Burnt Shirts, 2016 Edition. Part I: Rationale - 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: Burnt Shirts, 2016 Edition. Part I: Rationale (/thread-12357.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: Burnt Shirts, 2016 Edition. Part I: Rationale (/thread-12357.html)
Burnt Shirts, 2016 Edition. Part I: Rationale - Langdude - 08-03-2016
Last year, I posted an entry on playing true freshmen and the redshirts burned during the 2014 season. As we head into training camp, I wanted to post a similar entry (Part II) for the 2015 burned redshirts and my thoughts on the degree of their effectiveness, at least from this point of limited perspective. I thought this year Id also add guesses on burnt shirts for the coming season (Part III). But first, my reasoning on why this is important.
Rationale
I know that many here think that burning redshirts is no big deal and, in fact, a sign of a first-rate program. While I agree that most top-notch programs do not worry about playing true freshmen because the pipeline will always provide abundance, I think that some of the unique particulars that have made Stanford successful also suggest an advantage to redshirting as many freshman players as reasonably possible.
By David Shaws own admission, Stanford football is largely based on the performance of juniors and seniors. Of course there are exceptions. But presumably Shaw made this declaration because of two of Stanfords particulars. The first is the complexity of Stanfords schemes on both sides of the ball. It is true that Stanford recruits are usually pretty sharp, but it still takes time to learn the playbook well, unless you are unusually adept, and lots of reps are needed to put these schemes into practice. The second is that, because Stanford is a physical and trench-based team, time is needed for another Stanford particular, Shannon Turley, to work his magic. (As a side note, I remember this being a strategy employed by Stanford basketball under Mike Montgomery, whose recruits would bulk up a lot during redshirt years. In the 90s, Stanford basketball teams, if not always more talented, were usually stronger than their opponents.)
But there is a third Stanford particular that I think makes it a smart strategy to redshirt as many players as possible. The academic requirements of Stanford admission means that the available pool of recruits is smaller; however, relatedly, the resultant academic caliber of its players suggests that they are probably not going to flunk out, and the value of the degree suggests players will probably not transfer pre-graduation. Therefore, contributing players will be at Stanford for five years, except for those who go pro or transfer after four (with the caveat that a few still-eligible contributors will end their playing days after graduation, such as Graham Shuler or, to a lesser degree, Nate Lohn). This means that, compared to other top-flight football programs, Stanford needs to recruit fewer players each year (because, at Stanford, ((roster) - ((go pro early) + (transfer after four years) + (graduate and end football career) + (not good enough to return for fifth year)))/5 < (roster)/4), allowing it to focus on the more selective pool that will qualify and come to the Farm (though we know the interest pool has gotten larger in the last several years given Stanfords success).
It is for these three reasons that I tend to look at the occasion of playing a true freshman as, in part, the costly burning of a redshirt. The question then becomes the degree of cost benefit. Now, even though I believe that at Stanford the redshirt should be especially prized and set ablaze only for substantial reason, I recognize that there can be very good reasons to burn shirts. Talented freshmen can play invaluable roles, usually on special teams or as backups. And sometimes coaches need to look to player development at thin position groups. But sometimes shirts are bad burns, either because coaches project frosh to be larger contributors than they end up being, or because coaches make a rash decision. (I remember being so exasperated when they burned Justin Armours shirt for a stupid goal-line end-around on a two-point conversion attempt that got stuffed, taking a year away from one of the Pac-10s best receivers for literally zero stats.) I do understand that some frosh are talented enough to contribute immediately, are needed in response to pressing personnel dearth, or to provide experience for future years. But the benefit of those few game snaps had better be substantial to outweigh the cost, at least in my opinion.
Tomorrow, I will post on the 2015 burnt shirts.
-m.
Re: Burnt Shirts, 2016 Edition. Part I: Rationale - fullmetal - 08-03-2016
Looking forward to it!