy though, so I am not sure what that means. It is just a data point.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - Phogge - 12-10-2021

DWP was never an athletic huuge guy. Baylor had a kid almost as big at NG who was athletic and made plays. UDub always has a big NG who can play. Good run defense starts at that position. Stanford didn't have it.

I think Stanford as a whole gave up and surrendered the last few games.

On offense Yurosek, Tremayne, Higgins and at times Humphries stood out. Nobody else. Jury is out on McKee IMHO. On defense only Kelly (at times).

Normally there are a few young prospects who look like top contributors going forward. Hard to find any. Wyrick? Farrell? Filkins? Gilman? Armitage, Aybar and Keneley didn't play enough. Karty possibly a long range weapon.

With a less rigid coach I'd expect to see a bunch of true frosh play next year. Shaw might have to use them.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - DC 86 - 12-10-2021

(12-10-2021, 12:30 PM)Goose Wrote:  As a side note, Cmac spent basically two full off seasons developing his upper body strength, which he felt was inadequate for the NFL. He isn't an OL guy though, so I am not sure what that means. It is just a data point.

He worked on adding upper body mass to survive the pounding that exists at the NFL level. Ironically he's instead missed a ton of games because of ankle injuries.

---

RE: Stanford Football 2021 Post-Mortem Thread - Goose - 12-10-2021

(12-10-2021, 12:17 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  I think the results on the field - i.e., the O under Shaw while Tavita is the titular OC - preclude Tavita from getting any interest from a P5 program.  If you're arguing that Tavita should go to a lower division team and shine there . . . okay.  But it's tough to expect a P5 coordinator to voluntarily take on a similar job at a lower level.  That would be a big roll of the dice professionally to have to rationalize (and the roll only comes up box cars if Tavita turns the lower division O into a powerhouse).  So yeah, in theory, that's a possibly circuitous career move for Tavita.  Just think it's one few coaches would voluntarily take, regardless of how confident they were in their abilities.


The bottom line is that it's impossible to tell how good (or bad) an OC Tavita is because Shaw calls all the shots.

I think the "bottom line" you cite (which I totally agree with) is the main reason Tavita isn't going to get any interest from another P5 program, not just the result on the field. However, I am pretty sure Shaw could get him a good job in the NFL, which from my point of view is the most logical target for him. It can be regarded as a step up and it would let him hone his craft. He is a coordinator at a P5 school. The next step up in the college ranks would be HC someplace (not P5), which he isn't going to get from where he is now. I have been saying this for years, but it is clear it isn't happening. Why? Maybe Tavita is perfectly content where he is, and maybe that's not bad, but if it were me I would not rely on being an OC at Stanford for the rest of my career.

---