The CardBoard
Today in our potential attrition - 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: Today in our potential attrition (/thread-11380.html)

Pages: 1 2

Today in our potential attrition - BostonCard - 01-14-2016

https://twitter.com/jakedow15/status/687492321848328192

If it comes to pass that Shuler leaves, it will be a big loss.

BC

Re: Today in our potential attrition - stupac2 - 01-14-2016

Why would Shuler leave?

Man, for just having won the Rose Bowl, this sure has been a disappointing post-season so far. I liked it better when we pretty much never had roster attrition.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - TrumpCard - 01-14-2016

Shaw clearly loves the mentorship aspect of coaching.  As a result, I've pegged Shaw as a players' coach, akin to the CFB version of Mike Scoscia.  If Shuler transfers, however, I may have to conclude that I missed something.  Until now, Lyons' departure could be discounted as an anomaly, but a second projected starter in two years would make Lyons' departure more difficult to discount.  A new hypothesis might be that Shaw is a good mentor, but that he gives tough love that is difficult for some kids to take when they get in his doghouse.  Note that Lyons was demoted to a co-starter with Harris after he blew the last play of the ND game last year and Shuler lost his starting spot in short yardage situations this year.  Although it sounds like Rector is leaving for the NFL, his suspected departure might be relevant to this subject as well.  He faced some discipline from Shaw early in the year for undisclosed reasons.  I don't have any inside information on any of these three guys, but it seems possible that all of them could end up choosing to leave Stanford to their own detriment, and I have to wonder if there is a common thread.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - CTcard - 01-14-2016

(01-14-2016, 01:44 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:... Until now, Lyons' departure could be discounted as an anomaly, but a second projected starter in two years would make Lyons' departure more difficult to discount. 
...  I don't have any inside information on any of these three guys, but it seems possible that all of them could end up choosing to leave Stanford to their own detriment, and I have to wonder if there is a common thread.

I am not sure any of last year's graduate transfers were going to be starters at Stanford, possibly Skov the most likely. Hopkins and Skov were the only two who were starters at their new homes - with Skov off and on.

I also am not sure that anyone who finishes their degree ends up leaving Stanford to their own detriment.

Though on any team of 85+ players, where some play much more than others, there will be those more and those less happy. 

Re: Today in our potential attrition - TrumpCard - 01-14-2016

(01-14-2016, 02:34 PM)CTcard link Wrote:I am not sure any of last year's graduate transfers were going to be starters at Stanford, possibly Skov the most likely. Hopkins and Skov were the only two who were starters at their new homes - with Skov off and on.

Other than Lyons' lack of PT at UM this year, do you have reason to think Lyons would not have won 1 of the 5 DB positions at Stanford this year?  Do you think Shuler will lose the C position next year?  Do you think Rector would lose his starting WR position next year?

(01-14-2016, 02:34 PM)CTcard link Wrote:I also am not sure that anyone who finishes their degree ends up leaving Stanford to their own detriment.

I was addressing the issue from a football perspective only.  Obviously, there are academic considerations as well (which probably favor Stanford in most cases anyway), but I view these decisions as football driven, so that's the perspective of my post.

(01-14-2016, 02:34 PM)CTcard link Wrote:Though on any team of 85+ players, where some play much more than others, there will be those more and those less happy.

This is a truism.  Do you disagree with my new hypothesis about Shaw?

Re: Today in our potential attrition - washingtonismoney - 01-14-2016

Well, if dissatisfaction is playing-time-driven, that would make the three departures (some hypothetical) all the stranger -- all three were starters. So it's possible there's some Stanford or David Shaw factor here. (For example, one non-Shaw Stanford factor: it could be that Stanford players are more likely to graduate in four years, which would make redshirt juniors more likely to leave.)

On the other hand, this is a trend across college football:

https://twitter.com/MattRHinton/status/687767339962503168

Re: Today in our potential attrition - TrumpCard - 01-14-2016

I suppose we should wait and see on Shuler.  If he transfers, I'll be posting on this subject again.
Rector to the NFL (if it happens) probably is a horse of a different color.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - winflop - 01-14-2016

(01-14-2016, 01:44 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:Shaw clearly loves the mentorship aspect of coaching.  As a result, I've pegged Shaw as a players' coach, akin to the CFB version of Mike Scoscia.  If Shuler transfers, however, I may have to conclude that I missed something.  Until now, Lyons' departure could be discounted as an anomaly, but a second projected starter in two years would make Lyons' departure more difficult to discount.  A new hypothesis might be that Shaw is a good mentor, but that he gives tough love that is difficult for some kids to take when they get in his doghouse.  Note that Lyons was demoted to a co-starter with Harris after he blew the last play of the ND game last year and Shuler lost his starting spot in short yardage situations this year.  Although it sounds like Rector is leaving for the NFL, his suspected departure might be relevant to this subject as well.  He faced some discipline from Shaw early in the year for undisclosed reasons.  I don't have any inside information on any of these three guys, but it seems possible that all of them could end up choosing to leave Stanford to their own detriment, and I have to wonder if there is a common thread.

AFAIK Lyons was not a projected starter, and that in fact contributed greatly to his decision to transfer.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - TXCardinal - 01-14-2016

We would do well to go after Jake Raulerson, graduate transfer center from Texas. Blue-chip recruit who was unfairly dropped on the Longhorn depth chart because of a bad relationship with the crusty OL coach. He'll end up in Michigan with JH unless we give him a look. Could be a reasonable option.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - fullmetal - 01-14-2016

Raulerson would be great for depth--and I think he has the academic chops to get admitted.  However, I think playbook familiarity and team chemistry would give Caspers the starting center job should Shuler depart (and I hope not).  But I would love to see Raulerson playing for Stanford regardless of position and regardless of Shuler's decision.  Raulerson is the same height as Shuler and Caspers and only a few lbs lighter than Caspers (who is about 20 lbs heavier than Shuler).

And looking way too far down the road, I think we need to keep stud grad transfers out of Jim Harbaugh's wizardry...you know, just in case.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - Mick - 01-14-2016

(01-14-2016, 08:07 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=14388.msg152851#msg152851 date=1452804283]
Shaw clearly loves the mentorship aspect of coaching.  As a result, I've pegged Shaw as a players' coach, akin to the CFB version of Mike Scoscia.  If Shuler transfers, however, I may have to conclude that I missed something.  Until now, Lyons' departure could be discounted as an anomaly, but a second projected starter in two years would make Lyons' departure more difficult to discount.  A new hypothesis might be that Shaw is a good mentor, but that he gives tough love that is difficult for some kids to take when they get in his doghouse.  Note that Lyons was demoted to a co-starter with Harris after he blew the last play of the ND game last year and Shuler lost his starting spot in short yardage situations this year.  Although it sounds like Rector is leaving for the NFL, his suspected departure might be relevant to this subject as well.  He faced some discipline from Shaw early in the year for undisclosed reasons.  I don't have any inside information on any of these three guys, but it seems possible that all of them could end up choosing to leave Stanford to their own detriment, and I have to wonder if there is a common thread.

AFAIK Lyons was not a projected starter, and that in fact contributed greatly to his decision to transfer.
[/quote]

But Lyons didn't get much playing time at UMich...and frankly, I wonder if Barry Sanders will get much at Okla State.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - BostonCard - 01-14-2016

I think Lyons had to have been considered a projected starter.  We lost 4/5 of our secondary, and Lyons would likely have started the year as the cornerback opposite Harris, or, less likely, he could have taken one of the two safety spots.

Unless he was really in the doghouse, he would have started for us this year.

As for why he left, remember, Michigan hired his mom.

BC

Re: Today in our potential attrition - CTcard - 01-15-2016

(01-14-2016, 03:11 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=14388.msg152856#msg152856 date=1452807267]
I am not sure any of last year's graduate transfers were going to be starters at Stanford, possibly Skov the most likely. Hopkins and Skov were the only two who were starters at their new homes - with Skov off and on.

Other than Lyons' lack of PT at UM this year, do you have reason to think Lyons would not have won 1 of the 5 DB positions at Stanford this year?  Do you think Shuler will lose the C position next year?  Do you think Rector would lose his starting WR position next year?
[/quote]

- Lyons losing his starting job last year.
- Rumors that the coaches were higher on several of the younger guys.
- Rumors that he asked if he would start if he returned and was told he would "compete for a starting position".

Shuler and Rector were not among last year's transfers.
I would expect both to start, along with Hooper had he stayed. For Shuler there may be some question as he was already subbed out on short yardage and there's been some grumbling - but I think he would most likely hold on.

Quote:I was addressing the issue from a football perspective only.  Obviously, there are academic considerations as well (which probably favor Stanford in most cases anyway), but I view these decisions as football driven, so that's the perspective of my post.

I guess you have to think about what one's football future might be.
Of the guys who transferred last year, all except Lyons appear to have received more playing time than they would have had at Stanford. So their moves were not to their personal football detriment. 

Anyone who leaves for the NFL is clearly attempting to make a decision based solely on their football future. They may be mistaken in their chances at the next level, but for the most part those aren't going to change a lot by sticking around one more year. [Rector and Shuler for example have put plenty on tape.]


Quote:Do you disagree with my new hypothesis about Shaw?

I guess you mean, "Shaw is a good mentor, but that he gives tough love that is difficult for some kids to take when they get in his doghouse."

I guess I agree in the sense that this is roughly true about every football coach - though perhaps some less so on being a good mentor in the first place.


On Shaw in particular I mostly don't have information to have an opinion about this level of detail in his coaching style.

It seems pretty clear that Shaw was the players' choice to succeed Harbaugh, so those players liked him at that time. That may or not be on point about his ways being tough to take for some players. However, the role of an assistant is far different from that of the head guy - so whatever was true then may have changed substantially by now.

There are a few anecdotal pieces of evidence. Remound Wright had his disciplinary run-ins; suspended for spring practice twice if I remember correctly. He came in as a rather heralded recruit, had trouble getting time, finally became the starter, then lost the job. Yet, he seems rather happy with his experience on the football team if the letter he wrote (and was posted here) reflects any true feelings.
But that is one guy, not the whole team.

Other guys have made comments about how great and supportive Shaw and the entire team have been. Those have mainly been guys in the spotlight who seem most definitely NOT in the doghouse, so they may not have much value in understanding how guys on the out feel. And of course they will not feel as good.


In summary, as far as I can tell (which is limited) there don't seem to be any substantial locker room problems on this team. Guys leaving early to try to make it to the NFL, or to try to find playing time elsewhere, or just to look for a different experience for personal reasons are a sign of the times and not by themselves indicative of any problem. If they leave with a degree in hand, I will be a little sad as a fan not to have them on my team for one more year, but won't begrudge them the opportunity or see it as a flaw in the program.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - BostonCard - 01-15-2016

(01-15-2016, 06:42 AM)CTcard link Wrote:- Rumors that he asked if he would start if he returned and was told he would "compete for a starting position".

But that's the standard for everyone.  The coaches make a point of emphasis that everyone competes for a starting spot.

BC

Re: Today in our potential attrition - djones - 01-15-2016

I expect Rector to return and further speculate that Shuler is contemplating being done with football.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - JohnR34231 - 01-15-2016

John Ralston used to tell everyone they were going to start. It got interesting when people started to compare notes.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - ColoradoTree - 01-15-2016

I have a tough time swallowing that Shuler might be moving on because he doesn't like Shaw.  Sure, he lost his short-yardage center position, but for the vast majority of snaps, he was our starting center.  It seemed like he was one of the most frequently interviewed or quoted players on the team in TV stories and newspaper articles. 

Like others here, I don't have any inside information, but it seems like Graham Shuler is a stand-up kid who works hard and represents the program well.  He had a rough game vs. Northwestern, and so we made a football change on the short-yardage packages.  But do we have any other evidence that he's in Shaw's doghouse?  Would he keep being a public face of the program if he were?  In the UCLA game, after the absurd Owusu catch, I remember seeing Shuler make a comment to Shaw that earned the classic Shaw "wow, I can't believe that just happened" face.  I realize that is just one data point, and one without proper context or background to boot.  But aside from getting replaced in the short-yardage package, is there a single piece of evidence that Shuler dislikes Shaw? 

As to whether he'd lose his starting spot, I doubt it, though one never knows.  Overall, it seems our OL is best with Shuler at C and Caspers at G.  The last depth chart had Burkett as Shuler's backup, but I don't recall if Burkett got any time this year.  It seems hard to imagine that anyone else would be starting at center next year, particularly as we break in a new quarterback.  Obviously everyone has to compete for their job on this team, but I don't see the evidence that Shuler would lose his spot. 

If Shuler and Rector declare for the NFL and go down that road (rather than transferring), I think it's hard to pin that on Shaw based on what we know now.  Sometimes young men make bad (or at least premature) decisions.  I think it would be a mistake for both Shuler and Rector to move on, since I think they'd grow as players with another year.  For Rector, he'd be the reliable, experienced receiver that doubles as a deep threat, so with Cajuste and Hooper both gone, Rector would likely get more looks next year than this one, with a chance to flash more on tape than he has so far.  For Shuler, he'd get a chance to be seen as one of the dominant OL on the team (with both Murphy and Garnett gone), meaning he'd get more credit for the overall OL performance than he did this year.  (And selfishly, an offense breaking in at least two new OL starters and a new QB could really, really use a veteran center.) 

Though I don't really have any evidence for disputing the "these guys are moving on because they don't like Shaw" hypothesis, I'll offer another one for Shuler.  SPECULATION ALERT: We know that the linemen in that recruiting class were very close and tended to come to meetings in a big group.  Peat was gone this year, and now Murphy and Garnett will be gone, leaving only Caspers and Davidson from that class (along with Shuler, of course).  With some of his closest friends and contemporaries on the team (as far as we know) moving on, it may just feel like time to move on to him, too.  Now, as noted above, I'd argue that his NFL prospects would improve with another year at Stanford, but sometimes that little voice inside our heads saying "it's time" is tough to ignore.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - ChicagoCard - 01-15-2016

Also, Fanaika was part of that class.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - ColoradoTree - 01-15-2016

(01-15-2016, 10:38 AM)ChicagoVisitor link Wrote:Also, Fanaika was part of that class.

Right, though he didn't actually enroll until after his mission, so when Peat/Garnett/Murphy/Shuler/Caspers were all starting/playing as juniors, Fanaika had just showed up on campus.  You're right from a signing day perspective, of course, but I was more interested in how these guys grew closer by playing together.

Re: Today in our potential attrition - OutsiderFan - 01-15-2016

Is it possible the coaches want to move Caspers to Center, so Wilson can get on the field at Guard?  Or is Chafin poised to beat out Shuler? 

A few thoughts on this topic in general.

1. I think it's a bit ridiculous to claim David Shaw has any role in these decisions.
2. It makes sense to give up remaining eligibility if:
    A. You have a chance to be drafted high and that's your goal
    B. You want to figure out if the NFL is an option ASAP so you can move on from football if it isn't
3. It makes sense to be a grad transfer if:
    A. You want to play more and leaving will provide the opportunity
    B. You want a grad program not offered at your current school
    C. You want to be closer to someone special
    D. You want a chance to win more

Hooper is 2A.  Rector appears to be 2B and maybe Shuler is 3A and/or 3B.  Barry J. is more than likely 3A.  Scarlett was probably 3B, 3C, and 3D.  Lyons was at least 3C and maybe 3A (though that didn't pan out for him).  Young, Skov, and Hopkins were all 3A.

None of these cases have anything to do with David Shaw or the coaching staff per se.  They are all guys making decisions based on what they feel they want or is best for them.