Time for Stanford Football to evolve?

Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - 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: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? (/thread-17171.html)

Pages: 1 2

Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - OutsiderFan - 01-16-2019

There are some very talented players on the roster and coming into the program, but the bottom line is Stanford is getting squeezed from several angles given the changing realities of NCAA football. Are these dynamics going to send Stanford back to a place it can't realistically compete for conference championships? To what degree does Stanford need to evolve its approaches to assure it can compete for championships on the football field?

As I see it, there are several forces at work that weaken Stanford vs. its peers. Any one of them might not be debilitating, but when combined, they really hurt Stanford's ability to compete.

Players leaving the program early with eligibility remaining, not going to NFL
Every program has attrition, but given the limited pool of players, Stanford can't be losing guys early. A few years ago, there was an article about how Stanford was thriving because though the initial classes ere small, there was very little attrition and many 5th year Seniors. Over the last few years, more and more guys have been leaving early. So what once was a strength is now a real weakness. Moreover, these guys weren't good enough for the NFL, so they didn't make Stanford great when playing, but provided good depth or "glue" to the 2-deep.

More early NFL departures
It used to be Stanford might lose guys as Juniors, but now more are leaving as RS Sophs, and some guys like Quentin Meeks leave early even if they aren't top draft prospects.

Not taking early entries
One way to mitigate early departures is to get guys into the program earlier as well. This would not only give them a Spring Practice so they are more ready to play in the fall as Frosh, but just having more guys available will allow more full Spring Practices for the benefit of the whole team. Some will say they want kids to enjoy their Senior year, come in with all other Frosh, but with so many guys leaving early, what real difference does it make if guys come early if they are going to leave early too? I was a mid-year transfer at two different schools, and through it's admittedly a little awkward, it's not like it's some horrible experience that scars you for life.

LDS players
Sure, they have been valuable, but in addition to having to wait two years for them in most cases, they usually must redshirt to get into physical shape to play. Stanford doesn't have the luxury to wait a year for most of these guys to be ready to play. The early departures also necessitate more guys playing sooner. Not saying Stanford should stop signing LDS players, just pointing this out as something working against Stanford in the current NCAA football landscape.

Not using all scholarships, like Stanford is on NCAA sanctions for reduction in initial counters
After the class of 2019 is all done, and all departures spoken for, Stanford will have what, 80 scholarship players? This is crazy, when you consider one of the NCAA's biggest punishments is reduction in scholarships. Stanford effectively punishes itself. No other program does this.

Not using Spring Official visits
I may not understand this correctly, but by insisting on having a big January official visit weekend, after most of a class is settled, visits aren't being used as a tool to get recruits who might not have considered Stanford to do so. Based on what I gather, Stanford sees who pays for official visits on their own dime to determine who the most serious are. But what about those who really can't afford unofficial visits? Why not use them to get guys coming to visit Stanford who wouldn't otherwise visit? And maybe January can be on own dime for more of the committed/signed?

Limited offers
While I get Shaw's position that he wants all offers to be "real" and actionable, such that if someone commits to Stanford, they have a spot (unless admissions says otherwise), who's side is he on? The facts show without dispute that Stanford needs to sign more capable football players to avoid the chronic depth issues plaguing the program due to the above factors, so doesn't it stand to reason that it makes sense to widen the pool just a little bit by making more offers? If they get 23 commits out of 77 offers, why not offer 84 to get 25 commits?

Devil's Advocate
To be clear, a class of 23 like 2019 is good for Stanford, so maybe Shaw and the football staff realize they have to bring in more guys annually from here on out given the above dynamics, and right now, the program is caught in a little transition to an understanding that classes now must be a bit bigger to account for the attrition taking a toll on depth.

It's just so alarming to see the OL, ILB, and S positions with so little depth, and so young at the same time. Stanford can barely have a Spring practice with so few bodies available. It's not like this just all of a sudden happens. It's a product of the dynamics that lead to who is playing and who isn't over several years prior, so wanted to start a discussion about them.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - BobK - 01-16-2019

Stanford the university had a very tough time allowing athletes to report for the summer before their official Frosh year starts. Remember it occurred in mbb and WBB before football.
They won’t be allowing winter of spring enrollment any time soon

Guessing 76 on scholarship come June

Wow we are inexperienced at ILB and Safety

Hey the economy is good job offers booming and that’s a big reason for going to Stanford . It’s called the 40 year decision ya know

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - Phogge - 01-16-2019

As if you can’t have a life if you don’t attend. There really are other places to excel that aren’t country clubs. I admire most the kids at the service academies whose 40 year decision can mean them getting killed.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - SamuelMcF - 01-16-2019

OF, thanks for this. Really like your points. One nitpick:

(01-16-2019, 07:05 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Devil's Advocate
To be clear, a class of 23 like 2019 is good for Stanford, so maybe Shaw and the football staff realize they have to bring in more guys annually from here on out given the above dynamics, and right now, the program is caught in a little transition to an understanding that classes now must be a bit bigger to account for the attrition taking a toll on depth.

The '19 class is 21 guys (assuming no surprise Feb signings). Assuming you're going by 247sports or Stanford's press release, they included 3 walk-ons (though Sanborn will likely earn a scholarship relatively quickly), and Damuni is coming back from a mission.

I agree that it should've been more, but the sign that staff is learning as you suggest will be the '20 class having 20+ despite "looking like" it should be 17-18 IIRC.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - needle - 01-16-2019

Quote:Stanford the university had a very tough time allowing athletes to report for the summer before their official Frosh year starts. Remember it occurred in mbb and WBB before football.

They won’t be allowing winter of spring enrollment any time soon

This got me wondering: any word on the "new" Stanford prez Tessier-Levigne having much to say/do regarding athletics? Marc Tessier-Lavigne took over as president on Sept. 1, 2016.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - murky - 01-16-2019

The LDS logistics you mention aren't an issue unless we are short on available scholarships. But we aren't filling our max scholarship allotment...

We have room for late bloomers and slow developing players as long as we have a hard time filling out the max roster.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - qwerty49 - 01-16-2019

It seems like every year Shaw's given a scholie to at least one deserving walk-on, which is a nice incentive in itself. But if we are truly going into next year with only 76 or 77 scholies that seems to be just negligence ----- or at best a very, very sad reality.

It's easy to argue that the last 8 or 9 guys might never see the field, but it's just as easy to point to how injuries and various retirements have also contributed to lack of depth. You can't predict those types of things at the individual level, but you can perhaps plan team numbers better to deal with them. Y'know -- "plan for the worst, hope for the best." Attrition will happen.

The one variable that is totally under our control is which 5th year players will be invited back. I think we got caught assuming some would want to come back, and they didn't. Which begs the question about our whole 5-yr strategy, which historically has been redshirt the first year and then count on 4 more years after that. The combination of leaving for the NFL early and also 5th year players we would like to keep but who would rather move on is testing that philosophy.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - OutsiderFan - 01-16-2019

It's not just whether those 8-9 guys will ever see the field in a game, it's that not having them means they see no field of any type. You still need enough bodies to practice during Spring, and then you need enough to have a scout team, and to get good practices in during the season.

I just find it mind blowing to contemplate only having 76 scholarship players in August. That's like three years of the NCAA limiting your scholarships by 3 per class.

Has someone asked Shaw about the seemingly dangerously low number of scholarship-offered players on the projected 2019 Stanford Football roster?

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - Goose - 01-16-2019

I wonder if there are any players out there who could be admitted to Stanford that won't come because they don't have a Football scholarship. In other words, are there five or six guys out there that 1) are football players of at least some ability, 2) can get into Stanford, and 3) won't come unless they get a Football scholarship. Stanford does have lots of financial aid available to students who can't afford Stanford otherwise. You can get this type of financial aid without playing football. I don't think the football program is not using all it's scholarships because they inexplicably don't want to give out all the scholarships. I suspect they lack candidates. Sure, the PWO guys could be offered scholarships, but that changes nothing. There are guys that don't want to come to Stanford because they don't think they will get a chance to play. Offering them is pointless. The coaching staff can say you will get a chance to compete. If that isn't enough, the "offer" won't have much value to it's target.
While having "warm bodies" available for practice may be nice, admissible warm bodies who will only go to Stanford if they get an offer are probably in short supply. The only way such a offer would make sense to the player would be if it would get him admitted when otherwise he would not be admitted. I expect the AD and Shaw don't want to go to the mat for a very marginal player.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - Mick - 01-16-2019

(01-16-2019, 12:39 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: It seems like every year Shaw's given a scholie to at least one deserving walk-on, which is a nice incentive in itself. But if we are truly going into next year with only 76 or 77 scholies that seems to be just negligence ----- or at best a very, very sad reality.

It's easy to argue that the last 8 or 9 guys might never see the field, but it's just as easy to point to how injuries and various retirements have also contributed to lack of depth. You can't predict those types of things at the individual level, but you can perhaps plan team numbers better to deal with them. Y'know -- "plan for the worst, hope for the best." Attrition will happen.

The one variable that is totally under our control is which 5th year players will be invited back. I think we got caught assuming some would want to come back, and they didn't. Which begs the question about our whole 5-yr strategy, which historically has been redshirt the first year and then count on 4 more years after that. The combination of leaving for the NFL early and also 5th year players we would like to keep but who would rather move on is testing that philosophy.

Excellent point. The time dynamic has changed considerably, and we're caught with a roster expecting five years from players who will last three or four. We need some very aggressive offering strategies going forward.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - slide - 01-16-2019

(01-16-2019, 03:12 PM)Mick Wrote:
(01-16-2019, 12:39 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: It seems like every year Shaw's given a scholie to at least one deserving walk-on, which is a nice incentive in itself. But if we are truly going into next year with only 76 or 77 scholies that seems to be just negligence ----- or at best a very, very sad reality.

It's easy to argue that the last 8 or 9 guys might never see the field, but it's just as easy to point to how injuries and various retirements have also contributed to lack of depth. You can't predict those types of things at the individual level, but you can perhaps plan team numbers better to deal with them. Y'know -- "plan for the worst, hope for the best." Attrition will happen.

The one variable that is totally under our control is which 5th year players will be invited back. I think we got caught assuming some would want to come back, and they didn't. Which begs the question about our whole 5-yr strategy, which historically has been redshirt the first year and then count on 4 more years after that. The combination of leaving for the NFL early and also 5th year players we would like to keep but who would rather move on is testing that philosophy.

Excellent point. The time dynamic has changed considerably, and we're caught with a roster expecting five years from players who will last three or four. We need some very aggressive offering strategies going forward.

aggressive offering strategies, utilize spring official visits, actually use head coach in-home visits, beef up recruiting staff etc.

spring practice we have 7 scholarship OL + 1 walk-on OL total and not that many available due to injury. hard to get better without quality reps

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - CTcard - 01-16-2019

Running down Outsider's list …

"Players leaving the program early with eligibility remaining, not going to NFL"

While there appear to be a high number of these for this next year, I am not convinced there is any trend here.
If it does become a trend it will hurt Stanford's competitiveness but there isn't a whole lot to do about it. Simply playing more true frosh has limited utility as most guys won't be as good as frosh year as they would be in a fifth year.
With this being a trend or not, guys who can significantly contribute as true frosh should usually play as true frosh.

"More early NFL departures"

On balance this is probably a good thing for the program because 1) it means we have players good enough to go to the NFL early, and 2) it is a sign to other top recruits that they can get to the NFL early at Stanford.

"Not taking early entries"

On this topic, perhaps I differ from most here (or not - I don't know).
My first allegiance is to Stanford the university and not Stanford football. I am not sure whether it is a good or bad thing to let frosh start in winter or spring quarter, but this is a decision that should be made by the university based upon what works best for the students' academic life. I would be unhappy if this decision was made either solely for the football team (which I think would not happen) or was driven by the needs of the football team.

"LDS players"

I am pretty sure that the LDS players we have had have been a strong net positive for the program, and our handling of their needs has been a positive towards attracting more such players. Outside of the potential of only getting three playing years out of some (which will exist anyway), I don't see any issues in handling a few players that enroll two years after they sign.

"Not using all scholarships, like Stanford is on NCAA sanctions for reduction in initial counters"

Of course this is important. Given certain lines that Shaw apparently will not cross (and I applaud him for), I don't think Stanford will usually be right at the limit. However, I think it should be reasonable that at the start of every fall Stanford has 80+ scholarship players.

"Not using Spring Official visits"

I have no particular comment on this, outside of the fact that of course Stanford has to adjust their recruiting pitch at every level to accommodate the earlier signing period. I don't know what they intend to do, or what might work best, but it is hard for me to believe that they aren't thinking about the issue.

"Limited offers"

What Outsider has described isn't really getting rid of limited offers, but rather scaling up to have slightly larger classes and thus end up with fewer unused scholarships. That's all well and good.

More broadly, my impression is that Shaw has been reacting against Harbaugh's practice of "offering" a large fraction of the high school football playing population, and then culling later as acceptances roll in. Or maybe I am projecting, as I found some of what happened distasteful. Maybe Shaw has over-reacted. I find it hard to feel competent having an opinion on this sort of detailed strategy question, but yes Stanford needs to get closer to the 85 scholarship limit.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - Hurlburt88 - 01-16-2019

I also defer to the university on not taking early entry students in Winter and/or Spring. I think OF was listing it as a headwind to the football program in comparison to our football competition, and not necessarily saying he is for or against.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - Stymie - 01-16-2019

Some 17-19 year old young men are at their athletic peak. Others are just beginning the climb. It's genetics, stupid (to paraphrase James Carville).

An Alabama can recruit both players from these cohorts of bell curves without worrying about filling their needs. Stanford needs to be smarter to find the ones beginning the climb, and nurturing at least the best of them to to compete where they wish and are capable to compete, at the highest level.

In the past 3-4 years, we have lost far too many potentially great players underachieve for various reasons. This cannot continue, if we wish to be great and not just above average....

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - 82lsju - 01-16-2019

(01-16-2019, 04:27 PM)CTcard Wrote: More broadly, my impression is that Shaw has been reacting against Harbaugh's practice of "offering" a large fraction of the high school football playing population, and then culling later as acceptances roll in. Or maybe I am projecting, as I found some of what happened distasteful. Maybe Shaw has over-reacted. I find it hard to feel competent having an opinion on this sort of detailed strategy question, but yes Stanford needs to get closer to the 85 scholarship limit.

Why hasn't Shaw offered this QB???????

Isaiah Marshall, a seventh-grade quarterback at MacArthur Academy in Southfield, Michigan, has been offered a scholarship to play at Michigan, according to his father, Brian.

Wolverines coach Jim Harbaugh extended the offer after watching tape of the 13-year-old signal-caller while visiting the school searching for high school prospects at Southfield High.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25772197/7th-grade-quarterback-offered-scholarship-michigan-wolverines

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - Phogge - 01-16-2019

Would Stanford admit a certified genius in physics or chem who was indifferent to history or English and received C’s in those classes?

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - winflop - 01-16-2019

We can argue all we want about whether Stanford Football should evolve, but the reality is that as long as Shaw is the CEO Stanford Football is not going to materially change. Although maybe after we go 6-6 next year that could change...

lex24 - lex24 - 01-17-2019

I can’t talk about specifics as I simply don’t have the info etc. But not recruiting a QB every year makes no sense. As to the attrition, that’s a different issue. Why? Is this the result of players simply saying - “I’m not making the NFL. My body has had enough. Time to move on?” Or was there some dissatisfaction with the program. Or a combination?

One thing that must change is true Frosh being brought along slowly. If they are physically ready - get them on the field. If they are better than the returners, vault them over them on the depth chart.

Part of this involves pairing down the play book. Sitting out an Andrew Luck ( Harbaugh) or holding back McCaffrey, is insanity. If these guys are held back down because of the complexity of the play book, something is wrong. Clemson did ok with a true Frosh QB. And that true Frosh WR that was making circus catches looked pretty good.

I still can’t believe they redshirted Luck. For Tavita. That has to register the dumbest coaching decision in Stanford history.

It took one offensive touch to see that McCaffrey was special. (By the way, I’ll never forget his actual first play. It was on the KO return team. He raced down the field and blew up the wedge. Players on the sidelines went nuts. Yelling “superstar”. I wasn’t sure if it was sarcasm. Obviously it wasn’t. They knew immediately.). Yet he hardly saw the field the first half of the year. Incredible. If you have to delay putting generational talent on the field because your playbook is the size of War and Peace then change the freaking playbook. Rip the damn thing in half.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - Phogge - 01-17-2019

Maybe time for you to get back on the field Lexie.

RE: Time for Stanford Football to evolve? - BobK - 01-17-2019

I think Offical visits for football can start in April of ones JR year, mbb had one last weekend for a JR.